Limits of extraterritorial jurisdiction at sea: An analysis on interception of vessels embarked with illegal migrants or asylum seekers

Although it has gradually been deprived of its initial dominance, the principle of freedom of the high seas has long been and still is a basic principle of the current maritime law. The freedom of high seas does not only belong to coastal State but also to landlocked States. The principle provides all States including non-recognized free navigation. Moreover, the right to overflight as well as laying cables, pipelines, and enjoyment of the sea resources are not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of certain State or States. The usage of high seas is considered as in the character of res communis. Even if migration and crimes committed upon seas are long-standing incidents, recent development in navigation and struggles in many regions have escalated smuggling and trafficking activities. Migration has become one of the most common incidents to be faced in these seas. Recent incidents in the Mediterranean Sea demonstrate the weakness of international rules and their enforcement. It is also evident that international provisions are also failing to protect the migrants' fundamental rights including the right to life. Rescue operations for persons in imminent danger and interdictions against vessels carrying illegal migrants have unveiled absence of necessary regulations, or inadequate interpretation of some of them. In order to protect migrants' life and fundamental rights, it is required that international bodies must act proactively. Push back strategy from the maritime frontier and seaworthy boat practice for migrants upon the seas are the contemporary technics which clashed with the non-refoulement principle and the fundamental rights of the migrants. Extraterritorial application of right to life and non-refoulement are essential tools and responsibilities in migrant smuggling and interception measures in this regard.