This introductory Article sets out the premise of the Special Issue, the entrenched and pervasive nature of human rights violations in the context of migration control and the apparent lack of accountability for such violations. It sets out features of contemporary migration control practices and their legal governance that contribute to this phenomenon, namely the exceptional treatment of migration in international law; the limited scope of international refugee law; and the pervasive use of externalized, delegated migration controls, in particular by the EU and its Member States. The roots of the current condition are traced back to the containment practices that emerged at the end of the Cold War, with the 2015 “crisis” framed both as an illustration of the failures of containment, and a source of further stasis. Following an overview of the contributions that make up the Special Issue, this Article identifies five emergent themes, and suggests further lines of inquiry. These are: the promise and limits of strategic human rights limitations; the role of both international criminal law, and domestic (and regional) tort law in securing accountability; the turn to positive obligations to challenge entrenched features of containment; and the role of direct action in support of and solidarity with those challenging migration controls most directly, refugees and migrants themselves. Rather than offering panaceas, the Article concludes with the identification of further new challenges, notably the role of new technologies in further dissipating lines of accountability for decisions to exclude.

This Article develops what we call a “topographical approach” to accountability in migration control. Drawing on different strands of scholarship, including legal geography, “legal black holes,” and work on strategic litigation, we approach accountability by perceiving the site of a violation from a bird's-eye view and mapping different accountability structures across diverse legal regimes and via a broadened geographic lens. Rather than advocating for accountability in regard to particular regimes or jurisdictions, we argue that multi-pronged approaches are likely to remain the best starting point for ensuring accountability for human rights violations in the context of current migration control practices. The topographical approach thus offers a general framework for identifying existing blind spots, critically assessing existing trajectories, as well as exploring the wider grid of potential accountability mechanisms.

This Article comparatively analyses how the prohibition of refoulement is interpreted by United Nations Treaty Bodies (UNTBs) in their individual decision-making, where we suggest they act as “soft courts.” It asks whether UNTBs break ranks with or follow the interpretations of non-refoulement of the European Court of Human Rights. This investigation is warranted because non-refoulement is the single most salient issue that has attracted individual views from UNTBs since 1990. Moreover, our European focus is warranted as nearly half of the cases concern states that are also parties to the European Convention on Human Rights. Based on a multi-dimensional analysis of non-refoulement across an original dataset of over 500 UNTB non-refoulement cases, decided between 1990–2020, as well as pertinent UNTB General Comments, the Article finds that whilst UNTBs, at times, do adopt a more progressive position than their “harder” regional counterpart, there are also instances where they closely follow the interpretations of the European Court of Human Rights and, on occasion, adopt a more restrictive position. This analysis complicates the view that soft courts are likely to be more progressive interpreters than hard courts. It further shows that variations in the interpretation of non-refoulement in a crowded field of international interpreters present risks for evasion of accountability, whereby domestic authorities in Europe may favor the more convenient interpretation, particularly in environments hostile to non-refoulement.

Available accounts on jurisdiction, effective control, and the reach of human rights protections fail to provide a coherent construction that is principled and applicable across the board, within and beyond territorial borders. The “functional jurisdiction” model posited herein resolves these incongruities by looking at the normative foundation of sovereign authority overall, predicated on an exercise of “public powers” through which State functions are discharged, taking the form of policy delivery and/or operational action, whether inland or offshore, and which translates into “situational” control. Using the pending case of S.S. and Others v. Italy as an illustration, the article focuses on the sovereign-authority nexus that unites a specific state with a specific individual in a specific situation, triggering human rights obligations even through mechanisms of “contactless control” exercised via remote management techniques and/or through a proxy third actor. The role of extraterritorial operations, qua complex mechanisms of governance that implement broader policies with a planning, rollout and post-implementation phase, is central to this re-conceptualization, as is also the understanding that what makes control “effective” is its capacity to determine the material course of events and the resulting position in which those affected find themselves upon execution of the measure(s) concerned.

