Rescuing Migrants at Sea: The Responsibility of States Under International Law

Responsibility, Emergency, Blame: Reporting on Migrant Deaths on the Mediterranean in the Council of Europe

“…33 Efthymios Papastavridis shows that flag and coastal states can incur responsibility in two distinct ways. Firstly, they can do so for violations of the rules concerning rescue at sea under the law of the sea and secondly for failing to meet obligations under international human rights law (Papastavridis 2012). In this case, the most obvious breach was of the obligation to provide rescue at sea.…”

Human Rights and Civil Liberties in the 21st Century

“…31.3.c VCLT, it reformulates its wording as including, besides "rules", also "principles" of international law. 38 However, this approach is only suitable for application to synallagmatic treaties not establishing obligations erga omnes partes , and thus not to human rights treaties, 39 since otherwise the applicable standard of protection would vary from one party to another, depending on their respective commitment to other treaties. WT/DS58/AB/R, United States -Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products , para.…”

“…40 However, it is doubtful whether the kind and generality of practice and opinio iuris normally referred to by the Court is suffi cient to conclude that a custom has emerged in every instance in which this concept is used. In some instances, such materials may qualify as "practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation" 37 38 The ILC has criticized the restrictive approach, since it would nullify the effect of the provision in the relations between multilateral regimes, where a perfect coincidence of parties is very unlikely, if not impossible, see Koskenniemi Report, supra, note 14, paras. 42 The exclusion of certain "international materials" from the scope of Article 31.3.c VCLT does not deny altogether their relevance in the interpretative process.…”

“…26 Preamble of the "Bill of Rights," as proposed by the United States Congress to the States (4 March 1789). The famous Kentucky 36 and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 37 denied both that the protection of fundamental rights in the States was the province of the Federal government 38 and that the United States government should be the fi nal arbiter of its own jurisdiction in these or any other circumstances. The Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, First Congress, 1st Session (8 June 1789) at 449.…”

“…48 The United States discovered in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries what has become apparent to the world since the Second World War, which is that local ("national" or "sovereign") enforcement of the "great rights of mankind" fails in the 36 Resolutions of the Kentucky Legislature (10 November 1798). 38 Resolutions of the Kentucky Legislature (10 November 1798) No.3. 38 Resolutions of the Kentucky Legislature (10 November 1798) No.3.…”