In ‘From survival cannibalism to climate politics: Rethinking Regina vs Dudley and Stephens’, Itamar Mann argues inter alia that survival cannibalism and the duty to rescue at sea can inform how to approach climate politics (Mann, p 1). In this piece, I will address this claim through maritime law, the law of the sea and human rights law perspectives. In particular, I will argue that the criminalisation of survival cannibalism is justified on grounds of protection of the fundamental right to life. Survival cannibalism is presented here as a ‘practice’ or ‘custom of the sea’ rather than a maritime custom or ‘bottom-up customary law’ (Mann, pp 4–6). I will suggest an alternative model of sacrifice accompanied by a system of redress grounded in the maritime custom of general average to inform the commonist lifeboat model proposed. In this process that starts at the inner circle before moving to the outer circle where the customary duty to rescue at sea is examined, class dynamics will be briefly considered. The environment will be the last element examined through the Teitiota case. Human rights concerns inform the overall approach taken in an effort to affirm and advance fundamental principles in addressing climate adaptation.

The duty to render assistance to persons in distress is well established in the international law of the sea, but none of the instruments which codify the duty contains human rights obligations. However, serious human rights violations may occur during search and rescue (SAR) operations or because of the lack thereof. This article examines the duty of States to render assistance to persons in distress through the lens of international human rights law and advocates for a human rights-oriented approach to SAR. It discusses the due diligence nature of the duty, the scope of jurisdiction in maritime SAR and how States should act to adhere to their human rights obligations from the moment they receive a distress call through to the moment they disembark rescued persons on land.