Uniformed French gendarmes, their feet in the water, slashing a rubber dinghy with a knife as it was about to leave the beach with dozens of migrants on board: the scene, filmed by the BBC on July 4 in Saint-Étienne-au-Mont, Pas-de-Calais, shocked human rights defenders and observers of the migration issue. On the eve of the Franco-British summit on cooperation in the Channel, the image was brutal, and raised profound questions about French methods. On the British side, the reaction was swift: Downing Street welcomed an "intensification" of French actions, describing the intervention as an effective tactic to "disrupt crossings before their departure." The government of Keir Starmer, under pressure from the anti-immigration party's push Reform UK, welcomes a closer partnership with Paris, against a backdrop of record crossings since the start of the year.
A justified intervention or a worrying trend?
On the French side, the authorities are defending their position. The Hauts-de-France prefecture cites "immediate danger": the boat, already loaded with around thirty people, was reportedly joined by around fifty other would-be evacuees, some with water up to their knees. The Interior Ministry describes it as a "rescue action," specifying that law enforcement officers neutralized the boat to prevent a tragedy. But on the ground, associations are denouncing the brutal method. "This isn't rescue, it's endangerment," reacts Utopia 56. Dany Patoux of Osmose 62 denounces an "inhumane practice." Images, screams, life jackets snatched from the sea. For humanitarian workers, this action marks a turning point. And perhaps a turning point.
International law in the crosshairs
Beyond morality, the legality of the intervention is questionable. Marie-Laure Basilien-Gainche, professor of public law, points out that according to international conventions, everyone has the right to leave a country, including their own. Preventing migrants from leaving French territory, even preemptively, could constitute a violation of international law. The expert also emphasizes that the concept of distress at sea does not apply here, since the migrants had neither called for help nor left the coastal zone. This was not a rescue, she concludes, but rather an interception.
A deliberate hardening
Since the Le Touquet Agreements in 2004, French territory has acted as a filter for the British border. But pressure is intensifying: Paris and London extended the Sandhurst Treaty in February, with joint funding for French operations. Bruno Retailleau, at the Ministry of the Interior, already mentioned a "change in doctrine" in February, with the possibility of "stopping" taxi boats within 300 meters of the coast. With more than 20 migrants having crossed the Channel since January, a 000% increase over two years, this policy of active deterrence could become commonplace. One question remains: how far can we prevent men, women, and children from leaving, without shifting from controlling flows to a logic of confrontation?
