Lesson 6

Question 1

Frontex

Answer 1

Intends to ensure a “uniform and high level of control and surveillance, which is a necessary corollary to the free movement of persons” (established 2004) EU regulation.

Though originally means to facilitate the free movement of persons within the EU, Frontex has increasingly become an instrument for controlling migration and strengthening external borders.

Annual budget 900 million euros by 2027.

10.000 border guards.

It supports EU member states in managing the EU’s external borders

Today:

• Debriefings with migrants, asks about routes, prices etc.
• Facilitate and coordinate operations between member staten in the area of the external boarder.

Matthieu Chillaud. “Frontex as the Institutional Reification of the Link between Security,
Migration and Border Management”. Contemporary European Studies 01:27-43.

Question 2

Frontex securitization?

Answer 2

Survelliance, drones and sattelites = mass data collection.

Sarah Léonard & Christian Kaunert (2022) The securitisation of migration in the European Union: Frontex and its evolving security practices, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 48:6,

Question 3

Immigration from humanitarian rights issue to a security threat

Question 4

Securitization Practices
Extraordinaryt measures

Answer 4

Operational Expansion: Large-scale operations like Triton and Poseidon treat migration as a security issue.

Collaboration: Works with NATO and Europol, reinforcing migration as a security matter.

Intelligence Focus: Expands to terrorism and organized crime, beyond basic border control. Use of drones and sattelites

Sarah Léonard & Christian Kaunert (2022) The securitisation of migration in the European Union: Frontex and its evolving security practices, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 48:6,

Question 5

Security Continuum and Frontex

Answer 5

Security is seen as a gradual intensification of measures, not just existential threats.

Frontex shifts migration from a “normalcy” issue to a perceived significant threat requiring extraordinary actions.

Sarah Léonard & Christian Kaunert (2022) The securitisation of migration
in the European Union: Frontex and its evolving security practices, Journal of Ethnic and
Migration Studies, 48:6,

Question 6

Paradox between SAR and interdiction in EU migration policy

Answer 6

SAR (Search and Rescue) saves lives at sea, while interdiction prevents unauthorized entry.

The paradox is that rescued migrants are often barred from entering the country, undermining the humanitarian purpose of SAR with securitized border control measures.

The EU Humanitarian Border and the Securitization of Human
Rights: The ‘Rescue-Through-Interdiction/Rescue-Without-
Protection’ Paradigm*
VIOLETA MORENO-LAX
Queen Mary University of London

Question 7

How has the EU securitized human rights in the context of Mediterranean migration?

Answer 7

The EU has co-opted human rights to justify restrictive border control measures. This is done by framing border control as a means to uphold human rights as a fundamental EU value, while selectively prioritizing certain rights (like the right to life of migrants at sea, or the right to self-defense of border guards) over others (like the right to seek asylum or the right to non-refoulement)

The EU Humanitarian Border and the Securitization of Human
Rights: The ‘Rescue-Through-Interdiction/Rescue-Without-
Protection’ Paradigm*
VIOLETA MORENO-LAX
Queen Mary University of London

Question 8

Name some specific policies and practices adopted by the EU that prioritize interdiction and restrict access to asylum and protection

Answer 8

1. Collaboration with third countries to prevent departures (e.g., Operation Hera)
2. Push-backs of migrants to third countries without proper assessment of their protection needs (e.g., Italy’s push-backs to Libya)
3. “Direct repatriation” agreements with third countries that use simplified procedures and fail to guarantee the right to seek asylum (e.g., Italy-Tunisia agreement)

4.Limited search and rescue operations, despite emphasizing the importance of saving lives

5 Militarization of border control, with a focus on disrupting smuggling networks (e.g., EUNAVFOR Med Operation Sophia)

The EU Humanitarian Border and the Securitization of Human
Rights: The ‘Rescue-Through-Interdiction/Rescue-Without-
Protection’ Paradigm*
VIOLETA MORENO-LAX
Queen Mary University of London

Question 9

Consequences of the EU’s “rescue-through-interdiction/rescue-without-protection

Answer 9

Increased deaths at sea, despite rhetoric about saving lives

Denial of access to protection for migrants seeking asylum

Trapping migrants in unsafe and inhumane conditions in third countries

Diversion of migration flows to more dangerous routes

Further empowerment of smuggling networks

The EU Humanitarian Border and the Securitization of Human
Rights: The ‘Rescue-Through-Interdiction/Rescue-Without-
Protection’ Paradigm*
VIOLETA MORENO-LAX
Queen Mary University of London

Question 10

What was the initial response of the EU and Italy to the migrant crisis?

Answer 10

In the early years of the migrant crisis, from 2012-2015, the EU and Italy treated the situation as a humanitarian crisis and prioritized saving lives.

From Humanitarian Rescue to Border Security:
Managing Migration in the Central Mediterranean
Gemma Marolda Gloninger

Question 11

What operation did Italy launch in response to the migrant crisis?

