Proxy Migration Control under the European Convention on Human Rights

RAin Dr. Anna Börger

doi:10.5771/9783748940609

Summary

The book focusses on the question whether European states are responsible under international human rights law, in particular under European Convention on Human Rights, when they outsource their migration control to third states. The concepts of state responsibility and jurisdiction under the ECHR are analysed, linked to each other, and put into the context of proxy migration control. The book also includes an analysis on the responsibility of member states when the European Union is involved. Suggestions are made how the substantive rights of the Convention can apply in this context.

Keywords

Search publication

Bibliographic data

Copyright year: 2024
ISBN-Print: 978-3-7560-1812-3
ISBN-Online: 978-3-7489-4060-9
Publisher: Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series: Schriften zum Migrationsrecht
Volume: 46
Language: English
Pages: 346
Product type: Book Titles

Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access Pages 1 - 16
1. 1. Framework of cooperation No access
2. 2. Scope of the study No access
3. 3. Terminology No access
1. 1. 1.1 Jurisdiction in general international law and in human rights treaties No access
  2. 1.2 Jurisdiction of a state, not of a court No access
  3. 1.3 Scope of the Convention ratione personae, materiae, loci and temporis No access
  4. 1. 1.4.1 Overview: the territorial principle and its exceptions No access
    2. 1.4.2 The travaux préparatoires No access
  5. 1. 1. 1.5.1.1 The meaning of effective control No access
      2. 1.5.1.2 Effective control of a place? No access
      3. 1.5.1.3.1 Cooperation with the Republic of the Niger No access
        1.5.1.3.2 EU Turkey Deal No access
        1.5.1.3.3 Effective control in such cooperation? No access
    2. 1. 1.5.2.1.1 Development of the case law on the question of the exercise of jurisdiction in the context of consular and diplomatic agents No access
        1.5.2.1.2 Visas No access
        1.5.2.1.3 Immigration Liaison Officers No access
        1.5.2.1.4 Conclusion No access
      2. 1.5.2.2.1. The exception and the role of attribution No access
        1.5.2.2.2 The example of the European Coast and Border Guard (ECBG) No access
      3. 1.5.2.3 Extraterritorial use of force No access
      4. 1.5.2.4 Conclusion No access
    3. 1.5.3 Extraterritorial effects of Convention State measures No access
    4. 1.5.4 Criticism of the Court’s approach to extraterritorial jurisdiction – a functional approach? No access
    5. 1.5.5 Conclusion No access
  6. 1.6 Territorial acquiescence or connivance in the acts of foreign officials No access
  7. 1.7 Conclusion No access
2. 1. 1. 2.1.1 What is customary law? No access
    2. 1. 2.1.2.1 State practice No access
      2. 2.1.2.2 Opinio iuris No access
    3. 2.1.3 Conclusion No access
  2. 1. 1. 2.2.1.1 Forms of “aid or assistance” No access
      2. 2.2.1.2 Connection between the conduct of the assisting state and the principal wrong No access
      3. 2.2.1.3. The substantial link requirement in the context of proxy migration control No access
      4. 2.2.1.4 The lending of state organs as aid and assistance No access
      5. 2.2.1.5 Capacity building and training of third state officials No access
      6. 2.2.1.6 Conclusion No access
    2. 1. 2.2.2.1 Drafting history and Commentary No access
      2. 2.2.2.2 ICJ judgment in the Bosnian Genocide case and its reception No access
      3. 2.2.2.3 Element of shared purpose or desire to break the law? No access
      4. 2.2.2.4.1 Degree of knowledge No access
        2.2.2.4.2 Knowledge of what? No access
        2.2.2.4.3 Relevant time No access
        2.2.2.4.4 Relevant actor No access
        2.2.2.4.5 Burden of proof No access
        2.2.2.4.6 Conclusion No access
      5. 2.2.2.5 Mental element in the context of aid and assistance to human rights violations No access
    3. 2.2.3 The opposability element No access
  3. 2.3 The nature of responsibility under Art. 16 ASR No access
  4. 2.4 Conclusion No access
3. 1. 3.1 Territorial complicity No access
  2. 1. 3.2.1 First solution: No responsibility for extraterritorial complicity No access
    2. 3.2.2 Second solution: extraterritorial obligations without jurisdiction No access
    3. 1. 3.2.3.1 The suggestion No access
      2. 3.2.3.2 The concept of positive obligations and Milanovic’ model No access
    4. 1. 3.2.4.1 The idea No access
      2. 3.2.4.2 The idea as de lege ferenda No access
      3. 3.2.4.3 Significance of customary international law No access
      4. 3.2.4.3.1 Jurisdiction and attribution No access
        3.2.4.3.2 Jurisdiction and the concept of an internationally wrongful act No access
