The usage of pre-border control in order to prevent migration flows outside a state’s territory is a common phenomenon. Extraterritorial migration regulation and management is a top priority within the EU today and often settled through different kinds of bilateral agreements between receiving states and third countries. The results of these agreements, that allow interception of migrant boats in the Mediterranean Sea and different kinds of push-back measures, are however deeply concerning. Due to the violations of human rights and abuses of migrants in Libya the UNHCR has underlined that the country cannot be considered a safe place for the disembarkation of these people. In light of the state responsibility to protect human life at sea and respect the prohibition of refoulement, these extraterritorial measures may constitute violations of international refugee law and human rights law. The aim of this essay is to explore the extent of the principle of non-refoulement with regard to the obligation of states to rescue people in distress at sea and deliver them to a place of safety. In particular I examine the possible ways of extra-territorial jurisdiction in the high seas to determine whether states can be held responsible for returning – or more commonly in recent years for providing financial, technical and operative support in order to return – migrants to Libya. The study shows that Italy, through its cooperation with the Libyan coastguard, may be in breach of the principle of non-refoulement despite the lack of direct and physical control over the people concerned. Further it affirms that the prohibition on refoulement may have substantial significance in the assessment of the concept “place of safety”.

The interest of suppressing migrant smuggling at sea is to be considered as part of state sovereignty and the state’s right to migrant control. This combat against criminal activity at sea is a balance between state security interest and ensuring the safety of migrants on board suspected vessels. There are a rising number of voluntary rescue organisations at sea that face trials, suspected of aiding migrant smugglers. This is a problematic fact against the big need for search and rescue operations. Despite the perilous nature of sea-crossings, maritime migration is a common phenomenon. Betweenyear 2014 and year 2020 there were20 959people reported dead in the Mediterranean Sea. Public international law provides the duty to render assistance at sea. The legal area of maritime rescuealsocoversthe coastal state dutyto promote the establishment and maintenance of adequate and effective search and rescue service. This thesis aims to analysethe conflict between the, within state sovereignty, right to control immigration and the state duty to render assistance at sea. Using aninternational legal perspective, it examines the extent of the state duty of maritime rescue.Furthermore, it examines the regulation concerning migrant smuggling and asks whether the measures taken by states against the smuggling of migrantsat seais in line with international law. The analysis concerns areas within international law of the sea, international refugee law as well as international human rights law. Vital regulations are the principle of non-refoulement and the right to life.The examination shows that the right to life reinforces thestate duty to render assistance at seaand that the principle of non-refoulement collides with extraterritorial migration control. Furthermore, it shows that the criminalisation of voluntary organisations at sea collides with the state duty to promote an effective search and rescue service. In summarythis analysis displaysthat the state interest of combating migrant smuggling wrongfully takes priority over the duty to render assistance and the respect for human rights concerning migrants at sea