Human Rights Due Diligence Policies Applied to Extraterritorial Cooperation to Prevent “Irregular” Migration: European Union and United Kingdom Support to Libya

Abstract

Extraterritorial cooperation—including by providing funds, equipment, training, and technical support—has become central to policies aimed at preventing access of refugees and “irregular” migrants to particular countries and regions. But cooperating countries and international organizations have due diligence obligations under human rights law to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the cooperation they provide does not result in human rights violations, even when the violations are perpetrated extraterritorially by third parties. Consequently, they can become liable for the failure to exercise due diligence to prevent human rights violations from occurring in the receiving states. Also, they may incur responsibility for the resulting acts where they knowingly aided or assisted the receiving state to commit human rights violations with the support provided.International organizations and some states have begun to adopt human rights due diligence policies to assess and mitigate the risks of such cooperation. Using the examples of European Union and United Kingdom support to Libya, this Article analyzes the due diligence policies they have applied to extraterritorial cooperation in the area of border control and the detention of refugees and other migrants. It finds that the policies as implemented have provided only superficial scrutiny and argues that they should be made more robust and transparent. Ultimately, this will help mitigate the human rights risks associated with extraterritorial assistance, and ideally help ensure that assistance contributes to the strengthening of human rights protections in recipient countries.

Li̇beral Güvenli̇k Anlayişi Çerçevesi̇nde Uluslararasi Düzensi̇z Göç

“…It offers a solution to prevent the progress of people who have left the workplace. Ferstman (2020) mentions that it provides funds, equipment, training and technical support, aiming to prevent refugees and irregular immigrants from accessing certain countries and regions. It addresses the issue in the context of countries accepting refugees and irregular migrants and in the example of Libya.…”

Refugee protection in the artificial intelligence era: a test case for rights

“…Appropriate due diligence includes the transparent and effective use of HRIAs. 147 As bilateral or multilateral assistance begins to incorporate new technological functions, attention will need to be paid to how these applications operate at an individual and system-wide level. Among other aspects, due consideration will need to cover any impacts on global movement of people -when technical assistance is coupled with agreements on the sharing of personal data.…”

Bridgeheads of EU border externalisation? NGOs/CSOs and migration in Libya

“…It does so by looking at Libya, a major country of departure of migrants attempting the sea-crossing to Europe, and one in which NGOs/CSOs are a relatively new phenomenon, as they hardly existed until the 2011 regime change. Thus, the paper also addresses a gap in the literature on EU externalisation to Libya, as this has only focused on state-state relations (see Bialasiewicz, 2012; Hamood, 2008; Paoletti, 2010 for the Gaddafi era; Baldwin-Edwards and Lutterbeck, 2019; Ferstman, 2020 for the post-Gaddafi period), or, more rarely, on state-IOs relations (Brachet, 2016).…”

“…Perpetrators “include government officials, members of armed groups, smugglers, traffickers and members of criminal gangs” (UN Security Council, 2020: 9). Indeed, while crimes are often committed “with the collusion of government officials” (Ferstman, 2020: 463), namely “Libyan Coast Guard (LCG) officials, immigration officers, security officials, Ministry of Defense (MOD) officials, members of armed groups formally integrated into state institutions, as well as officials from the [Ministry of Interior (MOI)] and MOI’s Department to Combat Illegal Migration (DCIM)” (US Department of State, 2020), state authorities are also directly responsible for gross human rights violations. The fact that one of such perpetrators is the Libyan Coast Guard, 3 which has long been equipped, supported and trained by Italy and Europe in the field of border management, including forced returns from international waters to Libya (Pijnenburg, 2018), shows a clear correlation between externalisation and human rights violations.…”