Kathmandu School of Law Review

P-ISSN : 2091-2110, E-ISSN : 2773-8159, DOI : 10.46985, Publisher : Kathmandu School of Law, Nepal
Annual flagship journal of Kathmandu School of Law, Nepal

Volume 5, Issue 2, November 2017
Articles

The Extra-Territorial Applicability of the Principle of Non-Refoulement and Its Interception with Human Rights Law

PDF
  • Shishir Lamichhane
Shishir Lamichhane
Nepal Law Campus, Tribhuvan University
Bio

Published 2017-11-30

How to Cite

Lamichhane, S. (2017). The Extra-Territorial Applicability of the Principle of Non-Refoulement and Its Interception with Human Rights Law. Kathmandu School of Law Review, 5(2), 137–155. Retrieved from https://kslreview.org/index.php/kslr/article/view/987

Abstract

The varying nature in treatment of refugees before and after the cold war is quite observable from the perspective of the ideological differences. The interest of asylum seekers was hardly promoted and protected in the absence of uniform state practices. It was further more affected because of non-reconciliation of the principle of non-refoulement and right of individuals to seek asylum. The paper talks about the challenges of the European Countries in framing policies and mechanisms to address the dysfunctionality of the refugee system. The paper further discusses the significance of international instruments and the extraterritorial application of those instruments along with mechanisms to address the problem of therefugees. The paper emphasizes on the duty of the states to take steps to ensure that the refugees must have 'protection somewhere' adhering to the principle of sharing burden/responsibility and to have a greater solidarity among the states.

PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. See generally James C. Hathaway, ‘The Evolution of Refugee Status in International Law: 1920–1950’, vol. 33, no. 2, Int’l & Comparative L. Quarterly, 1984, p. 348; See AtleGrahlMadsen, ‘The European Tradition of Asylum and the Development of Refugee Law’, vol. 3, no. 3, J. Peace Research, 1966, p. 278; B. S. Chimni, ‘The Geopolitics of Refugee Studies: A View from the South’, vol. 11, no. 4, Journal Refugee Studies,1998, p. 350; Matthew J. Gibney& Randall Hansen, ‘Asylum Policy in the West: Past Trends, Future Possibilities’, U.N. University Discussion Paper No. 2003/68, 2003.
  2. Chimni (n 1), p. 351 (“…once the Cold War ended, the need to maintain the stability of the international refugee law regime was not a priority with States which had won it. Indeed, its dismantling assumed relative urgency since the refugee no longer possessed ideological or geopolitical value”).
  3. B. S. Chimni, ‘Globalisation, Humanitarianism and the Erosion of Refugee Protection’, RSC Working Paper No. 3, Refugee Studies Centre, 2000.
  4. See generally James C. Hathaway & Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, ‘Non-refoulement in a World of Cooperative Deterrence’, vol. 53, Columbia J. of Transnational L., p. 237, 2015, pp. 237-284.
  5. See Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugees in International Law, Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 118.
  6. Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, ‘The Right to Seek Asylum: Interception at Sea and the Principle of Non-refoulement’, vol. 23, no. 3, Int’l J. of Refugee L., 2011, p. 144.
  7. Ibid.
  8. In the present day crisis, states have been engaged in intercepting refugees or repatriating them from well beyond their territories. This has created more challenges for independent investigation agencies to investigate into the reality of the incident. One good example of such an event is that of the possible violations of the rights of the asylum seekers and refugees in the off chore processing camps set out by Australia, where Australia itself carried out the investigation process, which was not considered to be reliable by many agencies.
  9. Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, ‘The Extra-Territorialization of Asylum and the Advent of “Protection Lite’, DIIS Working Paper Series Paper No. 2007/2, Danish Institute for International Studies, 2001, p. 1.
  10. Chimni (n 3), p. 10.
  11. Safe Country is a notion that primarily developed in the European Union and forms a vital part of its asylum system. In practice, the safe country notion has been operating in two ways: Safe Third Country and the First Country of Asylum. Within the framework of the EU Laws, safe third country means the safe third country is the concept that Member States may send applicants to third countries with which the applicant has a connection, such that it would be reasonable for him/her to go there, and in which the possibility exists to request refugee status and if s/he is found to be a refugee, it must be possible for him/her to receive protection in accordance with the 1951 Convention. In that third country, the applicant must not be at risk of persecution, refoulement or treatment in violation of Article 3 of ECHR. While the first country of asylum concept denotes the country where the asylum seeker first stayed for a period of time (specified by the statute) and where the asylum seeker could have applied for protection. However, in practice, with regard to the ‘first country of asylum’ concept, the cases audited showed that the designation of a country as a safe country of asylum is made on an individual basis taking into account the particular applicant. See UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), ‘Improving Asylum Procedures: Comparative Analysis and Recommendations for Law and Practice - Key Findings and Recommendations’, 2010, p. 60.
  12. See generally James C. Hathaway & Michelle Foster, ‘Internal Protection/Relocation/Flight Alternative as an Aspect of Refugee Status Determination’ in E. Feller (eds.), Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR’s Global Consultation on International Protection, UNHCR, 2003, pp. 357-417.
  13. See generally Savitri Taylor, ‘Protection Elsewhere/Nowhere', vol. 18, no. 2, Int’l J. of Refugee L. p. 283, 2006, pp. 283-312.
  14. Hathaway & Foster (n 12), p. 360.
  15. See generally James C. Hathaway, ‘The Emerging Policies of Non-Entrée’, vol. 91, Refugees, 1992, pp. 41-42.
  16. Volker Türk, the Director of International Protection (UNHCR), in the 60th Meeting of the Standing Committee Agenda item 2: International Protection (1 July 2014) stated that the developing countries were hosting 86% of the world’s refugees at the end of 2013.
  17. Victoria Metcalfe-Hough, ‘The Migration Crisis? Facts, Challenges and Possible Solutions’, 2015, p. 2, available at https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/...files/9913.pdf; European Commission, ‘ECHO Factsheet: Syrian Refugees’, May, 2016, p. 1; OECD, ‘Is this Humanitarian Migration Crisis Different?’, no. 7, Migration Policy Debates, 2015, p. 1; Charlotte Alfred, ‘What History Can Teach Us About the Worst Refugee Crisis Since World War II’, The Huffington Post (September 15, 2015), available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alexander-betts-refugeeswwii_ us_55f30f7ce4b077ca094edaec, accessed on 21 September 2017.