In all the applications before the ECtHR concerning migration at sea, a preliminary, yet seminal, question is whether the applicants were within the jurisdiction of the respondent State, in terms of Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This question becomes even more apposite in contemporary situations of remote interception or search and rescue operations. In addressing the matter of jurisdiction in such cases, the law of the sea becomes of significant importance. This Article argues that as the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) has often taken into account human rights considerations, similarly, the European Court of Human Rights should read into the term “jurisdiction” under Article 1 of ECHR law of the sea considerations. Far from resurrecting Banković and the strict “general international law” notion of jurisdiction under ECHR, this Article only intends to shed some light on when a State would be considered as exercising such “authority and control over persons” in the maritime domain. In so doing, this Article will focus only on the potential application of the ECHR to the most common practices of States vis-à-vis migration on the high seas, namely interception and rescue operations.

According to EU policy documents, “[s]aving lives of people in distress is a primary goal of EU action in relation to managing the EU external borders.” The EU preferred strategy to achieve this objective is to take measures against human smuggling—including the establishment of cooperation with third countries—ostensibly so that migrants are contained and their irregular movement is prevented. This Article examines whether this strategy complies with the positive obligations corresponding to the right to life as enshrined in Article 2 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. After considering any formal obstacles that might prevent the activation of the Charter, this Article clarifies the factors that determine the scope of these positive obligations. Procedural and substantive obligations are then distinguished. The procedural positive obligation demands that the EU and its Member States (MS) consider alternatives to the measures of containment. Due to difficulties in assessing the reasonableness of such alternatives, the EU and the MS are also under the positive obligation to initiate studies that can provide reliable evidence that alternative measures—such as the possibility of issuing humanitarian visas—would be too burdensome. As to the substantive positive obligation corresponding to the right to life, this Article will argue that the EU and the MS need to be attentive about the cumulative outcome of their migration policies. The more successful they are in their indiscriminate containment policies—and the more unlikely any protection possibilities in the region of containment—the more likely it is that the positive obligation to protect life will remain unfulfilled.

Extraterritorial cooperation—including by providing funds, equipment, training, and technical support—has become central to policies aimed at preventing access of refugees and “irregular” migrants to particular countries and regions. But cooperating countries and international organizations have due diligence obligations under human rights law to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the cooperation they provide does not result in human rights violations, even when the violations are perpetrated extraterritorially by third parties. Consequently, they can become liable for the failure to exercise due diligence to prevent human rights violations from occurring in the receiving states. Also, they may incur responsibility for the resulting acts where they knowingly aided or assisted the receiving state to commit human rights violations with the support provided.

International organizations and some states have begun to adopt human rights due diligence policies to assess and mitigate the risks of such cooperation. Using the examples of European Union and United Kingdom support to Libya, this Article analyzes the due diligence policies they have applied to extraterritorial cooperation in the area of border control and the detention of refugees and other migrants. It finds that the policies as implemented have provided only superficial scrutiny and argues that they should be made more robust and transparent. Ultimately, this will help mitigate the human rights risks associated with extraterritorial assistance, and ideally help ensure that assistance contributes to the strengthening of human rights protections in recipient countries.

This Article focuses on the accountability challenges raised by the increased involvement of Private Military and Security Companies (PMSC) in migration control. I argue that migration control activities outsourced to PMSC can be classified as high-risk operations for the purposes of the application of relevant business and human rights standards. This reclassification of migration control activities as high-risk business operations, in turn, has two significant implications in terms of establishing accountability for PMSC’s wrongful conduct. First, it acknowledges that the privatization of migration control, especially within the context of continued containment and deterrence trends, entails a high risk of human rights abuses to which PMSC may contribute, both directly and indirectly. Second, this reclassification enables us to identify heightened obligations vested upon the home state of a PMSC, as well as the heightened responsibility of PMSC themselves. The article also examines what these heightened obligations and responsibilities entail.

The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) seeks to harmonize national asylum procedures. The initial implementation design of the CEAS, reflective of the theory of executive federalism, foresaw that national authorities were to conduct asylum processing and implement the harmonized norms. The implementation design of the EU asylum policy has, nevertheless, started to shift. An integrated European administration is emerging. One area this is pronounced in is asylum decision-making, where patterns of joint implementation have surfaced. This term broadly refers to staff and experts deployed by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), an EU agency, working alongside national administrators, including on the processing of asylum claims. This Article scrutinizes the emergence of joint implementation patterns in EU asylum policy and the resulting accountability challenge, drawing both from legal analysis and political science theories. I also refer to administrative practice as documented in secondary sources. EASO is currently subject to a mosaic of accountability processes. Two main pitfalls emerge: the intricate balance between accountability and independence; and accessibility for the individual. Against this backdrop, I focus on extra-judicial accountability through the European Ombudsman which, combined with the envisaged internal “individual complaints mechanism” within EASO, could go some way in ensuring applicants’ procedural rights.

