New Technologies in International Law / Tymofeyeva, Crhák et al.

coordination with and on behalf of the Libyan Coast Guard and Navy (LCGN) of the Nivin , had impacted the right to life of the individuals involved, in a direct and reasonably foreseeable manner. Evidently, the Italian authorities acquired the relevant knowledge about the migrant’s boat in distress by virtue of the data transmitted by the said Spanish surveillance aircraft. As the LCGN could not deploy its own vessels to perform the ‘rescue’ of migrants at that time, the Nivin was instructed on their behalf to undertake the task. 918 In what followed, migrants realized that they were taken back to Libya and locked themselves in the hold of the ship, resulting in a standoff in the port of Misrata which lasted ten days. The Libyan security forces then intervened and forcefully removed the captured passengers from the vessel and subjected them to various forms of ill-treatment, including torture. This case illuminates the systematic pattern of EU aerial surveillance strategies that facilitate the privatized pushbacks of migrants to Libya, impede access to asylum and expose migrants to abuse and threats to life. 919 Manifestly, technology has been a great ally in preventing migrants from reaching Europe and accessing protection. It remains yet to be seen what the outcome of the Nivin incident will be. From the above illustrations it can be observed that migration technologies currently used and deployed in the Mediterranean have the effects of the banopticon, whereby international waters are used by States as a ‘moat’ to keep the unwanted ‘others’ out by intercepting boats carrying migrants and allowing State governments to invisibly circumvent their international obligations. 920 Therefore, the sea appears to have become a novel form of prison. In this context, Bigo’s apparatus of the banopticon helps in comprehending the essence of technologies utilised in controlling migration, which exemplifies a process of ‘othering’. In fact, the underlying notion of treating migrants with a sense of ‘otherness’ has evoked a segregated approach towards foreigners, non nationals, or non-citizens and has resulted in the proliferation of exclusionary bordering practices that are applied from the moment an individual attempts to leave from their country, constituting an absolute denial of the right to asylum. It is important as such to apprehend that the banopticon is rooted in the belief that control will only be for others . In this context, as FitzGerald has noted, the goal of remote control practices is to control the mobility of individuals while they are outside their intended State’ territory destination. 921 The urge to tie and address the unprecedented implications of technologies on the law, and, in particular, on human rights is profound. Hence, this (Anonymized Version) Submitted for Consideration under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to The United Nations Human Rights Committee’ ( GLAN , 2019) . 918 ‘Privatized Push-Back of the Nivin’ ( Forensic Architecture , 18 December 2019) . 919 GLAN, ‘Privatised Migrant Abuse by Italy and Libya’ . 920 FitzGerald D, ‘Remote control of migration: theorizing territoriality, shared coercion, and deterrence’ (2020) 46(1) Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 4, p. 12. 921 Ibid., p. 9.

218