Answer 11

Operation Mare Nostrum, a large-scale search and rescue (SAR) operation that saved over 150,000 lives in 10 months. Despite its humanitarian aims, the operation was criticized by some for contributing to an increase in departures from Libya

From Humanitarian Rescue to Border Security:
Managing Migration in the Central Mediterranean
Gemma Marolda Gloninger

Question 12

How did this shift in priorities impact the division of labor at sea?

Answer 12

1. EU and Italy focusing on interdiction and border control measures, and
2. NGOs continuing to prioritize search and rescue and humanitarian assistance.

From Humanitarian Rescue to Border Security:
Managing Migration in the Central Mediterranean
Gemma Marolda Gloninger

Question 13

EU & Italy adopted strategy to externalize border control

Answer 13

They collaborated with third countries, particularly Libya, to prevent departures and intercept migrants before they reach Europe.

This strategy involved training the Libyan coast guard and providing funding to build border control capacity in Libya.

From Humanitarian Rescue to Border Security:
Managing Migration in the Central Mediterranean
Gemma Marolda Gloninger

Question 14

2017 Code of Conduct

Answer 14

The 2017 Code of Conduct is a set of rules imposed by Italy on NGOs operating in the Mediterranean. It placed restrictions on NGO activities, including limiting their ability to enter Libyan waters. NGOs saw the Code as an attempt to restrict their humanitarian work and prioritize border security over saving lives.

From Humanitarian Rescue to Border Security:
Managing Migration in the Central Mediterranean
Gemma Marolda Gloninger

Question 15

Key concerns raised about the EU’s response to the migrant crisis

Answer 15

Criticized for its potential to violate human rights, particularly through the externalization of border control to countries with questionable human rights records. There have also been concerns about the prosecution of humanitarian actors involved in search and rescue missions, raising questions about the criminalization of humanitarianism

PROTECTING THE EU EX
TERNAL BORDERS AND T HE
PROHIBITION OF REFOU LEMENT
Protecting the EU external borders
NANDA OUDEJANS

Question 16

Extraterritorial

Answer 16

Extraterritorial jurisdiction is the situation when a State extends its legal power beyond its territorial boundaries.

PROTECTING THE EU EX
TERNAL BORDERS AND T HE
PROHIBITION OF REFOU LEMENT
Protecting the EU external borders
NANDA OUDEJANS

Question 17

Refoulement

Answer 17

The act of forcing a refugee or asylum seeker to return to a country or territory where he or she is likely to face persecution.

PROTECTING THE EU EX
TERNAL BORDERS AND T HE
PROHIBITION OF REFOU LEMENT
Protecting the EU external borders
NANDA OUDEJANS

Question 18

Non-refoulement

Answer 18

Prohibits states from returning individuals to territories where they face threats to their life or freedom due to their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention art. 33

PROTECTING THE EU EX
TERNAL BORDERS AND T HE
PROHIBITION OF REFOU LEMENT
Protecting the EU external borders
NANDA OUDEJANS

Question 19

De jure control

Answer 19

*According to the law *

This is exemplified by cases like Hirsi, where intercepting migrants on the high seas and returning them to a third country without due process was deemed a violation of non-refoulement.

PROTECTING THE EU EX
TERNAL BORDERS AND T HE
PROHIBITION OF REFOU LEMENT
Protecting the EU external borders
NANDA OUDEJANS

Question 20

De facto control

Answer 20

Where no law exists

Exercising effective control over individuals, even without legal authority, such as through push-back operations in a third country’s waters

PROTECTING THE EU EX
TERNAL BORDERS AND T HE
PROHIBITION OF REFOU LEMENT
Protecting the EU external borders
NANDA OUDEJANS

Question 21

The EU-Turkey Agreement

Answer 21

2016 agreement between EU and Turkey

1. **1:1 Scheme: **For each Syrian migrant returned to Turkey from Greece under the agreement, another Syrian refugee already present in Turkey is considered for resettlement in an EU member state
2. **Safer Alternatives for Migrants: **By providing a legal pathway for some Syrian refugees to enter the EU, the agreement aimed to deter migrants from undertaking dangerous journeys across the Mediterranean.
3. More parts of the agreement exists.

PROTECTING THE EU EX
TERNAL BORDERS AND T HE
PROHIBITION OF REFOU LEMENT
Protecting the EU external borders
NANDA OUDEJANS

Question 22

Concerns about EU-Turkey agreement

Answer 22

Safe Third Country Status of Turkey: The agreement’s reliance on returning asylum seekers to Turkey hinges on Turkey being considered a “safe third country”. However, this designation is contested by some scholars and NGOs, raising concerns about potential human rights violations if individuals are returned to unsafe conditions.

Collective Expulsion: The return of all “illegal immigrants” to Turkey without conducting individual assessments of their protection needs might constitute collective expulsion, which is prohibited under international law.

PROTECTING THE EU EX
TERNAL BORDERS AND T HE
PROHIBITION OF REFOU LEMENT
Protecting the EU external borders
NANDA OUDEJANS

Question 23

SOLAS Convention Regulation 33

Answer 23

Obligates ships who are made aware of people in distress at the sea to assist “with all speed”.

Malta and Italy has ratified.

