Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy : implications for intervention on the high seas

Abstract

The unanimous decision delivered by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in early 2012 is a landmark judgment on many fronts. It represents a notable victory not only for the rights of migrants but for human rights more generally and has once again presented the ECtHR as a catalyst for change in the way States must understand and implement their human rights obligations. Through this decision, the status of interceptions and push-backs without a fair and effective screening procedure has been put beyond doubt: such operations constitute a serious breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and of the principle of non refouelement which is imbued in its terms. This paper outlines the key arguments dealt with by the Court and their implications to Malta. It starts by providing a brief overview of the facts of the case and then goes on to point out the salient legal principles of the judgment. The repercussions on Malta – indeed any State involved in intervention on the high seas – are not insignificant. The main thrust of the judgment however focusses on the recognition of human rights as a central obligation in any such intervention, forming part of the actual framework of intervention on the seas.