Page 128 - Rassegna 2020-1

OSSERVATORIO INTERNAZIONALE

In fact, it’s a long way to go to have a safe and reliable partner for regional
disembarkation arrangements, also taking into account that the European supra-
national courts’ case-law upholds the highest standards of human rights protec-
tion, applies them extraterritorially and prohibits any balancing test between
human rights and security. As a result, human rights violations of individuals
disembarked in third countries with the technical, operative and/or financial sup-
port and coordination of the EU and/or its Member States might be also attri-
butable to the EU and/or its Member States according to the principle of “con-
tactless responsibility” already invoked for «funds, training, and other capacity-
building activities delivered by EU Member States to Libya [...] for the explicit
purpose of ‘significantly reducing migratory flows’ [...] and ‘preventing departu-
res’»(19). The EU political support and funding of Libyan Coastguard (for SAR
activities) and Libyan centres (where those rescued at sea are returned and held)
has been heavily criticized and the EU has been accused of turning a blind eye to
human rights violations in order to halt irregular flows at any cost. The European
Council’s call to «all vessels operating in the Mediterranean [to] not obstruct ope-
rations of the Libyan Coastguard»(13) also met with harsh criticism.

8. The main problem is that the time-consuming process for making relia-
ble and safe the third countries that should partner with the EU in the imple-
mentation of the regional disembarkation platforms is at odds with present and
pressing needs of European politics, including the quest for more security and
the growing securitization of European policies in the field of asylum and
migration.
Securitization implies a new and different balance between security and
human rights and it is pursued also through a formalistic interpretation and
application of EU legal rules. Further to the regional disembarkation concept,
other hints are telling of the European quest for security at any cost: a) some
basic principles have been amended or suppressed (i.e., EU citizens no longer
undergo minimum checks when crossing EU external borders); b) the EU
return policy will be revised to allow wider use of swifter and simplified proce-
dures and detention for the purpose of preventing and combating irregular
migration(20) (21); c) the European Council and the Commission tried to deny
before the ECJ any binding value to the EU-Turkey Statement - criticized as «a
blueprint for human rights violations»(22) (23) - so as to keep on returning all
irregular migrants to Turkey regardless of their subsequent treatment and the
generic human rights assurances provided by Turkey; d) the Commission urged
Italy to develop «a national list of ‘safe countries of origin’ [to fast-track the
processing of applications for international protection and allow faster returns

126