The practice of Mediterranean States in the context of the European Union's justice and home affairs external dimension. The safe third country concept revisited

International Journal of Refugee Law

Volumn 18, Issue 3-4, 2006, Pages 571-600

  Gil Bazo, María Teresa ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASYLUM SEEKER; EUROPEAN UNION; HUMAN RIGHTS; IMMIGRATION POLICY; REFUGEE; SOCIAL JUSTICE;

EID: 33751502308     PISSN: 09538186     EISSN: 14643715     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eel017     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (122)

1. The European Parliament has repeatedly criticised an EU policy solely seeking to control its borders and safeguard its economic interests. In a Resolution past on 9 June 2005, the Parliament recalled that 'border checks and action to combat illegal immigration can be only one aspect of the EU's policies towards non-EU countries [and] considers that the EU cannot analyse its immigration policy solely from the point of view of its economic interest but must also take into account the reasons which force migrants to emigrate'. European Parliament Resolution on the links between legal and illegal migration and integration of migrants (2004/2131 (INI)), Doc. A6-0136/2005, 9 June 2005, para. 17.
2. The internal tension in the EU's own dynamics of border control becomes apparent when one compares the attempts to seal EU borders with the permeability of the same borders in relation to arms exports (a strong economic interest for the EU's Member States) that fuel conflict worldwide, which constitutes one of the main reasons of forced displacement. A report published in 2004 by Amnesty International and EDAI highlights the shortcomings and breaches of the EU's Code of Conduct on arms exports that have resulted in violations of international human rights and humanitarian law worldwide. Amnesty International, EDAI, 'Undermining Global Security: The European Union's arms exports', ACT 30/003/2004. A later report released in June 2005 by Amnesty International, Iansa, and Oxfam illustrates how the G8 countries (which include the UK, France, Germany and Italy) are among the world's leading arms suppliers, including to countries subject to an EU's arms embargo, such as Myanmar (Burma), China and Sudan. The report highlights the failure to enforce controls on the transfer of equipment that can be used for torture, ill-treatment and other human rights violations and the cost that arms exports have in human lives, lost livelihoods, socio-economic development, democracy, and opportunities to escape poverty. Amnesty International, Iansa, Oxfam, 'The G8: Global arms exporters. Failing to prevent irresponsible arms transfers', June 2005, 5.
3. The most sophisticated proposal in this regard is the one presented by the United Kingdom in Mar. 2003 for 'New International Approaches to Asylum Processing and Protection'. Letter from the UK Government to the Greek Presidency of the EU, available at: ,
4. J. Straw, 'Towards a Common Asylum Procedure', in Towards a Common European Asylum System. European Conference on Asylum (Lisbon: Serviço de Estrangeiros e Fronteiras, 2000) 133-139. While the nature of these proposals is not new, what is new is the legal framework where they would be developed, namely, that of Community competence on asylum matters.
5. M-T. Gil-Bazo, 'La protección de los refugiados en la Unión Europea tras la entrada en vigor del Tratado de Amsterdam a la luz del Derecho internacional de los derechos humanos', in F. M. Mariño Mcnéndcz and C. Fernández Liesa (dirs.), La protección de las personas y grupos vulnerables en el Derecho Europeo (Madrid: Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, 2001) 147-186.
6. Coordination of external affairs, conflict prevention, development and trade policies within a comprehensive framework are a priority if a serious attempt is to be made at addressing the root causes of migration. S. Castles, 'Why migration policies fail', (2004) 27 Ethnic and Racial Studies, 205-227 at 222.
7. See A. Betts, 'Towards A Mediterranean Solution? Implications for the Region of Origin'.
8. In the EU context, this includes Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union ([2002] OJ No C325/5); Article 63 of the Treaty Establishing die European Community ([2002] OJ C325/33); and Articles 18-19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, that recognizes the rights as they result, in particular, from the constitutional traditions and international obligations common to the Member States, which had already held to be binding by the European Court of Justice as general principles of Community law ([2000] OJ C364/1).
9. See M-T. Gil-Bazo, 'The Role of Spain as a Gateway to the Schengen Area: Changes in the Asylum Law and their Implications for Human Rights', 10 IJRL 214-229 (1998).
