Between a 'Go Back!' and a Hard (to Find) Place (of Safety): On the Rules and Standards of Disembarkation of People Rescued at Sea

The State with the shore closest to the place of the maritime accident. The State where the humanitarian NGO scouring the seas to save the lives of migrants is registered. The flag State of the rescue vessel run by the NGO. The State of nationality of the shipowner or the charterer. These are all options that, in recent times, have surfaced in the comments of politicians and public officials, sometimes insistently, when speaking about the due place of disembarkation of people rescued at sea – the well-known place of safety. It can be doubted, however, that all these stances are sincere manifestations of legal convictions, as, for instance, it is hard to believe that a government can deem as lawful the pushing back of migrants to a State where their physical and psychological integrity is at risk, in spite of the principle of non-refoulement, just because such a country took on the coordination of the rescue mission. Therefore, it is likely that the confusion that reigns on this matter serves political purposes, to a great extent. This notwithstanding, the current situation may also be the result of a certain reticence of the existing international norms on the place of disembarkation of rescuees. This contribution aims at dispelling some misconceptions on the issue and advances the argument that, in general, the shipmaster retains a great deal of liberty in deciding where to make landfall.