ii. Safe Third Country

    Main DebatesDeflection and Deterrence Policies v. Protection Obligations What Minimum Safeguards Should There be for the Implementation of Safe Third Country Returns?Are European Safe Third Country Practices Shifting the Responsibility for Refugees to Transit States?Should All EU Member States be Considered as fulfilling requirements for Safe Third Countries?Main PointsContrasts between UNHCR and EU Criteria for Determining Safe Third CountriesSafe Third Country ListsEuropean Safe Third Country NotionChain DeportationsSoft LawUNHCR EXCOM, ‘Refugees Without An Asylum Country’, Conclusion No 15 (XXX), 1979.UNHCR EXCOM, ‘Problem of Refugees and Asylum Seekers Who Move in an Irregular Manner From a Country in Which They Had Already Found Protection’, Conclusion No 58 (XL), 1989.EU InstrumentsCouncil Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on Minimum Standards on Procedures in Member States for Granting and Withdrawing Refugee Status, OJ L 326, 13 December 2005, Arts. 23(4), 26, 27, 37.Resolution on a Harmonised Approach to Questions Concerning Host Third Countries Document, Conclusions of the Meeting of the Ministers responsible for Immigration, Doc. 10579/92 IMMIG (London 30 Nov.–1 December 1992).UNHCR DocumentsUNHCR, ‘Background paper no. 1: Legal and practical aspects of the return of persons not in need of protection’, May 2001.  UNHCR, ‘Background paper no. 2: The application of the “safe third country” notion and its impact on the management of flows and on the protection of refugees’, May 2001.UNHCR, ‘Background paper no. 3: Inter-State agreements for the re-admission of third country nationals, including asylum seekers, and for the determination of the State responsible for examining the substance of an asylum claim’, May 2001.CasesUK House of Lords, Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home department ex parte Adan; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Aitseguer, Judgments of 19 December 2000, (2001) 2 WLR 143. (holding that Somali and Algerian asylum applicants could not be returned to France and Germany on safe third country grounds as both states do not grant protection to those in fear of non-state agent persecution)TI v. UK, ECtHR admissibility decision of 7 March 2000 (noting that agreements for allocating responsibility for asylum seekers do not relieve a State Party to the ECHR of the responsibility to ensure that indirect removal of an asylum seeker will not give rise to Article 3 violation) Al-Rahal v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, 20 August 2001, (2001) 184 ALR 698 (deportation of Iraqi to Syria as safe third country without actual permission or formal right of entry held not to be a violation of Article 33)German Constitutional Court: Judgment in the cases 2 BvR 1938/93 and 2 BvR 2315/93, 14 May 1996, BVerfGE 94, 49. (upholding the constitutionality of the new clause in the Basic Law introducing the safe third country concept)  Readings Core G. Goodwin-Gill, ‘Safe Country? Says Who?’, International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 4, no. 2 (April 1992), pp. 248–250. S. Legomsky, ‘Secondary Refugee Movements and the Return of Asylum Seekers to Third Countries: The Meaning of Effective Protection’ International Journal of Refugee Law, vol 15,no. 4 (October 2003), pp. 567–667.  ECRE, ‘Broken Promises-Forgotten Principles: An ECRE Evaluation of the Development of EU Minimum Standards for Refugee Protection’, June, ECRE2004, pp. 10–12.UNHCR, ‘Global Consultations on International Protection, Regional Meeting’, 6–7 June 2001, Conclusions’. ‘Western European Asylum Policies for Export: The Transfer of Protection and Deflection Formulas to Central Europe and the Baltics’, in R. Byrne, G. Noll, and J. Vedsted-Hansen (eds), New Asylum Countries? Migration Control and Refugee Protection in an Enlarged European Union (The Netherlands: Kluwer, 2002), pp. 5–28.Extended R. Byrne and A. Shacknove, ‘The Safe Country Notion in European Asylum Law’, Harvard Human Rights Journal, vol. 9 (Spring 1996), pp. 190–196. K. Hailbronner, ‘The Concept of “Safe Country” and Expeditious Asylum Procedures: A Western European Perspective’, International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 5, no. 1 (1993), pp. 31–65.S. Lavenex, ‘“Passing the Buck”: European Union Refugee Policies towards Central and Eastern Europe’, Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 11, no. 2 (June 1998), pp. 126–145. 

