The Instruments of Pre-Border Control in the EU: A New Source of Vulnerability for Asylum Seekers?

• Author: Maria Nagore Casas
• Position: This article explores the system of pre-border control instruments that have been implemented by the EU and Member States in order to prevent asylum seekers from accessing the EU territory. The main argument is that these instruments constitute a new source of vulnerability for asylum-seekers and refugees. The article analyses some of the main...
• Pages: 161-198

PAIX ET SÉCURITÉ INTERNATIONALES

Journal of International Law and International Relations

Num 7, janvier-décembre 2019 | ISSN 2341-0868

DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.25267/Paix_secur_int.2019.i7.05

Paix et Securité Internationales

ISSN 2341-0868, Num. 7, janvier-décembre 2019, pp. 161-198

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.25267/Paix_secur_int.2019.i7.05

THE INSTRUMENTS OF PRE-BORDER CONTROL IN THE EU: A

NEW SOURCE OF VULNERABILITY FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS?

Maria NAGORE CASAS1

I.- INTRODUCTION: SECURITIZATION OF BORDERS AND

VULNERABILITY OF ASYLUM SEEKERS. II.- THE MAIN EU AND MEMBER

STATES’ INSTRUMENTS OF PRE-BORDER CONTROL. III.- COMPATIBILITY

OF THE INSTRUMENTS OF PRE-BORDER CONTROL WITH THE

INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OF REFUGEES AND THE PRINCIPLE OF

NON-REFOULEMENT. IV.- CONCLUSION.

ABSTRACT: This article explores the system of pre-border control instruments that have been

implemented by the EU and Member States in order to prevent asylum seekers from accessing the

EU territory. The main argument is that these instruments constitute a new source of vulnerability

for asylum-seekers and refugees. The article analyses some of the main passive and active measures

of interception of refugees (EU Visa Regime, carrier sanctions, Immigration Liaison O cers and

interception at sea) and the main legal problems regarding their compatibility with the international

legal framework for the protection of refugees, notably with the principle of non-refoulement.

KEY WORDS: pre-border control, refugees’ vulnerability, EU Visa Regime, carrier sanctions,

Immigration Liaison O cers, interception of refugees at sea.

LOS INSTRUMENTOS DE PRE-CONTROL FRONTERIZO EN LA UE: ¿UNA NUEVA

FUENTE DE VULNERABILIDAD PARA LOS SOLICITANTES DE ASILO?

RESUMEN: Este artículo explora el sistema de instrumentos de pre-control fronterizo que han sido

implementados por la UE y sus Estados Miembros con el f‌i n de evitar el acceso de los solicitantes

de asilo al territorio de la UE. El principal argumento es que estos instrumentos constituyen una

nueva fuente de vulnerabilidad para los refugiados y solicitantes de asilo. El artículo analiza algu-

nas de las principales medidas activas y pasivas de interceptación de refugiados (Régimen Europeo

de Visados, sanciones a los transportistas, Of‌i ciales de Enlace de Inmigración e interceptación en el

mar) y los principales problemas que plantean respecto de su compatibilidad con el marco jurídico

internacional de protección de los refugiados, en especial, con el principio de non-refoulement.

PALABRAS CLAVE: pre-controles fronterizos, vulnerabilidad de los refugiados, Régimen Euro-

1 Lecturer (Profesora Doctora Encargada) in International Law and International

Organizations, University of Deusto. The research leading to these results has received

funding from the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-

2013) under the Grant Agreement FRAME (project n° 320000). This article draws from The

protection of vulnerable individuals in the context of EU policies on border checks, asylum and immigration,

FRAME Deliverable No. 11.3 available at .fp7-frame.eu/reports/>.

Citation: NAGORE CASAS, M., «The Instruments of Pre-border Control in the EU: A New Source of

Vulnerability for Asylum Seekers?», Paix et Sécurité Internationales, num. 7, 2019, pp. 161-198.

Received: 03 October 2019

Accepted: 08 November 2019

The Instruments of Pre-border Control in the EU: A New Source of Vulnerability for Asylum Seekers?

Paix et Securité Internationales

ISSN 2341-0868, Num. 7, janvier-décembre 2019, pp. 161-198

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.25267/Paix_secur_int.2019.i7.05

peo de Visados, sanciones a los transportistas, Of‌i ciales de Enlace de Inmigración, interceptación

de refugiados en el mar.

LES INSTRUMENTS DE PRÉ-CONTRÔLE FRONTALIER DANS L’UE: UNE NOUVELLE

CAUSE DE VULNERABILITÉ POUR LE SOLICITANT D’ASILE?

