This Article is written by Nipun Vats of O.P. Jindal Global University, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.
Abstract
Refugee pushback practices, whereby states forcibly return asylum seekers without examining protection needs, systematically violate the non-refoulement principle enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention and customary international law. This paper examines pushback operations across multiple regions, analyzing their prohibition under refugee law, human rights law, and maritime law. Documented humanitarian consequences include violence, deaths, psychological trauma, and chain refoulement to persecution. States deliberately evade protection obligations through narrow legal interpretations, externalization arrangements with third countries, and operational techniques maintaining plausible deniability. These practices erode the non-refoulement principle and threaten the refugee protection regime. A profound accountability deficit characterizes pushback operations, with inadequate international enforcement mechanisms and states employing tactics to evade documentation and responsibility. Addressing this crisis requires ending pushback operations, strengthening accountability mechanisms, and reaffirming that protection obligations are non-derogable.
Keywords
Refugee pushbacks, non-refoulement principle, international refugee law, chain refoulement, state accountability
Introduction
The practice of pushbacks, whereby states forcibly return refugees and asylum seekers to their countries of origin or transit without proper examination of their protection needs, has emerged as one of the most pressing human rights challenges in contemporary international law. These operations, which occur at land borders, maritime zones, and airports, fundamentally undermine the cornerstone principle of refugee protection. the prohibition of refoulement. As global displacement reaches unprecedented levels, with over 110 million people forcibly multiple continents represents a crisis of compliance with international legal obligations and humanitarian principles.
Pushbacks occur in diverse geographical contexts, from the Mediterranean Sea where European states intercept boats carrying asylum seekers from North Africa, to the borders of the United States where migrants from Central America face summary expulsions, to Southeast Asian waters where Rohingya refugees are turned away, and at the frontiers of the European Union where migrants attempting to enter from Belarus, Turkey, or the Balkans are forcibly returned. While the specific methods and justifications vary, these practices share common characteristics. they bypass established asylum procedures, deny individuals the opportunity to present protection claims, often involve violence or coercion, and frequently result in chain refoulement where individuals are returned to places where they face further expulsion to countries where their lives or freedom are threatened.
The proliferation of pushback practices reflects tensions between state sovereignty concerns, domestic political pressures regarding migration control, and binding international legal obligations to protect refugees. States increasingly frame pushbacks as necessary border management measures, invoking national security, public health, or the prevention of irregular migration as justifications. However, international human rights law, refugee law, and maritime law establish clear obligations that prohibit such practices regardless of the political or practical challenges states face. The normalization of pushbacks threatens to erode the international refugee protection regime established in the aftermath of World War II and enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol.
This essay examines the international human rights concerns raised by refugee pushback practices, analyzing the legal frameworks that prohibit such actions, documenting the humanitarian consequences for affected individuals, exploring the erosion of the non-refoulement principle, and examining issues of accountability and state responsibility.
Legal Frameworks Prohibiting Pushbacks
The prohibition of pushbacks is grounded in multiple overlapping legal frameworks that together establish comprehensive obligations on states to ensure protection for refugees and asylum seekers. The foundational principle is non-refoulement, articulated in Article 33(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which provides that no state shall expel or return a refugee “in any manner whatsoever” to territories where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. This principle has achieved customary international law status, binding even states that are not parties to the Refugee Convention, and its prohibition extends to both direct refoulement to a country of persecution and indirect refoulement through chain deportations.
The temporal and spatial scope of non-refoulement obligations is critical to understanding why pushbacks violate international law. The obligation applies not only within a state’s territory but also at its borders and in areas under its jurisdiction or effective control, including territorial waters and, under certain circumstances, the high seas. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently held that states cannot evade their human rights obligations by intercepting individuals before they formally enter national territory, establishing that jurisdiction for human rights purposes extends to situations where states exercise authority or control over individuals, regardless of location.
