Protecting of the principle of non-refoulement during public health emergencies

Abstract

This study examines the COVID-19 implications for States’ non-refoulement obligations in light of a public health emergency. The approach gives particular consideration to Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Furthermore, it examines the legitimacy of COVID-19 as a justification for outright port closures through an examination of four main branches of international law in the context of maritime search and rescue activities: law of the sea, the regulations of the World Health Organization, human rights law, and refugee law. This work sets out the obligations imposed on States by each body of law and the application of such obligations during a public health emergency. The findings show that a public health emergency does not provide States with carte blanche to unilaterally disregard long-standing rules of international refugee law by exposing migrants to the risk of refoulement in consequence of blanket port closures, delay to coordinate search and rescue missions at sea, or pushbacks to unsafe third countries. Both the international and the European Union community play a fundamental role in developing a real and effective system of co-operation amongst States for enhanced protection of rescued migrants and the preservation of non-refoulement. This study identifies lacunae in international law, and attempts to put forward recommendations to develop more regulating rescue operations in a bid to secure the protection of the inherent rights of rescued migrants.