RÉSUMÉ: Cet article examine le système d’instruments de pré-contrôle frontalier mis en place

par l’UE et ses États membres avec la f‌i nalité d’éviter l’accès des solicitants d’asile au territoire de

l’UE. L’argument principal développé dans cet article est que ces instruments consituent un nou-

veau cause de vulnerabilité pour les réfugiés et solicitants d’asile. L’article analyse quelques des

principales mesures actives et passives d’interceptation des réfugiés (Régime Européen des Visas,

sanctions contre les trasporteurs, o ciers de liason d’immigration et interception des réfugiés en

mer) et les problémes que posent en relation avec son compatibilité avec le cadre juridique interna-

tional de protection des réfugiés, en particulier, le principe de non-refoulement.

MOT CLÉ: pré-contrôle frontalier, vulnerabilité des réfugiés, Régime Européen des Visas, sanc-

tions contre les trasporteurs, o ciers de liason d’immigration, interception des réfugiés en mer.

I. INTRODUCTION:

SECURITIZATION OF BORDERS AND VULNERABILITY OF ASYLUM SEEKERS

One of the most controversial issues regarding the legal protection of re-

fugees is the determination of the exact scope of States’ obligations towards

them, in particular, towards those who have not yet crossed the State of

destination’s borders. Governments, international organisations, scholars and

policy-makers’ views on the territorial scope of these obligations differ due,

among other reasons, to the lack of clarity regarding paramount elements

of the legal framework to be applied, such as the status of individuals under

international law, the way in which international treaties should be interpreted

or under which circumstances the obligations of States vis-à-vis individuals

are engaged.2 States tend to consider that their obligations to protect do not

arise until the refugee has crossed their frontiers, while at the same time their

involvement in extraterritorial activities aimed at preventing refugees from

reaching their territories has increased signif‌i cantly.

There are many cases in practice which illustrate the tension between

States’ obligations to protect and their deterrence activities. To cite but a

few examples in case law, according to the UK government, the posting of

immigration off‌i cers in a foreign airport in order to refuse leave to enter into

2 , M. T.: “The Practice of Mediterranean States in the context of the European

Union”s Justice and Home Affairs External Dimension: The Safe Third Country Concept

Revisited”, International Journal of Refugee Law, Nº 18(2–3), 2006, pp. 571, 571–572.

Paix et Securité Internationales

ISSN 2341-0868, Num. 7, janvier-décembre 2019, pp. 161-198

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.25267/Paix_secur_int.2019.i7.05

the UK to undesired passengers was not contrary to the 1951 Refugee Con-

vention.3 In Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, the Italian government argued that

systematic “push-backs” of Libyan migrants in foreign territorial waters were

lawful under the bilateral agreements signed between Italy and Libya between

2007 and 2009.4 In J.H.A. v. Spain, the Spanish government argued that the

interception of a boat in the territorial waters of a third country did not

amount to an exercise of jurisdiction.5 These are just a few examples of the

externalisation of border control activities by States, as well as their attempt

to consider these activities lawful and respectful of their legal obligations un-

der the international regime of protection of refugees, in particular regarding

the principle of non-refoulement.

6

Despite this attempt by States to pretend to be in compliance with inter-

national refugee law, many commentators postulate that the increasing extra-

territorial activity of States has the intention of precisely avoiding their obli-

gations of protection once the individuals manage to cross their frontiers.7

States have developed a complex system of deterrence measures, which in

practice impede any contact by refugees with the territory of the receiving

State. It is thereby often argued by NGOs and scholars that there is a huge

3 Regina v Immigration Off‌i cer at Prague Airport and another (Respondents) ex parte European Roma

Rights Centre and others (Appellants), [2004] UKHL 55.

4 European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy App no

27765/09 (ECtHR (GC) 23 February 2012) para 92.

5 Committee against Torture, J.H.A. v Spain, Communication no 323/2007, CAT/C/41/

D323/2007, para 6.1.

6 This principle is laid down in Article 33.1 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refu-

gees, adopted on 28 July 1951 by the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the

Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons convened under General Assembly resolution 429

(V) of 14 December 1950 (Refugee Convention).

7 , T. and , J.C., “Non-Refoulement in a World of Coopera-

tive Deterrence”, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, nº 53, 2015, p. 235; G ,

G.S. and , J., The Refugee in International Law, Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 2007,

pp. 369–371; , E. and , D., “The transformation of European Border Controls”

in , B. and . V. (eds.) Extraterritorial Immigration Control: Legal Challenges, Marti-

nus Nijhoff Publishers, 2010, p. 257; , M., Europe and Extraterritorial Asylum, Hart

Publishing, 2012, p. 166; , V., “Seeking Asylum in the Mediterranean: Against

a Fragmentary Reading of EU Member States’ Obligations Accruing at Sea”, Inter national

Journal of Refugee Law, nº 23(2), 2011, p. 174;