Beyond refugee-specific law, international human rights law provides additional protections against pushbacks. The principle of non-refoulement is also embedded in human rights treaties, including Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, which prohibits states from expelling, returning, or extraditing persons to countries where there are substantial grounds for believing they would face torture. Regional human rights instruments have been interpreted to prohibit removal to places where individuals face serious human rights violations.
Procedural safeguards constitute another critical dimension of the legal framework. International law requires that individuals seeking protection must have access to fair and effective asylum procedures, including the right to have their claims individually examined, access to legal assistance, and the right to remain in the country pending determination of their claim. Collective expulsion, defined as any measure compelling non-nationals as a group to leave a country without reasonable and objective examination of each individual’s particular case, is explicitly prohibited under international law. Pushbacks, by their nature, constitute collective expulsion because they involve summary returns without individualized assessment of protection needs.
Maritime law adds further specificity to protection obligations in the context of sea rescues and interceptions. The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue obligate states to render assistance to persons in distress at sea and to deliver rescued persons to a place of safety. A place of safety is defined not merely as physical safety from immediate maritime danger but as a location where survivors’ human rights, including protection from refoulement, are respected.
Despite these clear legal prohibitions, states have developed various legal theories attempting to circumvent their obligations. Some argue that non-refoulement does not apply extraterritorially, a position decisively rejected by international courts and human rights bodies. Others contend that interceptions at sea or at borders do not trigger protection obligations, or that designation of third countries as “safe” countries permits returns without individualized assessment. International jurisprudence has consistently rejected these interpretations, affirming that protection obligations cannot be evaded through legal technicalities or creative interpretations of jurisdictional boundaries.
Humanitarian Consequences and Documented Abuses
The human cost of pushback practices is devastating and well-documented by international organizations, human rights groups, and journalists. Pushbacks subject vulnerable individuals fleeing persecution to serious physical harm, psychological trauma, deprivation of liberty, family separation, and heightened risks of exploitation, trafficking, and death. The methods employed in pushback operations frequently involve violence, with numerous documented cases of beatings, use of pepper spray and tear gas against families with children, forced stripping of clothing, confiscation of belongings, and exposure to harsh environmental conditions.
At the Greece-Turkey land border and along the Aegean Sea, extensive documentation by human rights organizations has revealed systematic pushback operations involving violent force. Reports describe border guards beating asylum seekers with batons, stripping them of clothing, stealing their possessions, and forcibly loading them onto boats or pushing them back across the border. In some documented cases, individuals have been detained in unofficial facilities near borders, held incommunicado without access to legal assistance or asylum procedures, and then summarily expelled.
Maritime pushbacks in the Mediterranean have resulted in numerous deaths and demonstrate particularly egregious violations of both refugee protection and maritime rescue obligations. European states have been documented providing support to Libyan Coast Guard forces that intercept boats and return people to Libya, despite widespread knowledge of systematic torture, sexual violence, forced labor, and extortion in Libyan detention facilities. The European Court of Human Rights found Italy’s practice of intercepting boats and returning people to Libya violated the prohibition of torture and collective expulsion. Similar patterns have been documented in the Aegean Sea, where Greek authorities and European border agency Frontex have been implicated in pushback operations.
The humanitarian situation at the United States-Mexico border has involved extensive use of Title 42 authority, initially invoked during the COVID-19 pandemic, to conduct rapid expulsions without asylum processing. This policy has resulted in hundreds of thousands of summary returns, with documented cases of families separated, unaccompanied children expelled in violation of trafficking protections, and individuals returned to Mexican border cities where they face kidnapping, extortion, and violence.
In Southeast Asia, pushback practices have targeted Rohingya refugees fleeing genocide in Myanmar and persecution in Bangladesh. Multiple countries have been documented pushing back boats carrying Rohingya asylum seekers, in some cases towing boats back to sea and abandoning them without adequate food, water, or fuel. These maritime pushbacks have resulted in deaths from starvation, dehydration, and drowning.
