The law of the sea expert Alexander Proelß finds it legally difficult to prohibit NGOs to rescue at sea, without providing for Alternatives. But the helpers seem to have a serious bug.
Aquarius, Seefuchs, Open Arms, Iuventa, Sea-Watch and Sea-to-Eye since the beginning of July, none of these rescue ships in the Central Mediterranean sea. While 629 people in the Mediterranean sea came alone in June killed. The ships of the various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the ports of Malta, Lampedusa and Barcelona. Malta alone blocked the exit of three civilian ships. Specific reasons are not given.
Depending on where the ship is registered, it receives the respective country’s flag as a registration. Only the flag state can enforce the rights of the ship. Some rescue ships, such as the Dutch registered Sea Watch, have the correct documents. But the Maltese authorities have clarified all questions with the Land, the ship is blocked.
Currently, there are no search and rescue in the Mediterranean sea. The Action of the States is legal? On whose side the right is?
There is no legal reason to block the ships. There are no pirates, but there is distress are rescue organizations that have made a significant contribution to ensuring that fewer people have died.
You can say relatively clearly: The law is on the side of the NGOs. It is not legally permissible to simply took other ships in fog. You may do so only under very specific conditions, and which are in the UN law of the sea Convention codifies. They are not given in the case of the NGOs. The NGOs have made a serious mistake, because they let these ships as a “Pleasure Craft” have to register. The ships of private Amusement. Theoretically, for example, the low-countries would have to initiate proceedings against Malta (because of the Sea Watch will be held there – ed.), but no one wants to obviously. The Dutch claim that this is no ordinary registration, and refuse, therefore, your duties as a flag state. So can the NGOs, in principle, hardly a fight. Only the way, even before the court action.
Court procedures take a very long time. How can it go from here? The NGOs have any chance of success?
Alexander Proelß: “It is not legally permissible to simply took other ships in fog”
I see no way. That is the purpose, to ensure that the private NGOs to perform these actions. The Problem is that it is on the other side is not ready – this is especially true for Italy, even the tasks. It is currently being worked in the European framework of the Reform of the legal basis of Frontex operations; it no one knows but what comes out of it. In the end it is about the fact that in the future the Libyans to take on this task. This is the worst, because the conditions in the Camps of Libya with the international human rights standards are not compatible. I can’t imagine that a neutral court comes to the conclusion that the seizure is lawful. It is possible, however, that the courts come to a different result – for reasons of national Law.
The flags issue is really reason enough to seize ships hardware?
The Situation is not easy. But one thing is clear: it is impossible To hold on to just as foreign ships in a port. In this respect, Italy and Malta, international trade illegal. This is true, but only if the ships were previously registered properly. In some cases, is doubtful. The national dishes are arguing with the wrong registration. So far, however, is still not entirely clear what is accused of the NGOs. It is pure speculation, which is currently being operated. It shows me everything, that it is a political game.
What you want to achieve with the criminalization of the Savior?
It is legally problematic, to ban civilian search and rescue organizations Do, and to ensure that the people in distress to be rescued. All of this allows only the conclusion that it is a conscious political decision to oust the civilian Maritime search and rescue from the Mediterranean. Also the people that flee are considering over the Mediterranean sea to Europe, to stop – say, if you do this, there is the danger that you perish, and not saved will.
A solution is in sight? Sea-Watch had Passage, a Safe-Deposit box, a kind of legal corridor for refugees, suggested. What became of this idea?
Of course that would be the elegant way. In the political Situation, I can’t imagine that. Before all things Italy with the populist seems to me to drive right-wing conservative coalition government, a policy based exclusively on the people to deter.
A saved man hugging a rescuer on the rescue ship, “Open Arms”
The States do not want to work for a clear solution. The population is no longer empathy are capable of. Every person that flees, is perceived per se as a threat. This also explains why the elected state representatives have apparently also afraid to take responsibility in this Situation, but what is totally unacceptable.
If there is no Maritime search and rescue sea are more in the middle on the road, it means more people are going to die? Or you will try it in the first place? This deterrence strategy work?
In fact, there are large uncertainties. There seems to be a quenching effect. Because it have significantly less people on the road than before. On the other hand, there are studies that refute it. Any rational thinking person will now think three times, whether he is on this dangerous journey, if it is relatively clear is that there is no rescue any more. It is likely to have an impact. Only the ethically and morally unacceptable and legally suspect.
My requirement is: If you want to the NGOs, this will not do, then you have to itself as a state, the EU or in the context of a NATO action to ensure that the search and rescue actions are carried out. The but it has been blocked, because some States rely on deterrence and the other to approve of the implied and tolerate, including Germany.
Who bears the responsibility for the people dying? There are States that have moved in the ships?
You could say, in principle. But this is a violation of law? I can’t decide. The law is not clear. International law is not for such a constellation is not enough. It, nobody could have imagined that States act as they do now. This is really cynical.
Alexander Proelß is a lawyer and teaches at the University of Trier and is Director of the Institute for legal policy. Among his research areas of international and Maritime law.
The interview was conducted by Nermin Ismail