10. Among other developments, amendments to the Immigration Act were adopted in January 2000, December 2000, and November 2003; see (in Spanish), Ley Orgánica 4/2000, de 11 de enero, sobre derechos y libertades de los extranjeros en España y su integración social (BOE 12 de febrero de 2000 y corrección de error BOE de 24 de enero 2000; Ley Orgánica 8/2000, de 22 de diciembre, de reforma de la Ley Orgánica 4/2000, de 11 de enero, sobre derechos y libertades de los extranjeros en España y su intergración social; Ley Orgánica 14/2003, de 20 de noviembre, de reforma de la Ley Orgánica 4/2000, de 11 de enero, sobre derechos y libertades de los extranjeros en España y su integración social, modification por la Ley Orgánica 8/2000, de 22 de diciembre (BOE de 21 de noviembre de 2003); Real Decreto 1325/2003, de 24 de octubre, por el que se aprueba el Reglamento sobre régimen de protección temporal en caso de afluencia masiva de persona desplazadas (BOE núm. 256, de 25 de octubre de 2003); and Real Decreto 2393/2004, de 30 de diciembre, por el que se aprueba el Reglamento de la Ley Orgánica 4/2000, de 11 de enero, sobre derechos y libertades de los extranjeros en España y su integración social (BOE núm. 6 de 7 de enero de 2005).
11. J. Carling, 'Migration control and migrant fatalities at the Spanish-African borders', July 2005, at 11 (manuscript on file with the author).
12. Amnesty International, 'El asilo en España: Una carrera de obstáculos', Sept. 2001. A year later, Human Rights Watch issued two reports denouncing human rights violations in the treatment of asylum seekers and migrants by Morocco and Spain.
13. Human Rights Watch, 'The Other Face of the Canary Islands: Rights Violations Against Migrants and Asylum Seekers', Feb. 2002
14. and Human Rights Watch, 'Nowhere to Turn: State Abuses of Unaccompanied Migrant Children by Spain and Morocco', May 2002.
15. Amnesty International, 'Spain: The Southern Border', EUR 41/008/2005, 3.
16. The two countries signed a readmission agreement on 13 Feb. 1992 (BOE 25 Apr. 1992 and 30 May 1992).
17. Melilla (attached to the Crown of Castilla in 1497) and Ceuta (attached in 1581) constitute two of the nineteen 'Autonomous Communities' in which the Spanish territory is divided, in accordance with Article 144 and Transitional Declaration Five of the Spanish Constitution (ratified by referendum on 6 Dec. 1978, BOE of 29 Dec. 1978). The 'Autonomous Community' is one of the administrative and political entities for the territorial division of the State, according to Title VIII of the Spanish Constitution, and its structure and functions resemble those of States within Federal States. Ceuta and Melilla enjoy the same constitutional status than any other Spanish Autonomous Community.
18. UN News Service, 'Annan urges humane treatment of migrants trying to cross Morocco-Spain border', 7 Oct. 2005.
19. European Parliament, 'Report from the LIBE Committee Delegation on the Visit to Ceuta and Melilla' (ES). Rapporteur: Ms Ewa Klamt, Doc. PE 367.858v02-00, of 24 Jan. 2006.
20. For a detailed presentation of the way SIVE operates, see El Mundo on-line at .
21. CIVIPOL, 'Feasibility study on the control of the European Union's maritime borders'. Final Report. Transmitted to DG JAI on 14 July 2003. Doc. 11490/1/03 REV 1 FRONT 102 COMIX 458 Annex, 9. Amnesty International and other organizations, such as the Asociación Pro-Derechos Humanos de Andalucía (APDHA), have reported the lack of effective mechanisms for rescue at sea.
22. Amnesty International, n. 12 above, 54,
23. and APDHA, 'El Estrecho: La muerte de perfil. Los derechos humanos y la inmigración clandestina', Dec. 2003.
24. Carling, n. 10 above, 21-22.
25. Amnesty International, n. 12 above, 16-18, 30, and 51.
26. Likewise, in his 2003 Annual Report, the Ombudsman repeated his concerns at these delays and required that asylum applications be formalised with the greatest urgency, allowing only for the minimum necessary delay to ensure that safeguards be met, including access to the assistance of a lawyer and an interpreter. 'Defensor del Pueblo, Informe annual', 2003, 622.
27. M. Baldwin-Edwards, 'The Changing Mosaic of Mediterranean Migrations', (2004) Migration Policy Institute on-line.
28. Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 Feb. 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national. [2003] OJ L50/1.
29. Convention determining the State responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the Member States of the European Communities - Dublin Convention. [1997] OJ C254/1.
