Drones at the borders – Security for whom?
(2021) LAGM01 20212Faculty of Law
Department of Law
- Abstract
- Italy is using drones to monitor migrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea. This is partially done through a contract with Leonardo S.p.A – one of the largest arms traders in the world – under which the company undertakes to operate drones in the area on behalf of the state. Meanwhile, Italy has withdrawn its naval assets and is hindering non-governmental organisations from carrying out search-and-rescue operations. Instead, Italy shares the information on migrant vessels with Libya – a state not considered safe for the purpose of returns – and Libyan authorities in turn intercept and pull the migrants back.
What makes Italy’s use of drones unique is the fact that the state creates distance between itself and the migrants, both by... (More) - Italy is using drones to monitor migrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea. This is partially done through a contract with Leonardo S.p.A – one of the largest arms traders in the world – under which the company undertakes to operate drones in the area on behalf of the state. Meanwhile, Italy has withdrawn its naval assets and is hindering non-governmental organisations from carrying out search-and-rescue operations. Instead, Italy shares the information on migrant vessels with Libya – a state not considered safe for the purpose of returns – and Libyan authorities in turn intercept and pull the migrants back.
What makes Italy’s use of drones unique is the fact that the state creates distance between itself and the migrants, both by outsourcing the operating of drones to a private company and by relying on Libya to carry out interceptions. Under these circumstances it is difficult to claim that Italy exercises jurisdiction under the approaches traditionally adopted by the European Court of Human Rights. However, applying an alternative model for jurisdiction would enable such a conclusion. In particular, applying the functional model suggested by Moreno-Lax, could result in Italy exercising jurisdiction in the current context, both with regard to the right to life and to the principle of non-refoulement. This would be in line with the principle of universality of human rights.
The practice has further blurred the distinguishing line between genuine search-and-rescue operations and push- or pull-backs. States increase their powers to interdict by claiming that they are engaging in search-and-rescue operations, while also deflating related obligations. As a result, both the right to life and the principle of non-refoulement are violated.
The central argument of this thesis is therefore that Italy’s use of Leonardo S.p.A.’s drone-operation services and its cooperation with Libyan authorities engages its state responsibility and violates the right to life and the principle of non-refoulement. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9098491
- author
- Gustafsson, Malin LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGM01 20212
- year
- 2021
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Public International Law, Folkrätt, International Human Rights Law, Mänskliga rättigheter, Migration law, Migrationsrätt
- language
- English
- id
- 9098491
- date added to LUP
- 2022-09-01 16:50:18
- date last changed
- 2022-09-01 16:50:18
@misc{9098491,
abstract = {{Italy is using drones to monitor migrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea. This is partially done through a contract with Leonardo S.p.A – one of the largest arms traders in the world – under which the company undertakes to operate drones in the area on behalf of the state. Meanwhile, Italy has withdrawn its naval assets and is hindering non-governmental organisations from carrying out search-and-rescue operations. Instead, Italy shares the information on migrant vessels with Libya – a state not considered safe for the purpose of returns – and Libyan authorities in turn intercept and pull the migrants back.
What makes Italy’s use of drones unique is the fact that the state creates distance between itself and the migrants, both by outsourcing the operating of drones to a private company and by relying on Libya to carry out interceptions. Under these circumstances it is difficult to claim that Italy exercises jurisdiction under the approaches traditionally adopted by the European Court of Human Rights. However, applying an alternative model for jurisdiction would enable such a conclusion. In particular, applying the functional model suggested by Moreno-Lax, could result in Italy exercising jurisdiction in the current context, both with regard to the right to life and to the principle of non-refoulement. This would be in line with the principle of universality of human rights.
The practice has further blurred the distinguishing line between genuine search-and-rescue operations and push- or pull-backs. States increase their powers to interdict by claiming that they are engaging in search-and-rescue operations, while also deflating related obligations. As a result, both the right to life and the principle of non-refoulement are violated.
The central argument of this thesis is therefore that Italy’s use of Leonardo S.p.A.’s drone-operation services and its cooperation with Libyan authorities engages its state responsibility and violates the right to life and the principle of non-refoulement.}},
author = {{Gustafsson, Malin}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Drones at the borders – Security for whom?}},
year = {{2021}},
}