Human rights obligations in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea – Comments on the state of play

Abstract

The paper comments on the state of play regarding the European Court of Human Rights’ extraterritorial application of human rights in the context of rescue at sea. The Court’s recent inadmissibility decision in the case of S.S. v Italy has been seen as halting progress in the development of human rights for vulnerable migrants in the Mediterranean Sea. The latest cases from the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Committee concerning shipwrecks and search and rescue on the high seas have put the spotlight on divergences between the Court’s and the Committee’s stances. The Court’s interpretation of extraterritorial human rights jurisdiction in S.S. v Italy may be interpreted as accepting that States orchestrate maritime operations through third countries. Thereby, obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights can be circumvented, and States shielded from accountability. However, the reasoning in S.S. has not been solely criticised in all aspects. Had the S.S. been declared admissible along the lines argued by the applicants, this could be seen as conflating search and rescue law with human rights law and leading to greater reluctance to coordinate rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea.