| About the Author |
|
xii | |
| Preface |
|
xiii | |
| Acknowledgements |
|
xv | |
|
|
|
xvi | |
|
|
|
1 | (8) |
|
|
|
2 | (2) |
|
|
|
4 | (1) |
|
|
|
4 | (2) |
|
|
|
6 | (2) |
|
|
|
8 | (1) |
|
2 Do European Immigration Policies Cause Border Deaths? |
|
|
9 | (8) |
|
1 Views of Academics and Policymakers |
|
|
10 | (1) |
|
|
|
11 | (1) |
|
|
|
12 | (3) |
|
|
|
15 | (2) |
|
3 The Legal Landscape of Border Deaths at Sea |
|
|
17 | (25) |
|
1 The Term `Jurisdiction' |
|
|
18 | (3) |
|
1.1 Prescriptive and Enforcement Jurisdiction |
|
|
18 | (1) |
|
1.1.1 Prescriptive Jurisdiction |
|
|
19 | (1) |
|
1.1.2 Enforcement Jurisdiction |
|
|
19 | (1) |
|
1.1.3 No Strict Hierarchy of Jurisdictional Bases |
|
|
20 | (1) |
|
1.2 Rules and Policies with Extraterritorial Effects |
|
|
20 | (1) |
|
1.3 Conclusion on Prescriptive and Enforcement Jurisdiction |
|
|
21 | (1) |
|
|
|
21 | (5) |
|
|
|
22 | (1) |
|
2.2 Internal Waters, Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone |
|
|
22 | (1) |
|
|
|
23 | (2) |
|
2.4 Conclusion on Jurisdiction at Sea |
|
|
25 | (1) |
|
3 Removal of a Territorial and National Link |
|
|
26 | (1) |
|
|
|
27 | (4) |
|
4.1 The Duty to Assist in Distress |
|
|
28 | (1) |
|
|
|
28 | (2) |
|
4.3 The SAR System Cannot Systematically End Border Deaths at Sea |
|
|
30 | (1) |
|
4.4 Conclusion on Search and Rescue |
|
|
30 | (1) |
|
5 Conclusion on the Legal Landscape of Border Deaths at Sea |
|
|
31 | (7) |
|
|
|
38 | (4) |
|
4 Application of the ECHR to the Extraterritorial Effects of Immigration Policies |
|
|
42 | (68) |
|
1 The Effective Control Concept |
|
|
43 | (7) |
|
1.1 The Doctrine of Effective Control |
|
|
43 | (1) |
|
1.1.1 The Core: Effective Control over Territory or Persons |
|
|
44 | (2) |
|
1.1.2 Alternative Grounds for Extraterritorial Application |
|
|
46 | (1) |
|
1.1.3 What Kind of Control |
|
|
47 | (1) |
|
1.1.4 The Degree of Control Required |
|
|
48 | (1) |
|
1.2 Conclusion on the Doctrine of Effective Control |
|
|
49 | (1) |
|
2 Cases Deviating from the Effective Control Concept |
|
|
50 | (45) |
|
2.1 Cases Involving Vessels |
|
|
51 | (1) |
|
2.1.1 Hirsi Jamaa and others v Italy |
|
|
51 | (2) |
|
2.1.2 Bakanova v Lithuania |
|
|
53 | (2) |
|
2.1.3 Kebe and others v Ukraine |
|
|
55 | (1) |
|
2.1.4 Conclusion on Cases Involving Vessels |
|
|
56 | (1) |
|
2.2 Cases Concerning Extraterritorial Effects of Legislative or Administrative Measures |
|
|
57 | (1) |
|
2.2.1 Kovacic and others v Slovenia |
|
|
58 | (3) |
|
|
|
61 | (1) |
|
2.2.3 Conclusion on Cases Concerning Extraterritorial Effects of Legislative or Administrative Measures |
|
|
62 | (1) |
|
2.3 Cases Concerning Article 56 ECHR |
|
|
62 | (1) |
|
2.3.1 Quark Fishing Ltd. v United Kingdom |
|
|
63 | (1) |
|
2.3.2 Chagos Islanders v United Kingdom |
|
|
64 | (1) |
|
2.3.3 Conclusion on Cases Concerning Article 56 ECHR |
|
|
65 | (1) |
|
2.4 Cases Concerning the Extraterritorial Effects of Force |
|
|
65 | (2) |
|
2.4.1 Pad and others v Turkey |
|
|
67 | (1) |
|
2.4.2 Kallis and Androulla Panayi v Turkey |
|
|
68 | (1) |
|
|
|
69 | (1) |
|
2.4.4 Al-Skeini and others v the UK |
|
|
70 | (2) |
|
2.4.5 Conclusion on Cases Concerning the Extraterritorial Effects of Force |
|
|
72 | (2) |
|
2.5 Cases Concerning the Lack of Control within the State |
|
|
74 | (1) |
|
2.5.1 Assanidze v Georgia |
|
|
74 | (3) |
|
2.5.2 Conclusion on the Cases Concerning the Lack of Control within the State |
|
|
77 | (1) |
|
2.6 The Ilascu Line of Cases |
|
|
77 | (1) |
|
2.6.1 General Background to the Situation in Transdniestria |
|
|
78 | (1) |
|
2.6.2 Facts in the Case ofIlascu |
|
|
79 | (1) |
|
2.6.3 Jurisdiction Ratione Temporis |
|
|
80 | (1) |
|
