Protecting the EU external borders and the prohibition of refoulement

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

This article investigates the relation between externalisation of border control to regulate or stop migration and the prohibition of refoulement. It aims to elucidate under what circumstances remote measures of border control trigger the obligations of states to protect persons from refoulement. The article focuses on the key concept of jurisdiction. Based on a rigorous study of literature and case law, de jure and de facto control as well as the exercise of public powers are identified as triggers of jurisdiction. Additionally, art 16 on aiding and assisting of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (‘ARSIWA’) is discussed in relation to refoulement. Finally, in order to clarify state responsibility for refoulement the EU–Turkey Statement is assessed as a paradigmatic example of outsourcing border control.
LanguageEnglish
Pages614-638
Number of pages25
JournalMelbourne Journal of International Law
Volume19
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2018

Fingerprint

EU
jurisdiction
responsibility
outsourcing
case law
obligation
Turkey
act
migration
art
human being

Cite this

@article{93bf136baa9d49528cb6a76e26159c9e,
title = "Protecting the EU external borders and the prohibition of refoulement",
abstract = "This article investigates the relation between externalisation of border control to regulate or stop migration and the prohibition of refoulement. It aims to elucidate under what circumstances remote measures of border control trigger the obligations of states to protect persons from refoulement. The article focuses on the key concept of jurisdiction. Based on a rigorous study of literature and case law, de jure and de facto control as well as the exercise of public powers are identified as triggers of jurisdiction. Additionally, art 16 on aiding and assisting of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (‘ARSIWA’) is discussed in relation to refoulement. Finally, in order to clarify state responsibility for refoulement the EU–Turkey Statement is assessed as a paradigmatic example of outsourcing border control.",
author = "Conny Rijken and Annick Pijnenburg and Nanda Oudejans",
year = "2018",
month = "12",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "614--638",
journal = "Melbourne Journal of International Law",
number = "2",

}

Protecting the EU external borders and the prohibition of refoulement. / Rijken, Conny; Pijnenburg, Annick; Oudejans, Nanda.

In: Melbourne Journal of International Law, Vol. 19, No. 2, 12.2018, p. 614-638.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Protecting the EU external borders and the prohibition of refoulement

AU - Rijken, Conny

AU - Pijnenburg, Annick

AU - Oudejans, Nanda

PY - 2018/12

Y1 - 2018/12

N2 - This article investigates the relation between externalisation of border control to regulate or stop migration and the prohibition of refoulement. It aims to elucidate under what circumstances remote measures of border control trigger the obligations of states to protect persons from refoulement. The article focuses on the key concept of jurisdiction. Based on a rigorous study of literature and case law, de jure and de facto control as well as the exercise of public powers are identified as triggers of jurisdiction. Additionally, art 16 on aiding and assisting of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (‘ARSIWA’) is discussed in relation to refoulement. Finally, in order to clarify state responsibility for refoulement the EU–Turkey Statement is assessed as a paradigmatic example of outsourcing border control.

AB - This article investigates the relation between externalisation of border control to regulate or stop migration and the prohibition of refoulement. It aims to elucidate under what circumstances remote measures of border control trigger the obligations of states to protect persons from refoulement. The article focuses on the key concept of jurisdiction. Based on a rigorous study of literature and case law, de jure and de facto control as well as the exercise of public powers are identified as triggers of jurisdiction. Additionally, art 16 on aiding and assisting of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (‘ARSIWA’) is discussed in relation to refoulement. Finally, in order to clarify state responsibility for refoulement the EU–Turkey Statement is assessed as a paradigmatic example of outsourcing border control.

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 614

EP - 638

JO - Melbourne Journal of International Law

T2 - Melbourne Journal of International Law

JF - Melbourne Journal of International Law

IS - 2

ER -