A/HCR/41/44 42. Furthermore, the Independent Expert would like to stress that in the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 2018 and approved by 152 Member States, parties commit to ensuring a set of cross-cutting and interdependent guiding principles, including the human rights and wellbeing of migrants (whatever their migratory situation); adherence to the rule of law; and international cooperation.71 In paragraph 24 of the Global Compact, signatories “commit to cooperate internationally to save lives and prevent migrant deaths and injuries through individual or joint search and rescue operations, standardized collection and exchange of relevant information, assuming collective responsibility to preserve the lives of all migrants, in accordance with international law”. This provision highlights the legal position explained above by the Independent Expert. Similarly, in the Global Compact on Refugees (A/73/12, part II, paras. 5 and 16) the principle of international solidarity is stressed as a fundamental guiding principle for the protection and well-being of refugees and asylum seekers. 43. In addition, the Independent Expert recalls that in his report to the Human Rights Council in 2017 the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders reviewed the situation of persons acting to defend the rights of migrants and refugees and drew attention to the difficult situation of those who act in solidarity with these persons and who seek to promote and strive for the protection of their rights. He also called upon all States and other actors to protect and promote the rights of defenders of people on the move and to address the challenges that they face (A/HRC/37/51). 44. Following the analysis in the preceding paragraphs, it must be considered whether these acts are justifiable under a general limitation clause (in the interests of national security or public order), or under any general derogation clauses in the treaties concerned that allow States some leeway during crises or public emergencies. Many States have referred to the recent global mass migration or refugee events either as a national security or public order crisis in and of themselves, or as precipitating such a crisis.72 Given that there is no public emergency clause in either the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air or the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the analysis here will be limited to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and only in relation to the civil and political rights guarantees discussed in the previous paragraph. 45. The Supreme Court of Canada has developed a systematic and rigorous general way of balancing the community’s interests in national security, public safety, and public order (on the one hand) against the individual’s human rights (on the other hand). 73 The so-called Oakes test is applied whenever it is necessary to limit individual rights to advance certain collective goals of fundamental importance. Thus, before a limitation on individual rights can be justified, two things must be clearly shown: (a) That the objective of the proposed limitation is related to concerns that are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society; (b) That the means chosen is reasonable and demonstrably justified. To show this, the measures adopted must be carefully designed to achieve the objective (and not be a blunt instrument). The means chosen must also impair as little as possible the human right in question. There must also be proportionality between the effects of the measures limiting the right and the objective for which it has been limited (i.e. no overkill and strict adherence to the principle of limiting rights only to the extent absolutely required). 46. While the States and regional organizations that have enacted laws and engaged in practices that criminalize or suppress humanitarian aid to irregular migrants or refugees 71 72 73 14 See General Assembly resolution 73/195, paras. 15 and 24. See, for example, www.kormany.hu/en/prime-minister-s-office/news/government-declares-state-ofcrisis-due-to-mass-migration-in-two-counties and www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/03/migration-crisis-hungary-pm-victor-orban-europeresponse-madness. See R v. Oakes, Supreme Court of Canada, judgments (1 SCR. 103, 1986).