The Libyan Search and Rescue Zone
From the start, it was nothing more than a convenient fiction, allowing Italy and Malta to evade their rescue obligations and giving the EU a pretext to curb arrivals by sea. At any cost.
The Libyan SAR zone in the central Mediterranean is widely considered non-functional. Libya lacks the infrastructure, fleet and coordination capabilities for maritime rescue, and its ports cannot be considered safe, given the widespread practice of detention, abuse and violence against migrants.
How little this zone ever had to do with saving lives at sea is evident from how it came into being:
Summer 2017 – first declaration. Libya's Government of National Accord under al-Sarraj declares its own SAR zone to the IMO (International Maritime Organisation). The designated area is simply the Tripoli Flight Information Region; exact coordinates are only submitted later. For the first time, Libya threatens civilian rescue ships with consequences should they continue to operate in the zone.
10 December 2017 – withdrawal. Libya withdraws its application after the IMO signals that the requirements for international recognition are not met. Above all, a functioning Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre (MRCC) is missing.
14 December 2017 – new application. Just four days later, Libya, backed by Italy, submits a new application. The problem of the missing coordination centre is not solved but outsourced: the MRCC function is effectively taken over by Italy, initially through an Italian navy vessel anchored in the port of Tripoli since August 2017.
End of June 2018 – entry into the IMO register. In the very week that EU heads of state and government wrangle over sealing off Europe at their migration summit in Brussels, Libya formally submits the details of the zone to the IMO. On 28 June 2018, it becomes official: the Libyan SAR zone is registered.
European border states, above all Italy and Malta, have built their operations on this: the zone allows them to shift their rescue and coordination responsibilities. They have coordinated pullbacks to Libya, sometimes openly, sometimes covertly. That this constitutes a violation of international law seems to change little.
Reports by NGOs and submissions to the IMO and the International Criminal Court describe the SAR zone as a "fiction" that endangers lives rather than contributing to saving them. The zone exemplifies the EU's strategy of externalising migration control while circumventing the legal obligation to save lives at sea.