30. Dublin Regulation, Article 10.
31. Italy had previously refused permission to disembark on the grounds that the vessel had crossed 31 Malta's territorial waters. In July 2004, UNHCR raised its concerns at the way the cases had been subsequently handled, and which resulted in the deportation of 25 persons to Ghana and 5 to Nigeria in July, while 1 person received a temporary residence permit without going through the asylum procedure. UNHCR News Stories, 23 July 2004.
32. UNHCR News Stories, 8 June 2005.
33. UNHCR Press Release, 'UNHCR deeply concerned over Lampedusa deportations', 18 Mar. 2005. Similar criticism has been expressed by Amnesty International. Amnesty International letter to Franco Frattini, Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, 21 Mar. 2005
34. Amnesty International, 'Italy: Temporary stay - Permanent rights: The treatment of foreign nationals detained in "temporary stay and assistance centres'" (CPTAs) EUR 30/004/2005.
35. G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd edn., 1996), 161-7.
36. See also UNHCR, 'Background Note on the Protection of Asylum seekers and Refugees Rescued at Sea'. Expert roundtable, 'Rescue-at-Sea: Specific Aspects Relating to the Protection of Asylum seekers and Refugees' held in Lisbon, Portugal, on 25-26 Mar. 2002.
37. See also, M. Pallis, 'Obligations of States towards Asylum Seekers at Sea: Interactions and Conflicts Between Legal Regimes' 14 IJRL 329 (2002).
38. Doc. 15445/03 FRONT 172 COMIX 731, 28 Nov. 2003, 2.
39. Doc. 15087/04 FRONT 201 COMIX 709, 22 Nov. 2004. The Commission is expected to present its analysis by Mar. 2006 - see Commission Communication 'Priority Actions for responding to the challenges of migration: First follow-up to Hampton Court', COM(2005) 621 final, of 30 Nov. 2005, 5.
40. [1997] OJ C340. The Amsterdam Treaty was signed on 2 Oct. 1997 and entered into force on 1 May 1999.
41. The first set of legally binding instruments under this framework has already been agreed between 1999 and 2004, raising issues as to their lawfulness under Internatonal Refugee and Human Rights Law. The European Parliament has already brought an action against the Council before the European Court of Justice for violatios of International Human Rights Law in the 2003 Directive on Family Reunification (Case C-540/30, [2004] OJ C47/21) and it is conceivable that it may take the same steps in relation to the Directive on Asylum Procedures in the near future.
42. Within this context and in light of the ultimate goal of ensuring border control, the European Border Agency was created in 2004 to improve the coordination of operational cooperation between Member States in the field of external border management. Council Regulation (EC) no 2007/ 2004, of 26 Oct. 2004, establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Members States of the European Union. [2004] OJ L349/1.
43. Declaration on Principles of Governing External Aspects of Migration Policy, annexed to the Conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council, 11-12 Dec. 1992. Document SN 456/92, Annex 5 to Part A, para. ix.
44. Tampere European Council, 15-16 Oct. 1999, conclusion 11.
45. '[...] European laws or framework laws shall lay down measures for a common European asylum system comprising [...] partnership and cooperation with third countries for the purpose of managing inflows of people applying for asylum or subsidiary or temporary protection'. III-266(2)(g). [2004] OJ C310/1.
46. The legal basis for external action in the field of asylum and migration, however, already exists in the Treaties. See J. Monar, 'The EU as an International Actor in the Domain of Justice and Home Affairs', 9 European Foreign Affairs Review 395-415 at 396-9.
47. Modification of the terms of reference of the High Level Working Group on Asylum and Migration' (HLWG), Council Document 9433/02 of 30 May 2002, 2. Despite the apparent lack of subsequent activity, the JHA Council confirmed this role at its informal meeting of 27-29 Jan. 2005.
48. COM(2002) 703 final, of 3 Dec. 2002.
49. Regulation (EC) No 491/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 Mar. 2004 establishing a programme for financial and technical assistance to third countries in the areas of migration and asylum (AENEAS). [2004] OJ L80/1.
50. See 'JHA External Relations Multi-Presidency Programme', Council Document 5001/05 JAI 1 RELEX 1, of 3 Jan. 2005
51. and 'JHA External Relations Multi-Presidency Work Programme', Council Document 10728/05 JAI 244 RELEX 355, of 1 July 2005.
