This article considers how notions of sovereignty and solidarity influenced the response to boat refugees at sea between 1979 and 2001. It argues that states responded with prolonged solidarity when helping boat refugees served to support their foreign policy goals and fitted with the moral zeitgeist. When such conditions did not exist, states successfully used the legal ambiguity of the sea to intercept, repatriate and in some cases strategically confine boat refugees to offshore detention centres located beyond the reach of national courts. Restricting boat refugees on the high seas served to bolster governments’ claims that they could control unwanted immigration and, in doing so, rescue their territorial sovereignty. Yet this created a notable paradox: by allegedly preserving territorial sovereignty in their dramatic and very visible border spectacles with boat refugees, governments felt it necessary to cheat national and international law.
Irial Glynn (Tue,) studied this question.