Foxy,

There are thousands of pages on maritime law, some of which I have read.

Lucyface's latest comments were however, directly aimed at compliance to the UNHCR charter, and my reply as a result was framed in that context.

I did however, earlier in the thread refer to respected journal on maritime law focusing on interception.

Good morning SM I too like Australian native birds if we are to rush to the bottom I would like to tell you about the pink and grey Galah.
Look ago earning a place in our culture as that silly Galah, ring any bells.
You have missed your team of SG,s latest comments on the matter of tow back.
Head SG followed by your self, seem to now say you never intended to tow back.
Tony says after rising from his knees in Asia, he never wanted to tow the boats back.
SM I am sorry, yes true, for reminding you of the Galah you let your self look like in your child like put downs.
See if I continued to copy your new found posting style we would both push this site to the bottom, and that we should avoid.

Dear SM,

It's easier and faster to Google the Maritime and
International laws on dealing with people in distress at sea.
Educational as well.

Fmom your journal link,

"The chapter will argue that although the Law of the Sea leaves ample
room for states to cooperate for purposes of migrant interdiction, requirements
of human rights law, in particular those of a procedural nature, substantially
restrict the discretion of EUMember States to subject undocumented migrants
to various types of coercive measures at sea. It will conclude that the key
challenge facing EUMember States employing interdictions at sea is to develop
a meaningful human rights strategy which supplements and restrains the
policy of sea interdiction. The development of such a framework is however
controversial, as it may well imply that particular interdiction practices need
to be fundamentally reconsidered."

From within this: " substantially restrict the discretion of EUMember States to subject undocumented migrants to various types of coercive measures at sea."

Point being, there is no discretion available to Australia yet we insist we will do whatever we damn well please while remaining a signatory. Yup, WE will determine who comes...what basis...etc.

That's cheating.

LF,

a) This has nothing to do with the UNHCR convention.

b) You clearly have no clue what this means.

Re part (a) assuming we're talking about https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/16699/06.pdf?sequence=10 , the word "asylum" appears over 70 times, the term UNHCR over 32 times, so when it talks about "migrants" i.e. people seeking new homes without documents, its about asylum seekers.

Re part (b) really?