The sources analyze two decisions by the UN Human Rights Committee concerning Italy and Malta’s failure to rescue over 200 migrants in 2013.

Why it is so Hard to Hold Frontex Accountable: On Blame-Shifting and an Outdated Remedies System

Question 24

SAR 2.1.9.

Answer 24

Coordinate and perform search and rescue.

Ensure collaboration with other states when necessary to save lives at sea.

Malta has ratified.

The sources analyze two decisions by the UN Human Rights Committee concerning Italy and Malta’s failure to rescue over 200 migrants in 2013.

Why it is so Hard to Hold Frontex Accountable: On Blame-Shifting and an Outdated Remedies System

Question 25

Accountability Challenges Facing Frontex

Answer 25

1. Blame-Shifting: Frontex operations often involve a network of participants, including different EU member states, third countries, and even private entities. This makes it challenging to pinpoint exactly who is responsible when a human rights violation occurs.
2. Outdated Remedies System: The EU’s legal framework for addressing human rights violations is ill-equipped to deal with the complex, multi-actor nature of Frontex operations.

The EU judiciary is split between national and EU levels, meaning that each participant in a Frontex operation would need to be brought to a separate court. This presents a significant obstacle for individuals seeking redress.

Why it is so Hard to Hold Frontex Accountable: On Blame-Shifting and an Outdated Remedies System

Question 26

Article 263 TFEU

Answer 26

Purpose: Allows individuals to challenge the legality of acts adopted by EU institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies, including Frontex. If successful, the act can be declared void.

Limitations in Frontex Cases: The sources point out that this article is often ineffective in addressing human rights violations committed by Frontex. This is because human rights violations often do not occur through a formal, legally binding “act” that can be challenged and annulled.

Why it is so Hard to Hold Frontex Accountable: On Blame-Shifting and an Outdated Remedies System

Question 27

Article 340 TFEU

Answer 27

Treaty on the functioning of EU.

Purpose: Allows individuals to sue the EU for damages caused by its institutions or servants, which could include Frontex. This means that if Frontex’s actions (or inactions) directly lead to harm, individuals could potentially seek financial compensation.

Challenges in Frontex Cases: The sources note that while this article might be the most viable option for holding Frontex liable for human rights violations, it faces challenges due to the Court of Justice of the EU’s restrictive interpretation of liability. This means that proving a direct causal link between Frontex’s actions and the harm suffered, and meeting the Court’s standards for liability, can be difficult.

Why it is so Hard to Hold Frontex Accountable: On Blame-Shifting and an Outdated Remedies System

Question 28

Italy issue and jurisdiction outside territorial waters

Answer 28

The central issue is whether Italy could be held accountable for a human rights violation that occurred outside its territorial waters.

The shipwreck occurred in Malta’s designated search and rescue area. However, the Committee ultimately found that Italy had jurisdiction over the individuals on the distressed vessel, even though it was not in Italian waters.

More than 200 drowned

2013.

Drowning Migrants Human Rights Commitee

Question 29

2013 shipwreck in the Mediterranean

Answer 29

Italy and Malta’s obligations to rescue migrants in distress at sea.

Migrants was in international waters

Malta’s SAR area:
1. SAR 2.1.9. Coordinate and perform search and rescue.

Ensure collaboration with other states when necessary to save lives at sea.

Italy:
1. Italy recieved call from the distressed vessel to naval ship.
2. Italy had a Naval ship in the area. (SOLAS Convention Regulation 33, all its speed).
3.

Both states:
ICCPR art. 6 (right to life)

Question 30

Extraterritorial jurisdiction, 2013 Mediterranian

Answer 30

Malta and Italy were considered to have extraterritorial obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) because:

Malta had operational control as the SAR zone coordinator.
Italy had physical proximity and involvement in rescue communications, creating a dependency relationship.

Consequences: Reputition.

Drowning Migrants Human Rights Commitee

Question 31

Human Rights Committee

Answer 31

1. Monitor State Compliance

Reviews state reports on ICCPR implementation.
Provides recommendations to improve human rights protections.

2. Adjudicate Individual Complaints

Handles complaints under the First Optional Protocol.

Determines violations and recommends remedies.

Drowning Migrants

Question 32

Due diligence

Answer 32

Proactive: Not just reacting to harm but actively working to prevent it.

Context-Specific: What is “reasonable” depends on the situation, such as available resources, the severity of harm, and the foreseeability of risks.

Legal Obligation: Many international treaties, including the ICCPR, impose due diligence obligations on states to protect fundamental rights.

Question 33

Italy’s violations (Human rights Committee)

Answer 33

Violations

Article 6 (Right to Life): Failed to act with due diligence, contributing to 200+ deaths.

Article 2(3) (Effective Remedy): Did not conduct a prompt, independent investigation.

Question 34

Dublin Convention III

Answer 34

Legal framework of the EU.
Only one memberstate is responsible for asylumseeker (migrants) registered in, to house the person.

Guest Lecturer 5.12.24.

Question 35

Dublin Convention III Issues

Answer 35

Front Line member states recieves most immigrant, therefore more economical challenged.