CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

BIRUTĖ PRANEVIČIENĖ – VIOLETA VASILIAUSKIENĖ CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ humanitarian NGO ships, which operate even in the territorial waters of Libya. Therefore, the question arises – which rescue coordination centre should be the one coordinating the operation of rescue in the Libyan SAR area? According to the logic of the system of SAR regions and to the SAR convention, “unless otherwise decided by agreement between the centres concerned, the centre to be designated shall be the centre responsible for the area in which the search object was according to its last reported position”, 21 this centre “shall, as appropriate, inform other centres of all the circumstances of the emergency and of all subsequent developments”. Therefore, according to the provisions of the convention, the actions of SAR operations in the Libyan SAR area should be coordinated by the Libyan rescue coordination centre, if not agreed otherwise by Libya and Italy or Malta. Of course, the coordination needs to be timely and the RCC has to provide the necessary support in coordinating the SAR operation. The concern expressed in the “Workshop on search and rescue of refugees and migrants in the Mediterranean: Practitioners’ perspectives” in 2016 stressed the concern that there were cases where “responsible RCCs have proved hard to reach or have not provided the necessary support in coordinating SAR operations”. 22 The Obligations of Shipmasters of Vessels Taking Part in Search and Rescue in the Mediterranean Several international conventions regulate the duties of shipmasters regarding the incidents of search and rescue. They have “an obligation to render assistance to those in distress at sea without regard to their nationality, status or the circumstances in which they are found. This is a longstanding maritime tradition as well as an obligation enshrined in international law”. 23 The UNCLOS Convention stresses the obligation of the flag state to “require the master of a ship flying its flag, in so far as he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew or the passengers: (a) to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost; (b) to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress, if informed of their need of assistance, in so far as such action may reasonably be expected of him.” 24 Regarding the Italian Coast Guard Ships and EU mission ships, the flag state and organisation are Italy and the European Union, therefore, the requirement to uphold the international standards should come from these authorities. Regarding the NGO ships, it is the state of the registration of the ship (for example, in the case of the organisation MAOS it would be Malta, as the ship is registered in Malta) that should require the upholding of the rules of the law of the sea. The second convention enshrining the obligation to rescue persons in distress is the SOLAS Convention, stating that “the master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance, on receiving information from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possible informing them or 21 SAR convention, supra note 15, Annex, Art. 4.5.4.3. 22 The International Institute of Humanitarian Law. Workshop on Search and rescue of refugees and migrants in the Mediterranean: Practitioners’ perspectives. Sanremo, 7-9 March 2016. http://www.iihl.org/wp-content/ uploads/2016/05/IIHL-SAR-workshop-report-_March-2016.pdf accessed 30 May 2017. para. 11. 23 IMO, UNHCR. Rescue at Sea: A Guide to Principles and Practice as Applied to Migrants and Refugees. http://www.

unhcr.org/450037d34.pdf accessed 30 May 2017. 24 UNCLOS convention, supra note 7, Article 98.

130