52. The ENP was presented by the Commission in Mar. 2003 and further to the approval of the Council, it was endorsed by the Thessaloniki European Council in June 2003. See 'Wider Europe Neighbourhood: A new Framework for relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours', COM(2003) 104 final, of 11 Mar. 2003. See also conclusions of the Thessaloniki European Council, 19-20 June 2003; doc. 11638/03 POLGEN 55, of 1 Oct. 2005. In Sept. 2004, the Commission presented a proposal for a financial instrument aimed at funding the ENP, including on migration, asylum and border controls - Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of The Council laying down general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrtunent, COM(2004) 628 final 2004/0219 (COD), of 29 Sept. 2004.
53. 'Wider Europe. Neighbourhood: A new Framework for relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours', COM(2003) 104 final, of 11 Mar. 2003, 3.
54. Commission Communication 'European Neighbourhood Policy Strategy Paper', COM(2004) 373 final, of 12 May 2004, 5.
55. 'The Hague Programme. Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the European Union', Council Document 14292/1/04 REV 1 of 8 Dec. 2004, Annex I.
56. 'The Hague Programme: Ten priorities for the next five years. The Partnership for European renewal in the field of Freedom, Security and Justice', COM(2005) 184 final, of 10 May 2005.
57. [2005] OJ C198/1, 2 June 2005.
58. Ibid., para. 2.7.(d).
59. The priorities also include the launching of effective regional protection pilot projects to build protection capacity for refugees in regions of origin and transit. 'JHA External Relations Multi-Presidency Work Programme', document 10728/05 JAI 244 RELEX 355, of 1 July 2005, 2, 3, 7.
60. See n. 3 above. On the issue of enhancing protection in the region within the context of the EU's JHA external dimension, see Oxfam, Foreign Territory. The Internationalisation of EU Asylum Policy (Oxford, 2005).
61. See also UNHCR's Strengthening Protection Capacity (SPC) Project, at . For an analysis of international cooperation to enhance protection in the region, see A. Betts, 'International Cooperation Between North and South to Enhance Refugee Protection in the Regions of Origin', Refugee Studies Centre Working Paper Series, July 2005.
62. Doc. 15914/05 CONCL 3, Annex I, of 17 Dec. 2005.
63. This follows the suggestion by the Commission in its Communication on 'Regional Protection Programmes', COM(2005) 388 final, para. 16.
64. Partnership Agreement between the Members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed at Cotonou in June 2000, available at .
65. On the significance of introducing readmission clauses in association and/or other mixed agreements, see D. Bouteillet-Paquet, 'Passing the Buck: A Critical Analysis of the Readmission Policy Implemented by the European Union and Its Member States', (2003) 5 AJML 359-377 at 368-71.
66. European Parliament Resolution, n. 1 above, paras. 17, 27, and 36.
67. When addressing the measures aimed at curbing illegal immigration by sea, CIVIPOL boldly suggests that financial cooperation between the EU and third countries should deal with 'the introduction and maintenance of administrative detention centres in the transit countries. In order to safeguard refugees' rights, where a sub-Saharan migrant is stopped at the Moroccan maritime border, he or she should be allowed to remain there in decent conditions for the time it takes an application for asylum in Europe to be processed. Where turned down, the applicant would then have to be repatriated to their country of origin'. CIVIPOL, n. 18 above, 85.
68. The Hague Programme itself calls for the separate study of the appropriateness and implications of joint processing of asylum applications within the Union and outside the EU territory. 'The Hague Programme. Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the European Union', Council Document 14292/1/04 REV 1 of 8 Dec. 2004, Annex 1, 18.
69. UNHCR News Stories, 1 Feb. 2005.
70. [2000] OJ L70/2. The Association Agreement entered into force on 1 Mar. 2000.
71. In its 2004 ENP Country Report on Morocco, the Commission states that 'in the political dialogue, Morocco has been one of more open partners as regards human rights and democratisation'. SEC(2004) 569, of 12 May 2004, 3.
72. Commission Communication Reinvigorating EU actions on Human Rights and democratisation with Mediterranean partners Strategic guidelines, COM(2003) 294 final, of 21 May 2003.
73. Euro-Med Partnership Morocco. National Indicative Programme 2005-2006, June 2004, 8-9. The components of the Programme to support the national plan for democracy and human rights are described in pages 30-3.
