When aerial surveillance becomes the Sine Qua Non for interceptions at sea: mapping the EU and its member states’ complicity in border violence

Kapogianni, V. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6512-9054 and Magugliani, N. (2023) When aerial surveillance becomes the Sine Qua Non for interceptions at sea: mapping the EU and its member states’ complicity in border violence. In: Czech, P., Heschl, L., Lukas, K., Nowak, M. and Oberleitner, G. (eds.) European Yearbook on Human Rights 2023. Intersentia, pp. 475-506. ISBN 9781839704543 doi: 10.1017/9781839704543.016

Abstract/Summary

Since the European Court of Human Rights’ findings in Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, European states have progressively moved away from ‘direct’ forms of interdictions and pushbacks, towards ‘indirect’ or ‘privatised' pushbacks (and pullbacks). The increased reliance on aerial assets, presented as a hybrid strategy for maritime surveillance and combating irregular migration, has raised legal and political challenges. While, in theory, technological tools could be neutral, they rarely are when placed in context, as their use is influenced by the objectives of their owners and/or users. The dronisation of the EU’s stronghold, in conjunction with Member States ’ increasing activities beyond their territorial borders, has muddied the already murky waters of jurisdiction. The critical question addressed herein is whether the airborne cooperation-based mechanisms with third countries – as a cutting-edge trend for bridling asylum-seekers and other migrants from reaching EU borders – are capable of insulating Member States from complicity and legal liability in ways that the first generation of pushback strategies were not. Could aerial surveillance, and the chain of events that unfolds because of such surveillance, be enough to establish a jurisdictional link? This contribution argues that the current understandings of jurisdiction are unable to capture new modalities of ‘soft’ and ‘detached’ control, which nonetheless result in violations of international human rights law and international refugee law. A dynamic and evolutive interpretation of jurisdiction that considers technological developments and their impact on the exercise of control, the contribution argues, is not only necessary, but also essential, to avoid protection gaps and unaccountability.

Item Type	Book or Report Section
URI	https://reading-clone.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/114692
Identification Number/DOI	10.1017/9781839704543.016
Refereed	Yes
Divisions	Arts, Humanities and Social Science > School of Law
Publisher	Intersentia
Download/View statistics	View download statistics for this item