In August 2017, several European and African leaders met on the invitation of the French President Macron in Paris in order to develop new strategies and new ways of cooperation to cut migration into Europe from northern Africa in order to resolve the proclaimed ‘migration and refugee crisis’ and to protect the European Union from unwanted migrants.

From the outset, the European migration and asylum policy has been shaped by efforts to establish an efficient migration management system in order to protect the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice from the new security threat ‘irregular migration’. The extraterritorialisation of immigration control measures beyond actual territorial borders forms part of this strategy. Pre-border control mechanisms composed of administrative, legislative and operational measures, are largely perceived as effective means to channel flows of migrants prior to the borders, avoiding logistical and financial burdens for Member States. From a legal perspective, the shift of borders raises important questions related to the creation of nebulous legal zones where responsibilities for norms related to the protection of refugees may be circumvented by states and other actors involved in migration control activities.

This book tries to reconcile the motives behind extraterritorialisation strategies with their actual legal consequences. It focuses on the examination of the legal frameworks governing situations where a refugee meets state authority in the context of extraterritorial immigration control measures. It approaches the topic from the hypothesis that international and European obligations not only constrain extraterritorial acts of states or specialised agencies, but give rise to concrete responsibilities. The study shows that international, European and human rights law provide for a rather well-equipped ‘tool box’ to hold states responsible for violations of protection norms even if occurring outside the territory of a state or beyond European borders. Furthermore, the study proves as well that the establishment of responsibilities for violations of protection related norms occurring in the context of extraterritorial immigration control measures is a rather theoretical undertaking without major practical implications. Opportunities to invoke responsibilities for human rights violations occurring in the context of extraterritorial immigration control measures are still limited, undermining the effective access to protection for refugees and persons in need of international protection.