  18. States like Greece and Italy at the frontline of refugee arrivals and some of the destination countries at far north like Germany are at dismay with the lack of solidarity in the EU about sharing the responsibility towards refugees. Following this, there had been, however, a response from Germany to no longer apply the Dublin Regulations. See European Union: Council of the European Union, Regulation No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast), 29 June 2013, OJ L. 180/31-180/59; 29.6.2013, (EU)No 604/2013; Mathew Holehouse, ‘Germany Drops EU Rules to Allow in Syrian Refugees’, The Telegraph (August 24, 2015), available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11821822/GermanydropsEU-rules-to-allow-in-Syrian-refugees.html; A. Rangarajan, ‘Different Refugees, Different Responses’, The Hindu (September 3, 2016), available at http://www.thehindu.com/features/magazine/a-rangarajan-looks-back-at-a-time-wheneuropeanrefugees-sought-refuge-in-west-asia/article9069730.ece
  19. (The Slovakian government has even made a manifestly macabre announcement that it will only take in Christian refugees, and that only in very small numbers. Poland’s right-wing government too has been unwelcoming); Charlotte England, ‘EUNations must not refuse Muslim Refugees, Angela Merkel Says’, The Independent,August 29, 2016, available athttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-crisis-eu-europe-angelamerkelmuslim-refugees-migrants-asylum-seekers-a7214791.html, accessed on 21 September 2017.
  20. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), ‘NATO Summit Guide, Warsaw, 8-9 July, 2016’, 2016, p. 4 (Under Co-operation with the EU Section, NATO presents its intention to work together with the EU in dealing with the refugee crisis in line with its security challenges to the EU); S. Schmidt & Sewell Chan, ‘NATO Will Send Ships to Aegean Sea to Deter Human Trafficking’, NY Times,February 11, 2016, available at http://www. nytimes.com/2016/02/12/world/europe/nato-aegean-migrant-crisis.html;Rajeev Syal& Helena Smith, ‘Migrant Crisis: UK to Join NATO Refugee Patrols in Aegean’, The Guardian,March 7, 2016, available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016 /mar/07/uk-military-to-join-nato-refugee-patrols-in-aegean, accessed on 21 September 2017.
  21. SeeAlexandar Betts, ‘Forget the ‘War on Smuggling’ We Need to be Helping Refugees in Need’,The Telegraph,25 April, 2015, available at https://www.theguardian.com/ commentisfree/2015/apr/25/war-on-trafficking-wrong-way-to-tackle-crisis-of-migrantdeaths (…smuggling does not cause migration; it responds to an underlying demand. Criminalising the smugglers serves as a convenient scapegoat, but it cannot solve the22 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1465, p. 85, 10 December 1984, art. 3.
  22. Aoife Duffy, ‘Expulsion to Face Torture? Non-refoulementin International Law’, vol. 20, no. 3, Int’l J. of Refugee L., 2008, p. 378.
  23. See generallyErika de Wet, ‘The Prohibition of Torture as an International Norm of Jus Cogensand its Implications for National and Customary Law’, vol. 15, European J. of Int’l L., p. 97, 2004.
  24. UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-refoulement Obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, 26 January 2007, para 21.
  25. UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), CCPR General Comment No. 20: Article 7 (Prohibition of Torture, or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment), 10 March 1992, para 9.
  26. Duffy (n 23), p. 381.
  27. Ibid, p. 380.
  28. Kindler v. Canada (1993), CCPR/C/48/D/470/1991, UN Commission on Human Rights, para 13.
  29. Duffy (n 23), p. 82; See also Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty, A/RES/44/128, adopted on 15 December 1989, art. 1(1) (Providing that, “[n]o one within the jurisdiction of a State Party to the present Protocol shall be executed.”).
  30. Duffy (n 23), p. 378.
  31. Ibid, p. 376.
  32. Ibid, p. 378.
  33. Chahal v. The United Kingdom (1996), 70/1995/576/662, ECHR, para 80 (The Court while mentioning Vilvarajah and others case, stated that, “[t]he prohibition provided by Article 3 (art. 3) against ill-treatment is equally absolute in expulsion cases. Thus, whenever substantial grounds have been shown for believing that an individual would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (art. 3) if removed to another State, the responsibility of the Contracting State to safeguard him or her against such treatment is engaged in the event of expulsion”).
  34. Ibid. (The court highlighted that, in circumstances when the individual has a real risk of being subjected to a treatment contrary to Article 3, the activities of the individual, however, undesirable or dangerous cannot be a material consideration. The protection provided by Article 3 is thus, much wider than that of provided by Article 33 of the Refugee Convention); See also Duffy (n 23), p. 379.
  35. Ireland v. The United Kingdom (1977), 5310/71, ECHR, para 163 (The Court held that, “[t]he Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's conduct. Unlike most of the substantive clauses of the Convention and of Protocols Nos. 1 and 4 (P1, P4), Article 3 (art. 3) makes no provision for exceptions and, under Article 15 para. 2 (art. 15-2), there can be no derogation therefrom even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation.”).
  36. Ralph Wilde, ‘The Extra-Territorial Application of International Human Rights Law on Civil and Political Rights’, inScott Sheeran (eds), Routledge Handbook of International Human Rights Law, 2013, p. 640.
  37. Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 579.
  38. Black’s Law Dictionary, online edition, 2009.
  39. Michal Gondek, The Reach of Human Rights in a Globalizing World: Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties, The School of Human Rights Research Series, vol. 32, 2009, p. 5.
  40. See Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 189 United Nations Treaty Series 137, 28 July 1951, art. 33(1).
  41. Under this provision, which is also incorporated into Article 1 of the 1967 Protocol, the term “refugee” shall apply to any person who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his [or her] nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to avail him [or her]self of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his [or her] habitual residence is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to return to it.
