irregular migrants can be intercepted and sent back to their country of origin,
maritime migration is increasingly mixed as asylum-seekers and refugees are
obliged to take the maritime route as well.
Hence, boat people might be eligible for protection and access to the refugee
status in accordance with the 1951 Geneva Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to
the Status of Refugees. The former was born out of the events occurred in the
European Continent after the Second World War,
15 but the New York Protocol of
1967 put an end to restrictions on its scope and made the Refugee Convention a
general and universal human rights instrument that has inspired regional ones like
the Addis Ababa Convention and the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees.
The core of the protection afforded by these instruments lies in the nonrefoulement principle, i.e. the prohibition of expulsion or return to the frontiers of
territories where life or freedom would be threatened. For example, and read in
positive terms, the EU area of justice, freedom and security
16 is the safe side of the
frontier. However, how safe depends on the controversial Dublin system, nowadays
contained in Regulation (EU) 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 26 June 2013, establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining
the member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the member States by a third-country national or a stateless
person.
17 The system relies on the one-stop-shop at the country of first entrance
principle that poses an extra burden on those member States whose geographical
position situates them as Europe’s gates.
Italy is a case in point. After the sinking of a large number of unseaworthy ships
trying to reach the island of Lampedusa in 2013, the country unilaterally launched
the Mare Nostrum operation with a straightforward humanitarian purpose. Moreover, the country made a very reasonable proposal of elaborating a Migration
Compact. And yet, a few years later, Italy has moved to a defensive position with
the main objective of operations at sea being to push back refugees.
In fact, the move has reached the EU, which has been reinforcing the European
Agency for the Management of Operation Cooperation at the External Borders
(Frontex),
18 now replaced by the European Border and Coast Guard,
19 with a budget
15 See Refugee Convention, art. 1.B.
16 See Treaty of Functioning of the European Union and EU Charter on Fundamental Rights, arts.
77–80.
17 OJ [2013] L 180/31. The Dublin system was first established by the Convention determining the
State responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the Member States of the
European Communities—Dublin Convention, OJ [1997] C 254/1, replaced by Council Regulation
(EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining
the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member
States by a third-country national, OJ [2003] L 50/1.
18 Frontex was first established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004, OJ
[2004] L 349/1.
19 Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016
on the European Border and Coast Guard and amending Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European
Occupational Hazards in the Light of the Maritime Migration Challenge
83
maritime migration is increasingly mixed as asylum-seekers and refugees are
obliged to take the maritime route as well.
Hence, boat people might be eligible for protection and access to the refugee
status in accordance with the 1951 Geneva Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to
the Status of Refugees. The former was born out of the events occurred in the
European Continent after the Second World War,
15 but the New York Protocol of
1967 put an end to restrictions on its scope and made the Refugee Convention a
general and universal human rights instrument that has inspired regional ones like
the Addis Ababa Convention and the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees.
The core of the protection afforded by these instruments lies in the nonrefoulement principle, i.e. the prohibition of expulsion or return to the frontiers of
territories where life or freedom would be threatened. For example, and read in
positive terms, the EU area of justice, freedom and security
16 is the safe side of the
frontier. However, how safe depends on the controversial Dublin system, nowadays
contained in Regulation (EU) 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 26 June 2013, establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining
the member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the member States by a third-country national or a stateless
person.
17 The system relies on the one-stop-shop at the country of first entrance
principle that poses an extra burden on those member States whose geographical
position situates them as Europe’s gates.
Italy is a case in point. After the sinking of a large number of unseaworthy ships
trying to reach the island of Lampedusa in 2013, the country unilaterally launched
the Mare Nostrum operation with a straightforward humanitarian purpose. Moreover, the country made a very reasonable proposal of elaborating a Migration
Compact. And yet, a few years later, Italy has moved to a defensive position with
the main objective of operations at sea being to push back refugees.
In fact, the move has reached the EU, which has been reinforcing the European
Agency for the Management of Operation Cooperation at the External Borders
(Frontex),
18 now replaced by the European Border and Coast Guard,
19 with a budget
15 See Refugee Convention, art. 1.B.
16 See Treaty of Functioning of the European Union and EU Charter on Fundamental Rights, arts.
77–80.
17 OJ [2013] L 180/31. The Dublin system was first established by the Convention determining the
State responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the Member States of the
European Communities—Dublin Convention, OJ [1997] C 254/1, replaced by Council Regulation
(EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining
the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member
States by a third-country national, OJ [2003] L 50/1.
18 Frontex was first established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004, OJ
[2004] L 349/1.
19 Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016
on the European Border and Coast Guard and amending Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European
Occupational Hazards in the Light of the Maritime Migration Challenge
83