The psychological impact of pushbacks extends beyond immediate physical harm. Asylum seekers who experience pushbacks often suffer severe trauma from the combination of violence during the pushback operation, loss of safety and hope, and the prospect of being returned to the dangers they fled. Children are particularly vulnerable, with documented cases of family separation, detention in unsuitable conditions, and exposure to violence causing severe developmental and psychological harm.
Pushbacks also create vicious cycles of repeated danger and exploitation. When individuals are summarily returned, they often attempt the journey again, each time facing renewed risks of drowning at sea, abuse by smugglers, violence by border guards, and exploitation during transit. Women and girls face particular risks of sexual violence and exploitation during repeated journey attempts following pushbacks.
Erosion of the Non-Refoulement Principle
The proliferation and normalization of pushback practices represent a fundamental erosion of the non-refoulement principle, threatening the foundation of the international refugee protection regime. Non-refoulement has been described as the cornerstone of refugee protection, and its effectiveness depends on consistent respect and implementation by states. When major destination countries systematically violate this principle through pushback operations, it undermines the normative force of the prohibition and creates precedents that encourage other states to adopt similar practices.
The erosion occurs through multiple mechanisms. States have increasingly adopted narrow interpretations of their obligations, arguing that non-refoulement does not apply in specific geographical zones, during specific operations, or to specific categories of people. These interpretive restrictions, though rejected by international courts and human rights bodies, gain political traction and influence other states’ practices. The rhetoric of “border management” and “migration control” increasingly frames pushbacks as legitimate sovereignty exercises rather than violations of binding legal obligations.
Second, the development of sophisticated legal and operational techniques to evade protection obligations demonstrates a deliberate strategy to undermine non-refoulement while maintaining plausible deniability. These techniques include conducting interceptions in international waters or immediately upon entry before individuals can formally apply for asylum, designating transit countries as “safe third countries” despite evidence of protection gaps, using migration control agreements with third countries to externalize border enforcement, and employing non-state actors to conduct actual pushback operations.
The concept of chain refoulement has become central to understanding how pushbacks erode non-refoulement protections. Chain refoulement occurs when an individual is returned to a country that subsequently returns them to another country where they face persecution or serious harm. International law clearly prohibits such indirect refoulement, yet pushbacks routinely return people to transit countries with inadequate asylum systems, known practices of further expulsion, or where individuals face serious human rights violations. The return of asylum seekers to Libya, where systematic torture and abuse in detention centers is well-documented, exemplifies how pushbacks facilitate chain refoulement to places of extreme danger.
Regional cooperation agreements and externalization policies have institutionalized practices that erode non-refoulement protections. The European Union’s cooperation with Turkey, Libya, and other countries involves financial support and training for border control forces that conduct interceptions and returns, effectively outsourcing Europe’s legal obligations while maintaining that the actual returns are conducted by third countries outside European jurisdiction. Similar externalization efforts occur in other regions, with destination countries providing funding, equipment, and political pressure to transit countries to prevent onward movement.
The normalization of exceptions to protection obligations represents another dimension of erosion. States increasingly invoke public health concerns, national security threats, or migration management challenges as justifications for suspending or limiting asylum access. While international law permits limited exceptions to some rights during genuine emergencies, the prohibition of refoulement is non-derogable, meaning it applies even during armed conflict, public emergencies, or other crises. Nevertheless, policies like the United States’ Title 42 expulsions have effectively suspended refoulement protections for hundreds of thousands of people despite the non-derogable character of the obligation.
The cumulative effect of these erosion mechanisms is a protection environment where the prohibition of refoulement, once considered absolute and inviolable, has become contingent, selective, and increasingly disregarded. This erosion has profound implications beyond individual cases of violation. It signals to persecuting states that refugees may find no protection, potentially emboldening human rights abusers. It undermines the reciprocal nature of the international refugee regime, where states accept protection obligations with the understanding that other states will do likewise.
