The diplomatic showdown between Paris and Rome over the fate reserved for the 234 migrants on board theOcean Viking finally ended on Thursday 10 November. The French Interior Minister, Gérald Darmanin, announced at midday that the port of Toulon would welcome Friday, ” exceptionally “, the last of the four humanitarian boats stranded in the Mediterranean. A third of the passengers, all of whom fled Libya, will be “relocated” in France, he added, and those who will not meet the criteria for asylum seekers “will be renewed directly”.
The ship of the NGO SOS Méditerranée has asked Italy forty-three times to be able to disembark. In vain. He therefore took the direction of France on Tuesday. At first, the executive closed the door to a possible reception, sending Rome back to its responsibilities. “The European rule is that the boat must land in the nearest port, which is an Italian port”thus evacuated the Minister of the Economy, Bruno Le Maire, Thursday morning on France 2.
The day before, the government spokesman, Olivier Véran, had already asked Italy to “respecting its European commitments”welcoming theOcean Viking. “The boat is currently in Italian territorial waters, there are extremely clear European rules which have moreover been accepted by the Italians”recalled Mr. Véran, judging the attitude of Rome “unacceptable”. On Tuesday, the new Italian executive, led by the president of the far-right council Giorgia Meloni, presented France’s reception of the ship as a given. An announcement – denied by Paris – aimed at influencing the French position.
While Paris and Rome have constantly passed the buck, what does international law say about migrants rescued at sea? What are their rights once they have been picked up by a boat? What is planned for their disembarkation? The world make the point.
Disembark in a “safe place”
The law of the sea is governed by several international texts. First certainty: anyone in danger must be rescued. This obligation is notably enshrined in the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (abbreviated SOLAS, for « safety of life at sea »), adopted in 1974, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, for « United nations convention on the law of the sea »), adopted in 1982. “Any ship that is aware of a distress situation must stop if it is nearby or divert if it is closest to the area to take care of people whose life is threatened”explains Franck Dollfus, a lawyer specializing in the law of the sea. The only reservation: that his captain can do it without putting his boat and his crew in danger.
Then – and contrary to what Mr. Le Maire said – international law does not require disembarking in “nearest port” but in a ” safe place “. This is, according to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the UN agency responsible for ensuring the safety of maritime transport,“a place where rescue operations are supposed to end, where the lives of survivors are no longer in danger and where their basic needs can be met”. The obligation to disembark in a ” safe place “ et “as soon as reasonably possible” was added in 2004 to the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR, for « search and rescue »), originally adopted in 1979. In addition, still under the SAR Convention, States have an obligation to « coordination » and of ” cooperation “ to disembark rescued people in a place of safety. “Requirements vague enough to be subject to interpretation”emphasizes Franck Dollfus.
In summary, the law of the sea imposes to save migrants in danger, but it does not say which State must welcome them. “The maritime conventions were not designed with a view to settling migration issues. This results in a superimposition of sometimes contradictory texts., notes the lawyer. The Geneva Convention (1951), to which Italy is a signatory, states that a refugee should not be sent back to a country where his life or freedom is seriously threatened. “This principle can very well come up against the rules for welcoming foreigners, more or less strict, on national territory”, observes Franck Dollfus. which concludes: “We are faced here with a 100% political situation. »
No clear and lasting European mechanism
Docked in Catania (Sicily) since Sunday, the humanitarian boats Geo Barents of Doctors Without Borders (MSF) and Humanity 1 from the German NGO SOS Humanity were finally able to disembark all of their passengers on Tuesday. Initially, the Italian authorities only accepted minors and sick people. Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani confirmed on Wednesday that the sorting was a signal to force Europe to help Italy.
“By refusing to host the ‘Ocean Viking’, Italy is clearly calling into question an agreement which is nevertheless favorable to it”, considers Matthieu Tardis, of IFRI
“The blocking maneuvers by the government of Giorgia Meloni aim to demonstrate its hard line on immigration”, deciphers Matthieu Tardis, head of the Center for Migration and Citizenship at the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI). The researcher recalls that a similar situation had opposed, in the summer of 2018, Europeans to Italy. France and the far-right government of Matteo Salvini had notably clashed over theAquarius, the former SOS Méditerranée ship, which finally landed in June in Valencia, Spain. France had, for its part, refused to welcome the boat. At the time, Emmanuel Macron said that he did not want to give in to the “provocations of the extremes” and considered that such a scenario was not “not sustainable, even politically, in France for our own balances”.
In fact, the disembarkation of migrants by humanitarian ships is almost systematically the subject of tense negotiations between States, with a view to their distribution. At European level, the subject of the relocation of asylum seekers has poisoned the debate since 2015 and the so-called “refugee” crisis. At the time, the European Commission had proposed that all member countries welcome refugees in solidarity. But the states of central Europe had blocked the process.
In the absence of a clear and lasting European mechanism, agreements are therefore found on a case-by-case basis. “In June, in the wake of the French presidency [de l’Union européenne (UE)]things have progressed slightly: an agreement has been reached on the relocation of asylum seekers from the Mediterranean States (Italy, Cyprus, Greece, Spain, Malta) to other voluntary Member States”, explains Matthieu Tardis. Scheduled for a renewable one-year period, this mechanism is not legally binding. Countries that do not wish to welcome new migrants must, on the other hand, financially help those who support them.
For the researcher, “by refusing to accept theOcean VikingItaly is clearly calling into question an agreement which is nevertheless favorable to it”, although not very operational. For the time being, thirteen countries have undertaken to welcome 8,000 people, including 3,000 for Germany and 3,000 for France, in order to relieve the countries of first entry into Europe. In fact, according to the European Commission, Germany welcomed 74 in October, and France, 38, at the end of August. Matthieu Tardis sees despite everything in the attitude of Rome “a populist response from the Meloni government to satisfy its electorate”.