About the Reader

Section I Introduction to International Refugee Law: Background and Context


Section II International Framework for Refugee Protection


Section III European Framework for Refugee Protection


Section IV UNHCR and Other Actors Relevant to International Asylum Law

ii. Safe Third Country

 

 

Main Debates
Deflection and Deterrence Policies v. Protection Obligations
What Minimum Safeguards Should There be for the Implementation of Safe Third Country Returns?
Are European Safe Third Country Practices Shifting the Responsibility for Refugees to Transit States?
Should All EU Member States be Considered as fulfilling requirements for Safe Third Countries?

Main Points
Contrasts between UNHCR and EU Criteria for Determining Safe Third Countries
Safe Third Country Lists
European Safe Third Country Notion
Chain Deportations

Soft Law
UNHCR EXCOM, ‘Refugees Without An Asylum Country’, Conclusion No 15 (XXX), 1979.

UNHCR EXCOM, ‘Problem of Refugees and Asylum Seekers Who Move in an Irregular Manner From a Country in Which They Had Already Found Protection’, Conclusion No 58 (XL), 1989.

EU Instruments
Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on Minimum Standards on Procedures in Member States for Granting and Withdrawing Refugee Status, OJ L 326, 13 December 2005, Arts. 23(4), 26, 27, 37.

Resolution on a Harmonised Approach to Questions Concerning Host Third Countries Document, Conclusions of the Meeting of the Ministers responsible for Immigration, Doc. 10579/92 IMMIG (London 30 Nov.–1 December 1992).

UNHCR Documents
UNHCR, ‘Background paper no. 1: Legal and practical aspects of the return of persons not in need of protection’, May 2001. 

UNHCR, ‘Background paper no. 2: The application of the “safe third country” notion and its impact on the management of flows and on the protection of refugees’, May 2001.

UNHCR, ‘Background paper no. 3: Inter-State agreements for the re-admission of third country nationals, including asylum seekers, and for the determination of the State responsible for examining the substance of an asylum claim’, May 2001.

Cases
UK House of Lords, Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home department ex parte Adan; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Aitseguer, Judgments of 19 December 2000, (2001) 2 WLR 143. (holding that Somali and Algerian asylum applicants could not be returned to France and Germany on safe third country grounds as both states do not grant protection to those in fear of non-state agent persecution)

TI v. UK, ECtHR admissibility decision of 7 March 2000 (noting that agreements for allocating responsibility for asylum seekers do not relieve a State Party to the ECHR of the responsibility to ensure that indirect removal of an asylum seeker will not give rise to Article 3 violation)

Al-Rahal v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, 20 August 2001, (2001) 184 ALR 698 (deportation of Iraqi to Syria as safe third country without actual permission or formal right of entry held not to be a violation of Article 33)

German Constitutional Court: Judgment in the cases 2 BvR 1938/93 and 2 BvR 2315/93, 14 May 1996, BVerfGE 94, 49. (upholding the constitutionality of the new clause in the Basic Law introducing the safe third country concept) 

Readings

Core

G. Goodwin-Gill, ‘Safe Country? Says Who?’, International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 4, no. 2 (April 1992), pp. 248–250.

S. Legomsky, ‘Secondary Refugee Movements and the Return of Asylum Seekers to Third Countries: The Meaning of Effective Protection’ International Journal of Refugee Law, vol 15,no. 4 (October 2003), pp. 567–667. 

ECRE, ‘Broken Promises-Forgotten Principles: An ECRE Evaluation of the Development of EU Minimum Standards for Refugee Protection’, June, ECRE2004, pp. 10–12.

UNHCR, ‘Global Consultations on International Protection, Regional Meeting’, 6–7 June 2001, Conclusions’.

‘Western European Asylum Policies for Export: The Transfer of Protection and Deflection Formulas to Central Europe and the Baltics’, in R. Byrne, G. Noll, and J. Vedsted-Hansen (eds), New Asylum Countries? Migration Control and Refugee Protection in an Enlarged European Union (The Netherlands: Kluwer, 2002), pp. 5–28.