2.6.4 Jurisdiction Ratione Loci of Moldova |
|
|
80 | (4) |
|
2.6.5 Jurisdiction of Russia |
|
|
84 | (6) |
|
2.6.6 Conclusion on the Ilascu Line of Cases |
|
|
90 | (1) |
|
2.7 Distinguishing Between Difficulties of Implementation and Lack of Control |
|
|
91 | (1) |
|
2.7.1 Sargsyan v Azerbaijan |
|
|
91 | (1) |
|
2.7.2 Conclusion on the Case of Sargsyan |
|
|
92 | (1) |
|
2.8 Conclusions from the Court's Case Law |
|
|
93 | (2) |
|
3 Conclusion on the Application of the ECHR to the Extraterritorial Effects of Immigration Policies |
|
|
95 | (12) |
|
|
|
107 | (3) |
|
5 The Right to Life and Extraterritorial Effects of Immigration Policies |
|
|
110 | (59) |
|
1 The Duty to Prevent the Loss of Life |
|
|
111 | (20) |
|
|
|
111 | (2) |
|
1.1.1 The Identity of the Potential Victim |
|
|
113 | (2) |
|
1.1.2 Knowledge about the Risk |
|
|
115 | (1) |
|
1.1.3 The Nature of the Risk |
|
|
116 | (6) |
|
1.1.4 Circumstances Precluding the Application of the Duty to Prevent the Loss of Life |
|
|
122 | (3) |
|
1.1.5 Conclusion on the Scope of Application of the Duty to Prevent the Loss of Life |
|
|
125 | (1) |
|
1.2 Measures Required to Prevent the Loss of Life |
|
|
126 | (5) |
|
1.3 Conclusion on the Duty to Prevent the Loss of Life |
|
|
131 | (1) |
|
2 The Duty to Protect the Right to Life by Law |
|
|
131 | (4) |
|
|
|
132 | (1) |
|
2.2 Measures Required Under the Duty to Protect the Right to Life by Law |
|
|
132 | (3) |
|
2.3 Conclusion on the Duty to Protect the Right to Life by Law |
|
|
135 | (1) |
|
3 The Duty to Respond Adequately to the Loss of Life |
|
|
135 | (12) |
|
3.1 The Scope of Application of the Duty to Respond Adequately |
|
|
136 | (1) |
|
3.2 The Ratio of the Duty to Respond Adequately |
|
|
137 | (2) |
|
3.3 Requirements under the Duty to Respond Adequately |
|
|
139 | (7) |
|
3.4 Conclusion on the Duty to Respond Adequately to the Loss of Life |
|
|
146 | (1) |
|
4 The Right to Life and the Effects of Immigration Policies |
|
|
147 | (13) |
|
4.1 Applicability ofArticle 2 to the Loss of Life at Sea |
|
|
147 | (1) |
|
4.1.1 The Duty to Prevent the Loss of Life |
|
|
148 | (2) |
|
4.1.2 The Duty to Protect the Right to Life by Law |
|
|
150 | (1) |
|
4.1.3 The Duty to Respond Adequately to the Loss of Life |
|
|
150 | (1) |
|
4.1.4 Conclusion on the Application of Article 2 to the Loss of Life at Sea |
|
|
151 | (1) |
|
4.2 Measures Required under the Right to Life with Respect to the Loss of Life at Sea |
|
|
151 | (1) |
|
4.2.1 The Duty to Prevent the Loss of Life |
|
|
151 | (1) |
|
4.2.2 The Duty to Protect the Right to Life by Law |
|
|
152 | (1) |
|
4.2.3 The Duty to Respond Adequately to the Loss of Life |
|
|
152 | (1) |
|
4.3 Circumstances Relevant to Most Border Deaths |
|
|
152 | (1) |
|
4.3.1 The Loss of Life at Sea as a Structural Problem |
|
|
152 | (3) |
|
4.3.2 Agency of Migrants and Asylum Seekers |
|
|
155 | (2) |
|
4.3.3 Migrants and Asylum Seekers as an Identifiable Group |
|
|
157 | (2) |
|
4.4 Conclusion on the Measures Required under the Right to Life |
|
|
159 | (1) |
|
5 Conclusion on the Right to Life |
|
|
160 | (8) |
|
|
|
168 | (1) |
|
|
|
169 | (19) |
|
1 The Application of the ECHR to Border Deaths |
|
|
169 | (1) |
|
2 The Relevant Standards under Article 2 ECHR |
|
|
170 | (1) |
|
3 Do EU Immigration Policies Violate Article 2 ECHR? |
|
|
171 | (7) |
|
3.1 The Duty to Prevent the Loss of Life |
|
|
171 | (3) |
|
3.2 The Duty to Protect the Right to Life by Law |
|
|
174 | (1) |
|
3.3 The Duty to Respond Adequately to the Loss of Life |
|
|
175 | (3) |
|
3.4 Conclusion: Many Border Deaths are in Violation of Article 2 ECHR |
|
|
178 | (1) |
|
|
|
178 | (8) |
|
|
|
186 | (2) |
| Index |
|
188 | |