74. Doc. UE-MA 2704/05, of 23 May 2005, recital 2.
75. Art. 3 of the Rules of Procedure.
76. Art. 8 of the Rules of Procedure.
77. In 2003, Morocco had already adopted legislation that codifies crimes and penalties relating to irregular emigration attempts and people-smuggling, making them criminal offences and foreseeing more severe sanctions for traffickers, including imprisonment. Despite the lack of progress in the negotiations of a Community readmission agreement, agreements and minutes on readmission have been signed with various EU Member States. In particular, Morocco cooperates with Spain on border checks through a group that organises discussions, exchanges of information, liaison officers and joint patrols. On the contrary, Morocco has no formal agreements on migration matters with Sub-Saharan countries, but according to the Commission, it has recently managed to repatriate nationals of sub-Saharan countries in a series of ad hoc operations.
78. On the situation of Morocco as a transit country, see CIMADE, 'La situation alarmante des migrants subsahariens en transit au Maroc et les consequences des politiques de l'Union europeénne, Oct. 2004.
79. Action Plan for Morocco. Council Document 11426/99 JAI 75 AG 30, of 30 Sept. 1999.
80. The adoption of the Action Plan for Morocco was part of a broader initiative aimed at addressing the root causes of migration from 6 countries/regions of origin. Apart from Morocco, Action Plans were drawn for Sri Lanka, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Albania/Kosovo.
81. See 'High-Level Working Group on Asylum and Migration. Report to the European Council in Nice', Council Document 13993/00 JAI 152 AG 76, of 29 Nov. 2000, para. 51.
82. See also, M-T. Gil-Bazo, 'HLWG Action Plans: Assessment of the Human Rights Dimension', in ECRE, 'The ECRE Tampere Dossier. A Compilation of Non and Inter-Governmental Observations on the Special Meeting of the European Council on the Establishment of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice', 15-16 Oct. 1999,
83. 'Tampere, Finland and a selection of Presentations made at the "ECRE EU Tampere Summit Parallel Meeting"', June 2000, 59-60.
84. Commission Communication on the Commission proposals for Action Plans under the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). COM(2004) 795 final, of 9 Dec. 2004.
85. Commission Proposal for a Council Decision on the position to be adopted by the European Community and its Member States within the Association Council established by the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, with regard to the adoption of a Recommendation on the implementation of the EU-Morocco Action Plan. Doc. COM(2004) 788 final, of 9 Dec. 2004.
86. Doc. 11506/05 MA 16, of 27 July 2005.
87. Doc. UE-MA 2702/1/05 REV 1, of 27 July 2005, para. 46. The Action Plan is aimed at allowing for 'une mise en ouvre plus ciblée des instruments mis à disposition par l'accord d'association conclu entre PUE et le Maroc et appuiera l'objectif marocain d'une intégration plus forte des structures éconmiques et sociales marocaines à celles de l'Union Ce processus prévoit également le rapprochement de la législation, des normes et des standards marocains à ceux de l'Union dans de nombreux domaines, 2-3.
88. Doc. UE-MA 2702/1/05 REV 1, of 27 July 2005, para. 48.
89. Ibid., para. 51.
90. Commission Communication on the monitoring and evaluation mechanism of the third countries in the field of the fight against illegal immigration. COM(2005) 352 final, of 28 July, paras. 5.1-5.2.
91. Commission Communication 'European Neighbourhood Policy Strategy Paper', COM(2004) 373 final, of 12 May 2004, 12.
92. Commission Communication on the monitoring and evaluation mechanism of the third countries in the field of the fight against illegal immigration. COM(2005) 352 final, of 28 July 2005.
93. COM(2005) 352 final, of 28 July 2005, para. 4.1.
94. Commission's Report on the Technical Mission to Libya on Illegal Migration 27 Nov. 2004-6Dec. 2005. Document 7753/05. Despite numerous calls for the report to be made public, the document has not been officially disclosed. However, the report can be accessed at Statewatch's website at: .
95. Justice and Home Affairs Council conclusions, 2-3 June 2005. Document 8849/05 (Press 114).
96. Amnesty International, 'Immigration Cooperation with Libya: The Human Rights Perspective. Amnesty International briefing ahead of the Justice and Home Affairs Council', 14 Apr. 2005.
97. European Parliament Resolution on progress made in 2004 in creating an area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) (Articles 2 and 39 of the EU Treaty), B6-0327/2005, of 8 June 2005, paras. 24-25.