      5. 3.2.4.5 Dependence on the opposability requirement No access
      6. 3.2.4.6 Detachment from a spatial or personal element No access
      7. 3.2.4.7 Possible wide reach of the model in other areas of human rights law No access
  3. 3.3 Monetary Gold Principle in the context of the ECtHR No access
  4. 3.4 Complicity of two Convention States No access
4. 4. Conclusion No access
1. 1. The European Union and the Convention No access
2. 2. The Matthews case: responsibility for human rights violations stemming from EU primary law No access
3. 1. 3.1. The Bosphorus presumption of equivalent protection afforded by the European Union No access
  2. 1. 3.2.1. The decision in the case of Behrami and Saramati No access
    2. 1. 3.2.2.1. Conflict between the test for attribution applied by the ILC and the test applied by the ECtHR No access
      2. 3.2.2.2. The possibility of dual or multiple attribution No access
    3. 3.2.3. The application of the Behrami decision to the European Union No access
    4. 3.2.4. The case law of the ECtHR in the context of the EU in the light of the work of the ILC No access
    5. 3.2.5. Conclusion No access
  3. 3.3. EU member state responsibility for discretionary decisions No access
  4. 3.5. First case after Luxembourg stopped the accession: The Avotiņš case No access
  5. 3.6. Conclusion No access
4. 1. 4.1. Strategic orientation of the EU No access
  2. 4.2. Policy dialogues on the regional level: The Khartoum process and the Rabat process No access
  3. 1. 4.3.1 Common Security and Defence Policy missions in the area of border control No access
    2. 1. 4.3.2.1. Frontex’ cooperation with third countries No access
      2. 4.3.2.2. Joint operations hosted by third states No access
      3. 4.3.2.3. Member state responsibility in the framework of the European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR) No access
    3. 1. 4.3.3.1 EU trust funds for external action No access
      2. 4.3.3.2. EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey No access
      3. 4.3.3.3. Conclusion: budgetary measures No access
  4. 4.4 Conclusion on the framework of externalised migration control No access
5. 5. Conclusion No access
1. 1. 1.1. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) No access
  2. 1.2. The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) No access
2. 1. 2.1. Burden of proof No access
  2. 2.2 Standard of proof No access
3. 1. 3.1. The right to life in the ICCPR No access
  2. 1. 1. 3.2.1.1. Excessive use of force No access
      2. 3.2.1.2. Risk to life during search and rescue operations by the Libyan Coastguard No access
      3. 3.2.1.3. Libya’s approach to abuses by traffickers and smugglers No access
      4. 3.2.1.4. Deaths in immigration detention No access
      5. 3.2.1.5. Denied access to medical treatment for migrants No access
      6. 3.2.1.6. Conclusion: risk assessment – Libya No access
    2. 3.2.2. Turkey No access
    3. 3.2.3 Niger – the “Sahara cemetery” and the right to life No access
    4. 3.2.4 Conclusion No access
  3. 1. 1. 3.3.1.1. The substantive obligation de lege lata No access
      2. 3.3.1.2 A suggestion based on Art. 16 ASR No access
    2. 3.3.2. The procedural obligation No access
  4. 3.4 Conclusion No access
4. 1. 4.1. The prohibition of torture and inhumane and degrading treatment under the CAT and the ICCPR No access
  2. 1. 4.2.1. Libya No access
    2. 4.2.2. Turkey No access
    3. 4.2.3. Niger No access
  3. 1. 1. 4.3.1.1. The substantive obligation de lege lata No access
      2. 4.3.1.2. A suggestion based on Art. 16 ASR No access
    2. 4.3.2. The procedural obligation No access
  4. 4.4. Conclusion No access
5. 1. 5.1 The right to non-refoulement in the ICCPR and the CAT No access
  2. 1. 5.2.1 Non-refoulement in Libya No access
    2. 5.2.2 Non-refoulement Turkey No access
    3. 5.2.3. Niger No access
    4. 5.2.4. Conclusion No access
  3. 5.3 Non-refoulement under the ECHR No access
6. 1. 6.1 Right to liberty in the ICCPR No access
  2. 1. 6.2.1 Arbitrary detention of migrants in Libya No access
    2. 6.2.2. Arbitrary detention of migrants in Turkey No access
    3. 6.2.3. Arbitrary detention in Niger No access
    4. 6.2.4. Conclusion No access
  3. 1. 6.3.1. Diverging case law of the ECtHR and the HRC on immigration detention No access
    2. 6.3.2. Obligations under Art. 5 ECHR in case of extraterritorial complicity No access
7. 1. 7.1 Art. 12 (2) ICCPR No access
  2. 7.2 Risk assessment No access
  3. 7.3 Art. 2 (2) of the Fourth Protocol to the Convention No access
8. 8. Justification of human rights violations by anti-trafficking policies No access
9. 9. Conclusion No access
1. 1. Main findings No access
2. 2. Recommendations and concluding thoughts No access
Bibliography No access Pages 335 - 346