The principle of non-refoulement in extraterritorial application at sea : Challenges and implications

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This thesis examines the legal application, interpretation, and significance of the non-refoulement principle in international refugee law in regard to extraterritorial application of refugees at sea. The principle of non-refoulement is fundamental to prevent States from returning the refugees or asylum seekers to countries where they may face torture, inhuman treatment or other irreversible harm. The main issue addressed is the protection of refugees and the complementary protection of individuals not covered by conventional frameworks, particularly in the context of extraterritorial application at sea under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, know as the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. This protection is often undermined by states circumventing their international obligations through push-back and non-entrée policies targeting boat refugees. Furthermore, the thesis examines the emergence of climate-induced refugees, advocating for the formal recognition of climate refugees and the inclusion of disasters from climate crisis as grounds for asylum seeking. The study proposes the development of guidelines for the protection of refugees at sea, intended to serve as benchmarks for future bilateral and multilateral agreements.
The thesis analyzes divergent perspectives and case law regarding the application of the non-refoulement principle. It explores key issues such as the lack of a standardized system in refugee law, the legal authority of the 1951 Convention, the predominance of regional conventions over international frameworks, and the limitations of a comprehensive conventional approach, including States' refusal to fulfill their international obligations under the principle of State Responsibility.
Breaking down by the chapters, Chapter 2 is dedicated to fully examining the international refugee system, starting with the human rights agreements, flowing to the fundamentals of the refugee law, the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol, then exploring the regional agreements for refugee protection, such as the 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa and the 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees for Latin America expanding not only the scope of the definition of a refugee, but also the principle of non-refoulement. Also, the Chapter dwells on the former Asian refugee conventions and the reasons for these disparities in political and historical background, as well as simple reasons, such as the non-necessity for incorporating another convention. Also, the biggest reason could be that most Asian states have not ratified the regional refugee convention, and States simply do not see the necessity to bring up another convention, even though the region has the largest refugee influx. The discussion part of the Chapter 2 gives the reasons of not changing the Article 1A (2) and Article 33 of the 1951 Convention by bringing up scholars and people working on the field of refugee protection, while still suggesting the reverse effect of starting the reform by the bilateral, multilateral agreement, then regional conventions and ultimately seeing the revision of the 1967 Protocol.
Next, Chapter 3 of this thesis explores the scope of the non-refoulement principle, with particular emphasis on its extraterritorial application. The analysis compares the approaches of the Committee Against Torture (ComAT) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), presenting relevant cases to illustrate differences in territorial and extraterritorial application and evaluating both violations and successful enforcement of the principle. The chapter mainly examines maritime law as it relates to the non-refoulement principle in maritime zones and jurisdictions, focusing on obligations under UNCLOS, the duty to provide assistance, the duty to bring individuals to a place of safety, and the duty of disembarkation under the SAR and SOLAS Conventions. It further considers the International Maritime Organization's Guidelines on the Treatment of Persons Rescued at Sea (Resolution MSC.167(78)).
A significant issue identified is the disconnect between the obligations established by these frameworks. While existing provisions aim to promote cooperation during distress situations, ongoing dialogue at the IMO is necessary to enhance guidance for search and rescue operations. The chapter draws on examples such as the Italian-Libyan agreement and a temporary disembarkation arrangement among three Mediterranean countries to illustrate the development and implementation of non-binding guidelines for bilateral agreement in the next chapter.
Chapter 4 examines cases involving massive refugee flows and the extraterritorial application of the law, based on decisions of the ECtHR, the ComAT, and Australian and the US’s national policies, with a particular focus on State responsibility. As a primary example, Australia's offshore policy is analyzed, the practice of transferring detained asylum seekers to neighboring small island States is highlighted, and a reference is made to a New Zealand bilateral agreement. Similar practices can be traced in the agreements of the United States with the Caribbean countries, in the activities of Frontex, UK-Rwanda Plan and in similar policies in the EU. To address these issues, the chapter examines bilateral and multilateral agreements as mechanisms to enhance refugee protection. The third part of the chapter explores the African and Inter-American regions’ the regional court and committee cases, providing with the policies of the Asian State, especially Thailand, and other Coastal States’s cases during the regional human rights court sections.
Finally, in Chapter 5 the first part of the chapter examines climate or environmental refugees, provides arguments for their inclusion in the sphere of non-refoulement, and discusses the consequences of climate crises. This section is a key contribution to the thesis, as it includes recent advisory opinions by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) on climate change and natural disasters, demonstrating the potential for incorporating these changes into and strengthening regional refugee conventions, with the anticipation that these provisions will be gradually incorporated into the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol in the future. Ultimately, the dissertation summarizes data and case studies to propose new guidelines for future bilateral agreements, taking into account the lessons of previous agreements and three legal areas, with particular attention to refugees arriving by boat and refugee status determination. This part is surely the highlight of this thesis.