  42. Exclusion from international refugee protection means denial of refugee status to persons who come within the scope of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention, but who are not eligible for protection under the Convention because: - they are receiving protection or assistance from a UN agency other than UNHCR (first paragraph of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention); or because
  43. - they are not in need of international protection because they have been recognized by the authorities of another country in which they have taken residence as having the rights and obligations attached to the possession of its nationality (Article 1E of the 1951 Convention); or because - they are deemed undeserving of international protection on the grounds that there are serious reasons for considering that they have committed certain serious crimes or heinous acts (Article 1F of the 1951 Convention).
  44. Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, HCR/1P/4/ENG/REV., 3 December 2011, para 28.
  45. UNCHR, Executive Committee, Conclusion No. 6 on Non-refoulement states in paragraph c: Reaffirms the fundamental importance of the observance of the principle of non-refoulement both at the border and within the territory of a State of persons who may be subjected to persecution if returned to their country of origin irrespective of whether or not they have been formally recognized as refugees.
  46. Sir Elihu Lauterpacht & Daniel Bethlehem, ‘The Scope and Content of the Principle of Nonrefoulement: Opinion’, in E. Feller (eds), Refugee Protection in International Law, UNHCR, Global Consultations on International Protection, 2003, p. 76.
  47. See Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 14.
  48. Lauterpacht& Bethlehem (n 46), para. 76.
  49. V872/00A v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2002), FCAFC 185.
  50. James C. Hathaway, Rights of Refugees under International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 301.
  51. The Haitian Centre for Human Rights et al. v. United States (1997), Case 10.675, IACHR.
  52. Ibid.
  53. Ibid, paras 28-31.
  54. Ibid, Dissenting Opinion.
  55. Hathaway (n 50), p. 337.
  56. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331, 23 May 1969.
  57. Lauterpacht & Bethlehem (n 46), para 40; See also Shaw (n 38), p. 839.
  58. See VCLT, art. 22.
  59. Lautrpacht & Bethlehem (n 46), para 71.
  60. UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-refoulement Obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, 26 January 2007, para 29.
  61. See David Cantor, ‘Reframing Relationships: Revisiting the Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination in light of Recent Human Rights Treaty Body Jurisprudence’, vol.34, no. 1, Refugee Survey Quarterly, 2014.
  62. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 United Nations Treaty Series 171, 16 December 1966.
  63. Delia Saldias de Lopez v. Uruguay (1981) CCPR/C/13/D/52/1979, UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), para 12.3 (The Committee held that, “Article 2(1) of the Covenant places an obligation upon a State party to respect and to ensure rights "to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction", but it does not imply that the State party concerned cannot be held accountable for violations of rights under the Covenant which its agents commit upon the territory of another State, whether with the acquiescence of the Government of that State or in opposition to it.”).
  64. Ibid, para 12.2.
  65. Advisory Opinion Concerning Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 9 July 2004, paras 109, 111 (“The court observed that while the jurisdiction of States is primarily territorial, it may sometimes be exercised outside the national territory. Considering the object and purpose of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it would seem natural that, even when such is the case, States parties to the Covenant should be bound to comply with its provisions. And thus, the Court considered that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is applicable in respect of acts done by a State in the exercise of its jurisdiction outside its own territory”).
  66. UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), General comment no. 31 [80], The nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, 26 May 2004, para 10 (“States Parties are required by article 2, paragraph 1, to respect and to ensure the Covenant rights to all persons who may be within their territory and to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. This means that a State party must respect and ensure the rights laid down in the Covenant to anyone within the power or effective control of that State Party, even if not situated within the territory of the State Party.”).
  67. Ibid.
  68. UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), CCPR General Comment No. 20: Article 7 (Prohibition of Torture, or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment), 10 March 1992, para 9 (“In the view of the Committee, States parties must not expose individuals to the danger of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to another country by way of their extradition, expulsion or refoulement.”).
  69. The term “extra-territorial application” should be understood as in the sense when a state when it ratifies certain international treaties or its own domestic laws are generally applicable within its own territory. For example, a person in the custody of USA Army outside of USA, even though not in the territory of USA is still under the effective jurisdiction of USA and thus any such laws ratified by USA that provides for the protection of the person under custody, should therefore be respected by USA authorities.