Accountability Deficits and State Responsibility
A defining feature of pushback practices is the profound accountability deficit that characterizes their implementation and the corresponding challenges in establishing state responsibility under international law. Despite clear violations of binding legal obligations, perpetrators of pushbacks rarely face meaningful consequences, creating a culture of impunity that encourages continued violations.
States employ numerous tactics to evade accountability for pushback operations. These include conducting operations without proper documentation, using unmarked vehicles and boats, deploying masked or unidentified personnel, confiscating phones and cameras to prevent evidence gathering, conducting pushbacks in remote areas or at night, and systematically denying that pushbacks have occurred despite overwhelming evidence. Greek authorities, for example, have repeatedly denied conducting pushbacks in the Aegean Sea despite extensive documentation from international organizations, journalists, and survivors.
The use of third-party actors and proxy arrangements further obscures responsibility. When European states provide training, funding, and equipment to Libyan Coast Guard forces that conduct interceptions and returns, questions arise about attribution of conduct under international law. The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility establish that states can be responsible for acts of non-state actors when they exercise direction and control over specific operations or when they aid or assist another state in commission of an internationally wrongful act. However, proving the requisite level of direction and control can be challenging, particularly when states structure their cooperation to maintain plausible deniability.
International enforcement mechanisms, while theoretically available, face significant practical and political limitations. Regional human rights courts, particularly the European Court of Human Rights, have issued important judgments condemning pushback practices and affirming states’ obligations. However, these courts can only address cases brought by individual applicants who successfully navigate complex admissibility requirements and face lengthy proceedings often lasting years.
The United Nations human rights system provides monitoring and reporting through Special Rapporteurs and treaty bodies, but lacks binding enforcement powers. While UN human rights experts have issued strongly worded statements condemning pushback practices and calling for accountability, states can ignore these calls without meaningful consequences. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, while possessing supervisory responsibility for the Refugee Convention, has limited practical authority to compel state compliance with protection obligations.
Victims of pushbacks face enormous obstacles in seeking accountability and redress. Geographic distance, language barriers, lack of legal representation, fear of retaliation, and the precarious legal status that often results from being pushed back all impede access to justice. Many victims are pushed back to countries where they face persecution or detention, making it practically impossible to pursue legal claims against the state that conducted the pushback.
The political dimensions of accountability cannot be ignored. Powerful states conducting pushbacks face limited international pressure, particularly when multiple states engage in similar practices and have shared interests in avoiding accountability. International organizations dependent on state cooperation and funding may be reluctant to forcefully condemn pushback practices by major donor countries.
Some positive developments suggest potential pathways for enhanced accountability. Investigative journalism has brought pushback practices to public attention and created political pressure for accountability. Civil society organizations have developed sophisticated documentation methods, including analyzing satellite imagery and conducting interviews with survivors, creating evidence that can be used in legal proceedings and advocacy. Strategic litigation by human rights organizations has resulted in some successful cases establishing liability for pushbacks and creating legal precedents that may deter future violations.
Nevertheless, the overall accountability landscape remains deeply inadequate. Without meaningful consequences for violations, states lack incentives to change practices and instead become more sophisticated at evading detection. The gap between clear legal obligations and persistent impunity for their violation undermines the rule of law in international relations and signals that protection of refugees is optional rather than obligatory.
Conclusion
Refugee pushback practices represent a systematic assault on the international legal framework for refugee protection and a profound moral failure by states to uphold their obligations to the world’s most vulnerable people. The evidence is overwhelming that pushbacks violate binding international law, including the prohibition of refoulement enshrined in the Refugee Convention and customary international law, the prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment under human rights law, maritime rescue obligations, and the prohibition of collective expulsion. These violations are not isolated incidents but reflect deliberate policies implemented by numerous states across multiple regions, suggesting a global crisis in refugee protection.
