La gestión del uso de migrantes como armas a través del "ius ad bellum"

Zusammenfassung

Unlike in former times, weaponization of migrants which is led to attack third states produce new damages to territorial states. At present, the legal ambiguity of thees activities allows aggressor states to achieve their demands without retaliation and to avoid the consequences of breaching the prohibition on the use of force. Our comparative analysis of the Bielorussian-Polish and Spanish-Moroccan crisis demonstrate the legal funds by means of which the weaponization of migrants may violate international norms regarding "ius ad bellum". For the time being, international practice is nor prolific enough to support that "de lege lara" such acts may be uses of force, but were they to be limited "de lege ferenda" by "ius ad bellum", they would allow to dissuade aggressor states and to protect migrants' human and asylum rights.