In sum, this thesis has certain limitations, including an emphasis on the ECHR and ComAT cases, as well as not provided comprehensive study of the decisions of regional courts and the policies of Coastal countries, especially parts of Northern and Latin America, some of the unexamined cases of African and mostly the Asian States. The analysis mainly focuses on European cases at the beginning, as the European database have the most cases related to the topic, which led to a lack of comprehensive assessment of regional and coastal State practices extraterritorially. Moreover, the guideline part for protection at sea can be more examined and provided clear-cut sugggestion for it. Future research should address these gaps, while subsequent changes may further expand the conclusions and recommendations presented in this study.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

이 논문은 해상 난민의 국외 적용과 관련하여 국제 난민법상 강제송환금지 원칙(non-refoulement)의 법적 적용, 해석 및 그 의의를 고찰한다. 강제송환금지 원칙은 국가가 난민이나 망명 신청자를 고문, 비인도적 처우 또는 기타 돌이킬 수 없는 피해의 위험이 있는 국가로 송환하는 것을 금지하는 핵심적인 보호 원칙이다.
본 연구의 주요 쟁점은 영토 그리고 해상에서의 국외적 적용 맥락에서 난민 보호와 기존 협약 체계로 충분히 보호되지 않는 난민 및 망명 신청자들에 대한 보충적 보호의 문제를 검토하는 데 있다. 특히 강제송환금지의 원칙 적용을 둘러싼 다양한 학설과 판례를 분석하며, 난민법 체계에서의 표준화된 제도의 부재, 1951년 협약의 법적 구속력에 대한 논쟁, 국제적 규범보다 지역적 협약이 우선시되는 경향, 그리고 국가책임의 원칙에 따른 국제적 의무 이행을 국가들이 회피하는 포괄적 협약 접근의 한계를 논의한다.
아울러 이 논문은 국가들이 해상 난민을 대상으로 한 푸시백 관행 (push-back) 및 입국 거부 (non-entrée) 정책을 통해 국제적 의무를 우회함으로써 난민 보호가 약화되고 있음을 지적한다. 더 나아가 기후 위기로 발생하는 기후 난민 문제의 등장에 주목하여, 기후 난민에 대한 공식적 인정의 필요성과 기후 재난을 망명 사유로 포함시킬 필요성을 주장한다. 마지막으로 해상에서의 난민 보호를 위한 가이드라인 마련을 제안하며, 이는 향후 양자 및 다자 협정의 기준으로 활용될 수 있음을 제시한다.
장별로 살펴보면, 제2장은 인권 협약을 시작으로 1951년 협약과 1967년 의정서를 거쳐 1969년 OAU 협약과 1984년 카르타헤나 선언 주요 국제 및 지역별 난민 보호 체계를 심층적으로 검토한다. 과거 아시아 난민 협약과 정치·역사적 배경에 따른 격차의 원인, 그리고 아시아가 세계 최대의 난민 유입지임에도 불구하고 다수 국가의 미비준과 새로운 협약 도입에 대한 필요성 결여로 인해 지역적 보호 체계 부재 실태를 분석한다.
제3장은 강제송환금지 원칙의 국외 적용 범위를 고문방지위원회(ComAT)와 유럽인권재판소(ECtHR)의 사례를 통해 비교·분석한다. 특히 유엔해양법협약(UNCLOS), SAR 및 SOLAS 협약에 규정된 국가의 구조 및 협력 의무와 강제송환금지 원칙 간의 관계를 핵심 쟁점으로 다룬다. 이를 바탕으로 이탈리아–리비아 협정 등 사례를 검토하고, 향후 양자 협정의 토대가 될 비구속적 가이드라인의 개발과 그 이행 방안을 제시한다.
제4장은 국가 책임(State Responsibility)을 핵심 분석 틀로 삼아, 호주와 미국의 난민 및 망명 신청자를 해외에 이주시킨 후 심사하는 정책인 Offshore policy 및 유럽연합(EU)의 유사 정책에서 나타나는 국외 적용 문제를 검토한다. 또한 아프리카 및 미주 지역의 재판소와 위원회 사례, 그리고 태국의 정책과 사례를 분석한다.
마지막으로 제5장에서는 기후 및 환경 난민을 강제송환금지 원칙의 적용 대상으로 포함할 필요성을 논증하고, 이에 관한 국제사법재판소(ICJ)와 미주인권재판소(IACtHR)의 최근 권고적 의견을 검토한다. 이러한 권고적 의견은 변화의 가능성을 보여주며, 나아가 관련 조항들이 1951년 난민협약과 1967년 의정서에 점진적으로 반영될 수 있음을 시사한다.