  70. Mohammad Munaf v. Romania (2009), CCPR/C/96/D/1539/2006, UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), para 14.2.
  71. Ibid.
  72. Ibid.
  73. See Convention Against Torture.
  74. J.H.A. v. Spain (2008), CAT/C/41/D/323/2007, UN Committee against Torture (CAT).
  75. See, e.g., UN Committee Against Torture, Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture : Egypt, CAT/C/CR/29/4, 23 December 2002, para 4 (“The Committee is aware of the difficulties that the State party faces in its prolonged fight against terrorism, but recalls that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever can be invoked as a justification for torture, and expresses concern at the possible restrictions of human rights which may result from measures taken for that purpose.”); See also Craig Forcese, ‘Spies without Borders, International Law and Intelligence Collection’, vol. 5, J. of National Security L. & Policy, 2011, p. 179.
  76. Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture concerning the second report of the United States of America, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/USA/CO/2, 25 July 2006, para 15; See also Duffy (n 23), p. 378.
  77. Duffy (n 23).
  78. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, ETS 5, 4 November 1950.
  79. Ibid, art. 19.
  80. Marco Milanovic, ‘Human Rights Treaties and Foreign Surveillance: Privacy in the Digital Age’, vol. 56, Harvard Int’l L. J. 1, 2015.
  81. See European Convention on Human Rights, art. 3.
  82. Soering v. The United Kingdom (1989), 1/1989/161/217, ECHR; See also ErilRoxstorm et al., ‘The NATO Bombing Case (Bankovic et al. v. Belgium et al.) and the Limits of Human Rights Protection’, vol. 23, no. 55, Boston Uni. Int’l L. J., 2005, p. 100.
  83. Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. United Kingdom, 2010, Application no. 61498/08, ECHR.
  84. Ibid, para 171.
  85. Ibid, para 122 (“Article 3, which prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, enshrines one of the fundamental values of democratic societies. It makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15, even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation.
  86. As the prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is absolute, irrespective of the victim's conduct, the nature of any offence allegedly committed by the applicant is therefore irrelevant for the purposes of Article 3.”).
  87. HirsiJamaa and Others v. Italy (2012), Application no. 27765/09, ECHR.
  88. Ibid, para 9.
  89. Ibid, para 10.
  90. Ibid, para 3.
  91. Ibid, para 5.
  92. See Christina M. Cerna, ‘Extra-Territorial Scope of the Human Rights Treaties: The American Convention on Human Rights’, in Fons Cons Coomans & Menno Kamminga (eds), Extra-Territorial Application of Human Rights Treaties, 2004, pp. 141-74.
  93. See The Haitian Centre Case (n 51).
  94. See for e.g., ibid, para 88 (In the reply submitted by the plaintiff in response to the reply submitted by the US government to the petition, the plaintiff maintained that: Customary international law in this case has been violated because there has been extensive and virtually uniform adoption of the policy of non-refoulement throughout the world. The policy of interdicting Haitians based on their national origin (while, coincidentally, liberally admitting others, such as Cuban nationals), and forcibly returning them to Haiti without asylum interviews of any sort, clearly violated the principle of non-refoulement).
  95. Ibid, para 156.
  96. Ibid, para 157.
  97. Ibid, para 167; See also Chris Sale, Acting Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al. v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., et al. (1993), 509 U.S. 155.
  98. Mohammad Munaf Case (n 70).
  99. Ibid.
  100. CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, (2015), HCA 1.
  101. UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), UNHCR Submissions in the High Court of Australia in the case of CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and the Commonwealth of Australia, NO S169 OF 2014.
  102. See also UNCHR, ‘UNHCR Legal Position: Despite Court Ruling on Sri Lankans Detained at Sea, Australia Bound by International Obligations’, UNHCR, February 4, 2015, http://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2015/2/54d1e4ac9/ unhcr-legal-position-despite-courtrulingsri-lankans-detained-sea-australia.html, accessed on 21 September 2017.
  103. UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), UNHCR intervention before the House of Lords in the case of European Roma Rights Centre and Others v. Immigration Officer at Prague Airport, Secretary of State for the Home Department, 28 September 2004, para 6.3.
  104. Ibid, para 6.1.
  105. Ibid, para 14.
  106. UNCHR, Advisory Opinion on Extra-Territorial Nature of Non-refoulement (n 25).
  107. Ibid.
  108. For e.g., see ibid,p. 12 (UNCHR rejects the idea put forward by the Supreme Court of USA in the Sale case, where the court attached geographical limitation to the principle of nonrefoulement.) 108 Note on International Protection, A/AC.96/951, 13 September 2001.
  109. Justice A. M. North, ‘Extra-Territorial Effect of Non-refoulement’, Federal Judicial Scholarship, 9 September, 2001, available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedJSchol/2011/ 19.html, accessed on 21 September 2017.
  110. Vincent Chetail, ‘Are Refugee Rights Human Rights? An Unorthodox Questioning of the Relations between Refugee Law and Human Rights Law’, in Ruth Rubio-Martin (ed), Human Rights and Immigration, 2014, p. 69. problem. Rather like a “war on drugs”, it will simply displace the problem, increase prices, introduce ever less scrupulous market entrants and make the journey more perilous), accessed on 21 September 2017.