The humanitarian consequences of pushbacks are severe and well-documented. Individuals fleeing persecution face violence, abuse, deprivation, and death as a result of being forcibly returned without assessment of their protection needs. The psychological trauma inflicted on adults and children, the family separations, the exposure to exploitation and trafficking, and the cycle of repeated dangerous journeys all demonstrate the human cost of policies that prioritize border control over human dignity and legal obligations. The deaths in the Mediterranean, the torture in Libyan detention centers, the violence at land borders, and the abandonment of boats at sea are not unfortunate side effects but predictable consequences of practices that treat human beings as illegal objects to be removed rather than rights-bearers entitled to protection.
The erosion of the non-refoulement principle through systematic pushback practices threatens the foundation of international refugee protection established in the aftermath of World War II. When this cornerstone principle becomes contingent rather than absolute, when states develop sophisticated legal and operational techniques to evade their obligations, and when exceptions and narrow interpretations proliferate, the entire refugee protection regime is undermined. The normalization of pushbacks sends a dangerous signal that protection obligations can be disregarded when politically convenient, encouraging a race to the bottom where states compete to create the most hostile environment for asylum seekers in hopes of deterring arrivals.
The accountability deficit surrounding pushback practices compounds these problems. Despite clear violations, perpetrators rarely face consequences, creating impunity that encourages continued violations. The combination of deliberate state efforts to evade documentation and responsibility, limitations in international enforcement mechanisms, political unwillingness to hold powerful states accountable, and practical obstacles facing victims creates a gap between legal obligations and practical enforcement.
Addressing the crisis of refugee pushbacks requires multifaceted action. States must acknowledge that pushback practices violate international law and cease these operations, replacing them with rights-respecting border procedures that provide access to asylum determination processes. International organizations must strengthen monitoring, documentation, and advocacy efforts. Regional human rights courts should continue developing jurisprudence that clarifies and enforces protection obligations. Domestic accountability mechanisms must be strengthened and insulated from political interference.
Civil society organizations play a crucial role in documenting violations, providing legal assistance to victims, pursuing strategic litigation, and maintaining political pressure for compliance with international law. States genuinely committed to refugee protection should leverage diplomatic channels and multilateral forums to pressure states conducting pushbacks to change their practices.
Ultimately, the proliferation of pushback practices reflects deeper challenges facing the international refugee protection regime. Growing numbers of displaced people, insufficient responsibility-sharing among states, inadequate support for countries hosting large refugee populations, and the exploitation of anti-immigrant sentiment by political leaders all contribute to an environment where states prioritize deterrence over protection. Sustainable solutions must address these underlying factors while unequivocally reaffirming that protection obligations are not negotiable and that pushbacks violate fundamental legal and ethical principles.
The international community faces a choice. It can allow the continued erosion of refugee protection through normalized pushbacks, accepting the humanitarian catastrophe and legal breakdown this entails, or it can recommit to the principles of the Refugee Convention and ensure that states fulfill their obligations to protect those fleeing persecution. History will judge harshly those who chose border control over the protection of human life and those who watched the refugee protection regime crumble through systematic violations while remaining silent. The imperative is clear. pushback practices must end, accountability must be established, and the non-refoulement principle must be restored to its rightful status as an absolute and inviolable protection for refugees.
REFERENCES
1. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. “Legal Considerations on the Return of Asylum-Seekers and Refugees from Greece to Turkey as Part of the EU-Turkey Cooperation in Tackling the Migration Crisis under the Safe Third Country and First Country of Asylum Concept.” International Journal of Refugee Law 28, no. 2 (2016). 229-244.
2. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. “Global Trends. Forced Displacement in 2023.” UNHCR, 2024.
3. Moreno-Lax, Violeta. “The EU Humanitarian Border and the Securitization of Human Rights. The ‘Rescue-Through-Interdiction/Rescue-Without-Protection’ Paradigm.” Journal of Common Market Studies 56, no. 1 (2018). 119-140.
4. Guild, Elspeth, et al. “Pushback, Expulsion and Effective Remedies.” CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe No. 91, 2016.