본 논문은 유럽인권재판소와 고문방지위원회의 판례 분석에 주로 의존함으로써, 강제송환금지 원칙의 국외 적용과 관련한 다른 지역 인권 재판소 및 연안국의 난민 정책 관행을 평가하는 데에는 일정한 한계를 지닌다. 또한 해상에서의 난민 보호를 위한 가이드라인에 관한 논의는 보다 심층적인 분석과 구체적 정책 제안의 보완이 필요하며, 향후 연구를 통해 이러한 공백을 보완함으로써 본 연구의 결론과 제언을 보다 발전시킬 수 있을 것이다.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Contents
• Glossary iv
• Abstract vii
• Chapter 1 Introduction 1
• 1.1 Background and Objectives of the study 1
• 1.1.1 Background 1
• 1.1.2 Objectives of the study 5
• 1.2 Methodology and Structure 7
• 1.2.1 Methodology 7
• 1.2.2 Structure 8
• Chapter 2 The Refugee Definition and the Principle of Non – Refoulement under International Refugee Law 10
• 2.1 Refugee concept under International Refugee Law 10
• 2.1.1 Overview 10
• 2.1.2 The definition of refugee in the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol and its Interpretation 11
• 2.1.3 Causal link between Article 1F and Article 33 (2) 17
• 2.2 Refugee status problem: Convention Refugees and Others 18
• 2.2.1 Conventional Refugees 18
• 2.2.1.1 The 1969 OAU Refugee Convention, along with the 2009 Kampala Convention 20
• 2.2.1.2 The 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees 22
• 2.2.1.3 The Common European Asylum System with the European Convention on Human Rights 24
• 2.2.1.4 Asia’s Regional Refugee Framework: Causes and Challenges 28
• 2.2.2 Other Persons of Concern: Asylum-Seekers, Stateless Persons, Internally Displaced Persons, and Returnees 32
• 2.2.2.1 Asylum seekers 32
• 2.2.2.2 Stateless person 33
• 2.2.2.3 The Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) 35
• 2.2.2.4 Returnees 37
• 2.3 Discussion and conclusion 39
• Chapter 3 Extraterritorial Application at Sea 45
• 3.1 The Scope of Application of Non-Refoulement in Human Rights Law, the 1951 Refugee Convention, and UNCLOS 45
• 3.1.1 Overview 45
• 3.1.2 Territorial application 47
• 3.1.3 Extraterritorial application in refugee and human rights law 55
• 3.1.4 Extraterritorial application in maritime law: maritime zones and jurisdiction 62
• 3.2 Maritime Law and Non-Refoulement 71
• 3.2.1 Duty to Provide Assistance 73
• 3.2.2 Duty to Bring to a Place of Safety 78
• 3.2.3 Duty to Allow for Disembarkation 80
• 3.3 Stowaway asylum seekers and protection gaps 82
• 3.4 Key findings and implications for maritime non-refoulement 87
• Chapter 4 Case Study on Extraterritoriality at Sea 89
• 4.1 Case study on Extraterritoriality at Sea and Non-Refoulement 89
• 4.1.1 Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy 89
• 4.1.2 J.H.A. v. Spain 93
• 4.1.3 Medvedyev and Others v. France 95
• 4.1.4 Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, ILC 100
• 4.1.5 Tampa case 102
• 4.2 Case analysis challenging State Responsibility 105
• 4.2.1 Mediterranean States’ policies toward refugees at sea 105
• 4.2.2 UK’s Rwanda plan and its aftermath 113
• 4.2.3 Australia and US policies and its impact on neighbouring countries 114
• 4.2.4 State Responsibility notion and refugee protection 121
• 4.3 Regional Perspectives on Refugee Protection: Exploring the African and Inter-American Systems and the Policies of Asian States 124
• 4.3.1 Overview 124
• 4.3.2 African refugee protection through judical systems 125
• 4.3.3 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights 133
• 4.3.4 Asian State’s policy towards refugees: Thailand case 139
• 4.4 Summary 144
• Chapter 5 Future Directions in Refugee Law: Frameworks for the Protection of Climate Refugees and Refugees at Sea 146
• 5.1 Non-Refoulement and Climate Refugees: Challenges and Prospects for Refugee Law 146
• 5.1.1 Overview 146
• 5.1.2 Incorporating Climate Refugees into Legal Frameworks 148
• 5.2 Enhancing the Protection of Refugees at Sea: A Guideline Proposal 163
• 5.3 Summary 167
• Chapter 6 Conclusion 168
• References 171
• 국문초록 199