The performance of maritime search and rescue (SAR) is increasingly subject to political and legal discussions. The increase in irregular boat migration from the late 1970s onwards has significantly changed the context in which the SAR regime operates. The ensuing conflation of search and rescue with migration control provides a fundamental chal- lenge to the inherently functional and pragmatic approach foreseen in the SAR regime. The issue has become particularly acute in a European context, and in the Mediterranean region in particular, which has seen repeated instances of political impasses, port closures, reported non-per- formance or active pushbacks. The implications of political disputes and breakdowns in international cooperation are significant – most directly for migrants and others in distress at sea, but also for individual ship- masters and Danish shipping companies operating routes in areas where SAR responsibilities remain subject to dispute. But SAR also raises com- plex legal questions and creates political dilemmas for naval authorities and States which, like Denmark, actively participate in joint maritime operations as part, for example, of EU or NATO cooperation.
The present report offers an integrated analysis of the relevant inter- national legal obligations which implicate Danish naval forces in SAR operations in the Mediterranean. Beyond the political context, it argues that the current situation is a result of gaps and shortcomings in the ex- isting international legal SAR framework, attenuated by the growing politicisation of the issue of boat migrants in the Mediterranean. It sec- ondly points to the fact that SAR operations are governed by multiple different international legal regimes, the interaction between which is far from always smooth and often subject to significantly differing inter- pretations among both EU and Mediterranean States. It thirdly suggests that growing international cooperation and more complex structures for transnational law enforcement are raising new and complex question