5. FitzGerald, David Scott, and Rawan Arar. “The Sociology of Refugee Migration.” Annual Review of Sociology 44 (2018). 387-406.
6. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 137.
7. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Article 33(1).
8. Lauterpacht, Elihu, and Daniel Bethlehem. “The Scope and Content of the Principle of Non-Refoulement.” In Refugee Protection in International Law. UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International Protection, edited by Erika Feller, Volker Türk, and Frances Nicholson. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
9. Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 27765/09 (2012).
10. M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 30696/09 (2011).
11. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 3, December 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85.
12. Goodwin-Gill, Guy S., and Jane McAdam. The Refugee in International Law. 3rd ed. Oxford. Oxford University Press, 2007.
13. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. “UNHCR Comments on the European Commission Proposal for a Regulation Establishing a Common Procedure for International Protection in the European Union.” UNHCR, 2010.
14. Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 4, September 16, 1963, ETS No. 46.
15. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, Chapter V, Regulation 33, November 1, 1974, 1184 U.N.T.S. 3; International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, April 27, 1979, 1405 U.N.T.S. 97.
16. International Maritime Organization. “Resolution MSC.167(78). Guidelines on the Treatment of Persons Rescued at Sea.” IMO, 2004.
17. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. “Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.” UNHCR, 2007.
18. Moreno-Lax, Violeta. “Accessing Asylum in Europe. Extraterritorial Border Controls and Refugee Rights under EU Law.” Oxford. Oxford University Press, 2017.
19. Amnesty International. “Between Life and Death. Refugees and Migrants Trapped in Libya’s Cycle of Abuse.” Amnesty International, 2020.
20. Border Violence Monitoring Network. “Annual Torture Report 2021.” BVMN, 2022.
21. Human Rights Watch. “Greece. Violence Against Asylum Seekers at Border.” Human Rights Watch, March 2020.
22. Forensic Architecture. “Pushbacks in Evros. A Forensis Investigation.” Forensic Architecture, 2022.
23. United Nations Support Mission in Libya and Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. “Desperate and Dangerous. Report on the Human Rights Situation of Migrants and Refugees in Libya.” UNSMIL-OHCHR, 2018.
24. Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy.
25. Forensic Oceanography. “Mare Clausum. Italy and the EU’s Undeclared Operation to Stem Migration Across the Mediterranean.” Forensic Architecture, 2018.
26. Human Rights First. “Illegal and Inhumane. The Biden Administration’s Use of Title 42 to Expel Asylum Seekers.” Human Rights First, 2021.
27. Amnesty International. “Deadly Journeys. The Refugee and Trafficking Crisis in Southeast Asia.” Amnesty International, 2015.
28. Human Rights Watch. “Thailand/Malaysia. Trafficked Refugees Moved to Jungle Camps.” Human Rights Watch, May 2015.
29. Silove, Derrick, et al. “Mental Health in Immigration Detention.” International Journal of Mental Health 29, no. 2 (2000). 3-33.
30. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. “General Comment No. 6. Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children Outside Their Country of Origin.” CRC/GC/2005/6, 2005.
31. Mixed Migration Centre. “Quarterly Mixed Migration Update. Mediterranean.” MMC, 2021.
32. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. “Sexual and Gender-Based Violence Against Refugees, Returnees and Internally Displaced Persons.” UNHCR, 2003.
33. Allain, Jean. “The Jus Cogens Nature of Non-Refoulement.” International Journal of Refugee Law 13, no. 4 (2001). 533-558.
34. Hathaway, James C., and Michelle Foster. The Law of Refugee Status. 2nd ed. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, 2014.
35. Bourbeau, Philippe. The Securitization of Migration. A Study of Movement and Order. London. Routledge, 2011.
36. Gammeltoft-Hansen, Thomas. Access to Asylum. International Refugee Law and the Globalisation of Migration Control. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, 2011.
