DSR 11C
but it might
eventually be
alternative to accepting this liability, as a counterpart to the
smooth operation of the first port of call principle and in the
interests of avoiding losses to shipowners. Once disembarcation
had taken place attempts would still be made, through the UNHCR,
"last resort"
Dio.
to reduce the demands foryimmigration to the UK, If the flow
of refugees could be xedazedzaz moderated by "orderly departure"
necessary to accep or otherwise, the incidence of ships cases should decrease sharply.
IBe provision of international processing centres (paragraph 23,
such cases as
additional to the
UK quota.
also
Note) could/help in the way indicated but this would cause problems
in connection with the contractual law of deviation from normal
routes.
SEARCH AND RESCUE
seem
11. From a humanitarian point of view it would impossible to
reject proposals to conduct search and rescue operations. They do
however raise serious problems of finance and resettlement, and
proposes
*
paragraph 24 iaxeizeomscribedxbxxthe×zaquixement that States whose
nationals mount such operations must themselves agierzia accept
responsibility (ie on a last resort basis) for resettlement.
FLAGS OF CONVENIENCE
12.
The paper refers at various points to the position of Flag of
Convenience: states and the problems they may pose for the
$
better regulation of maritime aspects of the refugeessituation.
No separate section exists on this factor, however, for two
reasons;
a.
b.
there is no clear evidence that FoC vessels behave less well
than others; the main difficulty is that in paragraph 16,
namaely that FoC states' ability to accept last resort
responsibility for resettelement is limited.
the UK argues in other fora against France, in particular -
89280 Dd 532113 200M 2/79 SIS