Securitization of Search and Rescue at Sea: The Response to Boat Migration in the Mediterranean and Offshore Australia

Abstract

This article compares the law and practice of the European Union and Australia in respect to the search and rescue (SAR) of boat migrants, concluding that the response to individuals in peril at sea in both jurisdictions is becoming increasingly securitized. This has led to the humanitarian purpose of SAR being compromised in the name of border security. Part I contrasts the unique challenge posed by SAR operations involving migrants and asylum seekers, as opposed to other people in distress at sea. Part II analyses the relevant international legal regime governing SAR activities and its operation among European States and in offshore Australia. Part III introduces the securitization framework as the explanatory paradigm for shifting State practice and its impact in Europe and Australia. It then examines the consequences of increasing securitization of SAR in both jurisdictions and identifies common trends, including an increase in militarization and criminalization, a lack of transparency and accountability, developments relating to disembarkation and non-refoulement, and challenges relating to cooperation and commodification.

Rescuing Migrants in the Central Mediterranean: The Emergence of a New Civil Humanitarianism at the Maritime Border

“…On the other hand, SAR activities operated by European civil vessels are ipso facto inclusive actions that allow the rescued people to enter in the European territory, since the SAR operation can be considered completed only when the rescued people arrive in a “place of safety” that must be a port of a signatory country of the Geneva Convention (Hamdan, 2016). In this context, European states introduced more and more securitization practices concerning the SAR operations at sea (Ghezelbash, Moreno-Lax, Klein, & Opeskin 2018). The typical state sovereignty that characterizes land border control does not appear with a proper categorization of asylum seekers at sea but with what we would rather call “labels” using the definition proposed by Zetter (2007).…”

Guilt by association? The criminalisation of sea rescue NGOs in Italian media

“…Some scholars have started to examine how maritime rescue is increasingly securitised (Ghezelbash et al 2018) and how the framing of non-governmental sea rescue in Italian public discourse has changed over time, turning organisations previously referred to as 'angels' into 'vice-smugglers' (Barretta et al 2017;Cusumano and Villa 2020). In our analysis, we add to these findings by analyzing the framing devices underlying this discursive process.…”

Crying Wolf Too Many Times: The Impact of the Emergency Narrative on Transparency in FRONTEX Joint Operations

“…However, the structure of the general report was revised in 2008, significantly reducing the level of detail included. 68 Information per operation including, amongst others, participating states, budget, or the operational area, that used to be accessible via the Agency's website has now been removed. Furthermore, crucial information to enable the evaluation of the fundamental rights performance of the Agency remains unattainable.…”