37. Goodwin-Gill and McAdam, The Refugee in International Law.
38. European Council on Refugees and Exiles. “Chain Refoulement in the Turkish-Greek Context.” ECRE, 2008.
39. Amnesty International, “Between Life and Death.”
40. Fink, Melanie. “A ‘Blind Spot’ in the Framework of International Responsibility? Third-Party Responsibility for Human Rights Violations. The Case of Frontex.” In The Borders of European Union Justice and Home Affairs. Regulation, Accountability and Flexibility, edited by Mariana Gkliati. Leiden. Brill Nijhoff, 2016.
41. Lavenex, Sandra. “Shifting Up and Out. The Foreign Policy of European Immigration Control.” West European Politics 29, no. 2 (2006). 329-350.
42. Koh, Harold Hongju. “The Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors During Pandemics.” Journal of Human Rights Practice 12, no. 2 (2020). 284-292.
43. International Commission of Jurists. “The Principle of Non-Refoulement Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” ICJ, 2020.
44. Kerwin, Donald, and Robert Warren. “US Foreign-Born Workers in the Global Pandemic. Essential and Marginalized.” Journal on Migration and Human Security 8, no. 3 (2020). 282-300.
45. Hathaway, James C. “The Global Cop-Out on Refugees.” International Journal of Refugee Law 30, no. 4 (2018). 591-604.
46. Tan, Nikolas Feith, and Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen. “A Topographical Approach to Accountability for Human Rights Violations in Migration Control.” German Law Journal 21, no. 3 (2020). 335-354.
47. Border Violence Monitoring Network, “Annual Torture Report 2021.”
48. Forensic Architecture, “Pushbacks in Evros.”
49. Den Heijer, Maarten, et al. “Coercion, Prohibition, and Great Expectations. The Continuing Failure of the Common European Asylum System.” Common Market Law Review 53, no. 3 (2016). 607-642.
50. International Law Commission. “Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.” UN Doc. A/56/10, 2001.
51. Pallis, Mark. “Obligations of States Towards Asylum Seekers at Sea. Interactions and Conflicts Between Legal Regimes.” International Journal of Refugee Law 14, no. 2-3 (2002). 329-364.
52. N.D. and N.T. v. Spain, European Court of Human Rights, Applications Nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15 (2020).
53. Çorabatır, Metin. “The Evolving Approach to Refugee Protection in Turkey. Assessing the Practical and Political Needs.” Migration Policy Institute Europe, 2016.
54. Alston, Philip. “The Myopia of the Handmaidens. International Lawyers and Globalization.” European Journal of International Law 8, no. 3 (1997). 435-448.
55. United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants. “Pushback Practices and their Impact on the Human Rights of Migrants.” UN Doc. A/HRC/47/30, 2021.
56. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. “Statute of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.” UN General Assembly Resolution 428(V), 1950.
57. Spijkerboer, Thomas. “The Human Costs of Border Control.” European Journal of Migration and Law 9, no. 1 (2007). 127-139.
58. Garlick, Madeline. “The EU Discussions on Extraterritorial Processing. Solution or Conundrum?” International Journal of Refugee Law 18, no. 3-4 (2006). 601-629.
59. Thielemann, Eiko R. “Why Refugee Burden-Sharing Initiatives Fail. Public Goods, Free-Riding and Symbolic Solidarity in the EU.” Journal of Common Market Studies 56, no. 1 (2018). 63-82.
60. Boswell, Christina. “The ‘External Dimension’ of EU Immigration and Asylum Policy.” International Affairs 79, no. 3 (2003). 619-638.
61. New York Times Editorial Board. “Europe’s Inhuman Treatment of Migrants.” The New York Times, September 2021.
62. Forensic Architecture. “The Left-to-Die Boat.” Forensic Architecture, 2012.
63. Markard, Nora. “The Right to Leave by Sea. Legal Limits on EU Migration Control by Third Countries.” European Journal of International Law 27, no. 3 (2016). 591-616.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
