Rescue at sea and the establishment of jurisdiction : new direction from the Human Rights Part II Committee?

Abstract

We find it more plausible to focus on the second claim brought by the complainants which relates to “causal link” created through a delay or failure to act following a distress call. As Trevisanut ably explains in her article, a distress call can be seen to trigger the jurisdictional relationship necessary for grounding human rights responsibility due to the fact that once alerted to a situation of distress, the actions or inaction of the relevant RCC is one upon which the fate of those in distress is based. It is this factor we believe that triggers jurisdiction and thus responsibility for human rights protection. It can be convincingly argued that “effective control” (see, for example, para 7.4) is indeed present in such a case where a boatload of individuals are dependent upon the action of a State alerted to their situation.