Interceptions and the Protection of Refugees during Armed Conflicts

Abstract

Refugees are people who have been forced to flee their home country because they fear or have suffered persecution especially in (though not limited to) a situation of armed conflict. The protection of these people rests primarily on the States. The international refugee regime obliges States not to expel or refoule the refugees on their jurisdiction to the frontiers of a territory where there is threat to their life or freedom. However, international law does not prima facie prohibit States from refusing to allow entry to asylum seekers or from redirecting them to a “safe-third country”. The international community has witnessed innumerable instances where asylum seekers have been “turned back”. This process of preventing asylum seekers from entering a State’s territory is known as interception or interdiction. Interception may be or both physical and administrative nature. While both developed and developing countries have employed physical interception techniques (USA against Haitians (1980s), Italy against Libyans (2009), Turkey against Kurdish Iraqis (1991), Lebanon against Syrians (2013) etc.), developed countries also indulge in clandestine and complex administrative interceptions like visa requirements, carrier regulations etc. This has left thousands of refugees stranded on high seas without any hope or relief at sight. The interceptions and border closure measure by countries has demonstrated that States are either unwilling or unable to fend for the ever increasing load of refugees from around the world. This raises serious questions on the effectiveness of the current international regime. It is clear that this problem was not anticipated at the time of the drafting of the Refugee Convention. The increasing recurrence of internal armed conflicts, civil wars etc. amply clarifies that the number of asylum seekers is not likely to reduce anytime soon. Having identified and understood the gravity of the problem at hand, it is important to seek to a feasible unconventional solution that would be not just acceptable to the States but would also gratify the needs of the refugees and that would be the endeavour of this paper.