Containment instead of Refoulement

Shifting State Responsibility in the Age of Cooperative Migration Control?

Research output: Working paperScientific

Abstract

Containment policies whereby destination States provide funding, equipment and training to transit States that intercept refugees on their behalf suggest that destination States try to circumvent the prohibition of refoulement and raise the question to what extent destination States can avoid responsibility for violations of the rights of migrants and refugees by cooperating with transit States. Answering this question requires broadening the analysis beyond the principle of non-refoulement, including not only international human rights law, especially the right to leave and the concept of jurisdiction, but also the law of State responsibility, notably the prohibition of complicity. This article argues that, although it remains debatable whether the principle of non-refoulement applies when transit States intercept migrants and refugees on behalf of sponsoring destination States, the wider network of international law rules constrains the latter’s ability to avoid responsibility when implementing cooperative migration control policies.
Original languageEnglish
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Fingerprint

migration policy
refugee
responsibility
migrant
containment policy
sponsoring
Law
international law
jurisdiction
human rights
funding
ability

Keywords

  • containment
  • non-refoulement
  • cooperative migration control
  • jurisdiction
  • State responsibility
  • complicity

Cite this

@techreport{8f2249f98f984298b869ebc38a606a53,
title = "Containment instead of Refoulement: Shifting State Responsibility in the Age of Cooperative Migration Control?",
abstract = "Containment policies whereby destination States provide funding, equipment and training to transit States that intercept refugees on their behalf suggest that destination States try to circumvent the prohibition of refoulement and raise the question to what extent destination States can avoid responsibility for violations of the rights of migrants and refugees by cooperating with transit States. Answering this question requires broadening the analysis beyond the principle of non-refoulement, including not only international human rights law, especially the right to leave and the concept of jurisdiction, but also the law of State responsibility, notably the prohibition of complicity. This article argues that, although it remains debatable whether the principle of non-refoulement applies when transit States intercept migrants and refugees on behalf of sponsoring destination States, the wider network of international law rules constrains the latter’s ability to avoid responsibility when implementing cooperative migration control policies.",
keywords = "containment, non-refoulement, cooperative migration control, jurisdiction, State responsibility, complicity",
author = "Annick Pijnenburg",
year = "2018",
doi = "http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3418365",
language = "English",
type = "WorkingPaper",

}

TY - UNPB

T1 - Containment instead of Refoulement

T2 - Shifting State Responsibility in the Age of Cooperative Migration Control?

AU - Pijnenburg, Annick

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Containment policies whereby destination States provide funding, equipment and training to transit States that intercept refugees on their behalf suggest that destination States try to circumvent the prohibition of refoulement and raise the question to what extent destination States can avoid responsibility for violations of the rights of migrants and refugees by cooperating with transit States. Answering this question requires broadening the analysis beyond the principle of non-refoulement, including not only international human rights law, especially the right to leave and the concept of jurisdiction, but also the law of State responsibility, notably the prohibition of complicity. This article argues that, although it remains debatable whether the principle of non-refoulement applies when transit States intercept migrants and refugees on behalf of sponsoring destination States, the wider network of international law rules constrains the latter’s ability to avoid responsibility when implementing cooperative migration control policies.

AB - Containment policies whereby destination States provide funding, equipment and training to transit States that intercept refugees on their behalf suggest that destination States try to circumvent the prohibition of refoulement and raise the question to what extent destination States can avoid responsibility for violations of the rights of migrants and refugees by cooperating with transit States. Answering this question requires broadening the analysis beyond the principle of non-refoulement, including not only international human rights law, especially the right to leave and the concept of jurisdiction, but also the law of State responsibility, notably the prohibition of complicity. This article argues that, although it remains debatable whether the principle of non-refoulement applies when transit States intercept migrants and refugees on behalf of sponsoring destination States, the wider network of international law rules constrains the latter’s ability to avoid responsibility when implementing cooperative migration control policies.

KW - containment

KW - non-refoulement

KW - cooperative migration control

KW - jurisdiction

KW - State responsibility

KW - complicity

U2 - http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3418365

DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3418365

M3 - Working paper

BT - Containment instead of Refoulement

ER -