Kathirtharsini Parameswaran
Academic Coordinator and Assistant Lecturer The Open University of Sri Lanka
In early 1976, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) voiced concerns about refugees leaving Sri Lanka by boat. Ever since, Sri Lanka has been pinpointed by international communities for refugees from the Northern province attempting deadly sea crossings due to the repercussions of civil war and financial turmoil. Therefore, some possible avenues for improving the protection of refugees and asylum seekers at sea are worth considering. Adopting a doctrinal methodology this work evaluates various rights and principles of Refugee Law in their application to asylum seekers at sea and asks how, if at all, these norms interact with and modify the application of the norms of the Law of the Sea. Regarding the practice in this field, it synthesizes knowledge concerning the interplay between Refugee Law and the Law of the Sea. International legal obligations include rescuing refugees at sea, disembarking them and then ensuring that they are protected and not returned to situations of danger where their lives may be at risk.
The main concerns of refugee law include the right to seek and enjoy asylum and non-refoulement. In contrast, the Law of the Sea considers interdiction operations against asylum seekers at sea to be justified. The national interest is a complex issue in the maritime field. Flag states are responsible for vessels and people in distress. Both treaty and customary coastal states have carefully guarded and indeed increased their power to regulate activities in coastal waters against asylum seekers. The author argues that by examining the relevant treaties, customary international law January 2024 and the jurisprudence of international tribunals, the primary concern should be the safety of persons in distress at sea. Asylum seekers must be dealt with humanely, effectively, and equitably. The current balance of rights and duties of coastal States, flag States and persons requiring international protection would involve a serious reconsideration of the sovereign responsibilities of States, which would have wider repercussions.
Leave a Reply