Human Rights Law Review 12:3 ß The Author [2012]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com doi:10.1093/hrlr/ngs024 Advance Access publication 4 October 2012 ....................................................................... HirsiJamaa and Others v Italy or the Strasbourg Court versus Extraterritorial Migration Control? Violeta Moreno-Lax* Keywords: extraterritorial jurisdiction ^ migration control ^ maritime interdiction ^ refoulement ^ diplomatic assurances 1. Introduction: The Italian Push-back Campaign The sea has increasingly provided the theatre for forced mobility, a phenom- enon that has put to the test the fundamentals of State sovereignty and increasingly translated into attempts by States the world over to extraterri- torialise their border enforcement and migration control activities. Although the trend is global, 1 the situation in the Mediterranean has gained notorious visibility during the past decades. According to some estimates, the number of lives lost at the maritime frontiers of the EU Member States since 1988 * Lecturer in Law, St Hilda’s College and the Law Faculty, University of Oxford (violeta.moreno lax@qeh.ox.ac.uk). I am indebted to Sangeeta Shah for her invaluable help throughout the publication process. Financial assistance to draft this piece was generously awarded by Fundacio¤ n Rafael del Pino . 1 See generally Guilfoyle, Shipping Interdiction and the Law of the Sea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); and Papastavridis, The Interception ofVessels on the High Seas (Oxford: Hart, forthcoming). For critiques of the US-Caribbean interdiction programme, see Koh,‘The ‘‘Haiti Paradigm’’ in the United States Human Rights Policy’ (1994) 103 Yale Law Journal 2391; and Legomsky,‘The USA and the Caribbean Interdiction Program’ (2006) 18 International Journal of Refugee Law 679. For an overview of the Australian‘Pacific Solution’, see Magner,‘A Less than ‘‘Pacific’’ Solution for Asylum Seekers in Australia’ (2004) 16 International Journal of Refugee Law 53; and Willheim, ‘ MV Tampa: The Australian Response’ (2003) 15 International Journal of Refugee Law 159. ........................................................................... Human Rights Law Review 12:3(2012), 574^598 at Sydney Jones Library, University of Liverpool on November 5, 2012 http://hrlr.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from