Dear Mr. Galadunchi,
Just a short reply: in principle the power of a State to prevent foreigners from crossing its borders is inherent to its territorial sovereignty (see e.g. ECtHR, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v United Kingdom (Appl. Nos. 9214/80, 9473/81, 9474/81), Judgment of 28 May 1995, para. 67 : ‘as a matter of well-established international law and subject to its treaty obligations, a State has the right to control the entry of non-nationals into its territory’). This is of course subject to human rights law obligations, in addition to other potential relevant treaty obligations, such as those which may result from cross-border cooperation agreements in force.
Fences, along with other kinds of 'security measures', along (undisputed) international borders are common features. Some examples (e.g. Bootswana/Zimbabwe, Malaysia/Thailand) are discussed in E. Zurek and M. Salter, Global Surveillance and Policing (New York: Routledge, 2012), at 184 ff.
I do not know of any precondition for the building of such security infrastructure (subject to the above), nor of any instance where their lawfulness would have been challenged before an international court or tribunal.
I hope this helps. Additional comments are welcome.
Kind regards,
Pierre-Emmanuel Dupont
Lawyer, Consultant in public international law and international dispute settlement (Paris)
Member of the Hague Center for Law and Arbitration
Senior Lecturer at the Free Faculty of Law, Economics and Management of Paris
+33 672 505 201
[log in to unmask]
|