98. Commission's Report, n. 75 above, 6.
99. Ibid., 13.
100. COM(2005) 352 final, of 28 July 2005, para. 4.2.
101. See for instance, R v. Immigration Oficer at Prague Airport et al., ex parte European Roma Rights Centre et al. [2004] UKHL 55 9 Dec. 2004).
102. See for instance, D. v. UK (Judgment), (1997), European Court of Human Rights, para. 48.
103. See M-T. Gil-Bazo, The Right to Asylum as an Individual Human Right in International Law. Special Reference to European Law (Ann Arbor: UMI, 1999), 213-426.
104. See, for instance, Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay, Communication 52/1979, UN Human Rights Committee views of 29 July 1981
105. calan v Turkey (Judgment), (2003), European Court of Human Rights, para. 93, and calan v Turkey (Judgment), (2005), European Court of Human Rights [GC], para. 91.
106. For an analysis of the applicability of International Human Rights Treaties to extraterritorial State action see R. Wilde, 'Legal "Black Hole"? Extraterritorial State Action and International Treaty Law on Civil and Political Rights', (2005) 26 MJIL 739-806.
107. UN Human Rights Committee, 'General Comment No. 31 on Article 2 of the Covenant: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant'. CCPR/C/74/CRP.4/Rev.6 (General Comments), of 21 Apr. 2004, para. 10.
108. J. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 332-3.
109. C. Costello, 'The Asylum Procedures Directive and the Proliferation of Safe Country Practices: Deterrence, Deflection and the Dismantling of International Protection?', (2005) 7 EJML 35-70.
110. Articles 23(4)(c)(ii), 25(2)(c), 27, and 36, Council Directive 2005/85/ EC of 1 Dec. 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status [2005] OJ L326/13.
111. As it has been illustrated above, the nature of the EU's policies towards third countries in the field of asylum draws from both approaches to the STC concept.
112. Straw, n. 3 above, 137.
113. Letter from the UK Government, n. 3 above.
114. For a critique of these proposals, see G. Noll, 'Visions of the Exceptional: Legal and Theoretical Issues Raised by Transit Processing Centres and Protection Zones', (2003) 5 EJML 303-341 and Amnesty International, 'UK/EU/UNHCR Unlawful and Unworkable - Amnesty International's views on proposals for extraterritorial processing of asylum claims', IOR 61/004/2003.
115. 189 UNTS 2545, done 28 July 1951, entered into force 22 Apr. 1954.
116. 606 UNTS 8791, done 31 Jan. 1967, entered into force 4 Oct. 1967.
117. See for instance, Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 999 UNTS 171, done 19 Dec. 1966.
118. UN Human Rights Committee, n. 89 above, para. 6.
119. C. Phuong, 'Identifying states' responsibilities towards refugees and asylum seekers'. Paper presented at the ESIL Research Forum on International Law, May 2005. Copy on file with the author.
120. A. Fortín, The 'Safe Third Country' Policy in the light of the international obligations of countries vis à vis refugees and asylum seekers (London, 1993), paras. 1.1-1.2 and 2.2-2-3. (Copy on file with the author). On this particular point, when confronted with the plight of the vessel 'Cap Anamur', described above, Italy and Germany claimed the existence of an international norm imposing a duty on individuals to apply for asylum at the first port of entry. In the joint press release issued by the German and Italian Ministers of Interior in July 2004 in relation to the vessel 'Cap Anamur', whereby they consider an absolute duty to respect the international norm that imposes an obligation to lodge an asylum application in the country of first arrival (which they considered to be Malta, as the ship had crossed its territorial waters) and understood that a derogation of such norm, despite its humanitarian nature, would constitute a dangerous risk that could open the door to numerous abuses. 'La vicenda della nave "Cap Anamur" all'esame dei Ministri dell'Interno Pisanu e Schily. Incontro a margine della riunione informale a Sheffield, Comunicato stampa del 6 Jul. 2004. Available. at: www.interno.it. Subsequently, Italy agreed to allow the vessel to enter Sicily.
121. UN Human Rights Committee, n. 89 above, para. 6.
122. The UN Committee against Torture has already pronounced itself against the UK's understanding that the UN Convention against Torture is only limitedly applicable to the action of its armed forces abroad and has questioned the use of diplomatic assurances in removal cases. Committee against Torture, 'Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories', CAT/C/CR/33/3, of 10 Dec. 2004, at 4(b) and (d).