Frontex has become one of the major players in European external border management. As its powers and resources have increased, so have the challenges surrounding its compliance with fundamental rights. A major concern continues to be how to ensure legal accountability for fundamental rights violations that occur in the context of its activities. While Member States can be held accountable before their own national courts and before international courts, neither of these options are available in relation to Frontex. But it can be brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union to account for the conformity of its conduct with EU law. This Article explores the potential of the EU action for damages to offer a remedy for fundamental rights violations committed by Frontex. It identifies where public liability law falls short of providing a remedy for fundamental rights violations committed by EU bodies, explores the possibilities to close that gap, and assesses the implications this has for Frontex’s liability. The Article argues that the action for damages may be the means to close the accountability gap in the specific case of Frontex, but also more generally in circumstances where EU administration is delivered in the form of informal or factual conduct. If it is to fulfill that role, the CJEU would have to lower the threshold for EU liability where fundamental rights are concerned.

Australia's offshore detention regime has been the subject of numerous attempts to seek accountability for harm caused to detainees using legal and other avenues in Australia. This Article examines recent strategic litigation actions against the Australian government and the corporate contractors engaged in offshore detention, including: Kamasaee v. Commonwealth; AUB19 v. Commonwealth; and actions seeking injunctions requiring the Australian government to airlift detainees to Australia for medical treatment. While these actions have vindicated the rights of those in offshore detention in specific ways, and in some instances facilitated compensation for harms caused while in detention, none have proved capable of challenging the underlying basis of the offshore detention regime, nor of providing a foreseeable end to the detention, whether by facilitating credible prospects for resettlement, or by other means. The Article provides an account of the achievements and limitations of these claims and concludes that although certain features of the Australian jurisdiction make it possible to pursue transnational claims, and thus potentially provide remedy for those who have suffered wrongs in Australia's offshore detention regime, such claims need to be pursued with the utmost care and with careful consideration of the complexities of the Australian political and legal environment.

Should we use the language of international criminal law (ICL) to discuss, analyze, and address Western policies of migration control? Such policies have included or resulted in indefinite and inhumane detention, deportations, including through practices of push- and pull-backs and numerous deaths of migrants attempting to cross land or sea borders. And yet, recourse to ICL's conceptual and rhetorical apparatus, often reserved for “unimaginable atrocities,” may seem ill-fitting and an emotive stretch of doctrine. Drawing from international strategic litigation practice on Australian and European policies, this article examines whether the legal concept of crimes against humanity can apply to the deaths, detention, and deportation of migrants, as part and consequence of Western policies of migration control. As migration control policies involve increasingly sophisticated practices of outsourcing and responsibility avoidance, I further ask whether the tools ICL has developed to describe system criminality can trace individual liability against the distance created by such policies. I also inquire into the potential that the transnational nature of migration and the spreading of anti-migration policies have in activating the jurisdiction of courts and the prioritization of the role of the International Criminal Court. Finally, I consider the danger of fetishizing an international punitive approach, before offering some thoughts that aim to bridge a critical approach to international criminal law with its use in meaningful strategic litigation. Throughout the Article, I argue that applying the categories of ICL to Western policies of migration control can contribute to revealing both the potential and the limits of the regime and its institutions, as well as the structures of asymmetry and injustice present both in anti-migration policies and in international criminal law itself.

Framing largescale migrant drownings as violations of international law has so far not been a straightforward task. The failures of doing so, both in scholarship and in activism, have often revealed important limitations of international law, and a form of rightlessness that is hard-wired in it. Through an assessment of arguments about drowning, framed in the vocabularies of the right to life, refugee law, the law of the sea, and international criminal law, difficulties surrounding the notion of jurisdiction persist: The maritime space has often functioned as a kind of “legal black hole.” Considering such difficulties, this Article suggests that shifting the focus from migrant rights to the civil and political rights of volunteers coming to the rescue, may help in closing the accountability gap. It thus seeks to articulate and conceptualize a form of maritime civil disobedience among rescue volunteers, which may provide the link for eliminating migrant rightlessness at sea.