A/HRC/7/5 page 16 39. The response of the European Union to African refugees from hunger is increasingly to militarize immigration procedures and border patrol. Rapid reaction teams of border guards form part of a new institution called Frontex. Frontex’s “Operation Hera II” involved patrol boats, airplanes and helicopters from Spain, Italy, Finland and Portugal operating along the borders of Mauritania, Senegal and Cape Verde to intercept boats and immediately force them back to shore.37 European Governments seem to believe that it is possible to address the drama of migration as a military and police problem. 2. Protecting people fleeing from hunger 40. Most people fleeing from hunger are refused entry and protection in other countries because they do not qualify as “refugees” in the traditional and legal sense. All Governments are legally obliged to receive asylum-seekers and grant protection to refugees under international law, but the definition of “refugee” is very limited under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (see A/62/289). 41. Few people fleeing from hunger are granted any of the protections that come with refugee status and the right of non-refoulement, even though they run the risk of grave violations of the right to food that amount to a threat to their life. Most people fleeing across international borders to escape hunger and starvation are treated as illegal “economic migrants”. However, to suggest that people fleeing from hunger and famine are simply “economic migrants” and are not being forced to leave but are simply choosing to seek a better life is to fail completely to recognize the life-threatening situation that they face. It is absurd to suggest that people fleeing hunger and famine are fleeing “voluntarily”. The Special Rapporteur insists on this crucial point: refugees from hunger should not be confused with “economic migrants”. When an “economic migrant” seeks a better life by migrating to another country, he does so voluntarily. The refugee from hunger, on the other hand, does not move voluntarily but out of a “state of necessity” (see A/62/289). He is forced to flee. Above all when famine strikes a whole country or a whole region (for example the 2005 famine in the Sahel zone of sub-Saharan Africa), refugees from hunger have no other choice but to flee across international borders. Hunger poses an immediate threat to their lives and those of their families. They are fleeing out of a state of necessity, not out of choice. The concept of a “state of necessity” (état de nécessité) is a well-developed notion that is well established in both common law and civil law countries. 42. As far as hunger and famine are concerned, it is not difficult to establish objectively such a state of necessity. Both WFP and FAO issue regular reports that identify regions where there are chronic food emergencies and even identify the number of people suffering from acute and chronic levels of malnutrition. Based on this concept, it would therefore be possible to establish who is fleeing hunger and famine rather than for other reasons and to allow for the protection of refugees from hunger by recognizing that they have the right to seek asylum and the right to receive the protection of temporary refuge. The Special Rapporteur urges all States to consider the creation of a new legal instrument to protect people fleeing hunger and violations of the right to food. 37 BBC News, 10 September 2006 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/5331896.stm).