Extended

R. Byrne and A. Shacknove, ‘The Safe Country Notion in European Asylum Law’, Harvard Human Rights Journal, vol. 9 (Spring 1996), pp. 190–196.

K. Hailbronner, ‘The Concept of “Safe Country” and Expeditious Asylum Procedures: A Western European Perspective’, International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 5, no. 1 (1993), pp. 31–65.

S. Lavenex, ‘“Passing the Buck”: European Union Refugee Policies towards Central and Eastern Europe’, Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 11, no. 2 (June 1998), pp. 126–145. 



Soft Law

Refugees Without An Asylum Country

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Refugees Without An Asylum Country', Conclusion No 15 (XXX), 1979.

Problem of Refugees and Asylum Seekers Who Move in an Irregular Manner From a Country in Which They Had Already Found Protection

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Problem of Refugees and Asylum Seekers Who Move in an Irregular Manner From a Country in Which They Had Already Found Protection', Conclusion No 58 (XL), 1989.

EU Instruments

Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on Minimum Standards on Procedures in Member States for Granting and Withdrawing Refugee Status

Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on Minimum Standards on Procedures in Member States for Granting and Withdrawing Refugee Status.

Resolution on a Harmonised Approach to Questions Concerning Host Third Countries

'Resolution on a Harmonised Approach to Questions Concerning Host Third Countries', Document WG I 1283, adopted 30 November 1992.

UNHCR Documents

Background paper no. 1

UNHCR, 'Background paper no. 1: Legal and practical aspects of the return of persons not in need of protection', May 2001.

Background paper no. 2

UNHCR, 'Background paper no. 2: The application of the "safe third country" notion and its impact on the management of flows and on the protection of refugees', May 2001.

Background paper no. 3

UNHCR, 'Background paper no. 3: Inter-State agreements for the re-admission of third country nationals, including asylum seekers, and for the determination of the State responsible for examining the substance of an asylum claim', May 2001.

Cases

Adan and Aitseguer; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Adan; Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department ex parte Aitseguer

UK House of Lords, Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home department ex parte Adan; Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department ex parte Aitseguer (Judgments of 19 December 2000) (2001) 2 WLR 143-169. (holding that Somali and Algerian asylum applicants could not be returned to France and Germany on safe third country grounds as both states do not grant protection to those in fear of non-state agent persecution)

TI v UK

European Court of Human Rights 2000 European Court of Human Rights Third Section Decision as to the Admissibility of Application 43844/98 (2000) 12 IJRL 244-267. (noting that agreements for allocating responsibility for asylum seekers do not relieve a State Party to the ECHR of the responsibility to ensure that indirect removal of an asylum seeker will not give rise to Article 3 violation)

Al-Rahal v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Al-Rahal v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) 184 ALR 698 (20 August 2001). (deportation of Iraqi to Syria as safe third country without actual permission or formal right of entry held not to be a violation of Article 33)

Judgment in the cases 2 BvR 1938/93 and 2 BvR 2315/93

German Constitutional Court: Judgment in the cases 2 BvR 1938/93 and 2 BvR 2315/93 delivered on 14 May 1996 BVerfGE 94, 49. (upholding the constitutionality of the new clause in the Basic Law introducing the safe third country concept)

Readings

Core

you have to login to access this document

Safe Country? Says Who?

G. Goodwin-Gill, 'Safe Country? Says Who?' (1992) 4 International Journal of Refugee Law 248.

Reproduced with the permission of Oxford University Press (c) 1992, Oxford University Press

you have to login to access this document

Secondary Refugee Movements and the Return of Asylum Seekers to Third Countries: The Meaning of Effective Protection

S. Legomsky, 'Secondary Refugee Movements and the Return of Asylum Seekers to Third Countries: The Meaning of Effective Protection' (2003) 15 International Journal of Refugee Law (4), 567-667.

Broken Promises - Forgotten Principles: An ECRE Evaluation of the Development of EU Minimum Standards for Refugee Protection

ECRE, ’Broken Promises-Forgotten Principles: An ECRE Evaluation of the Development of EU Minimum Standards for Refugee Protection’ (ECRE: London 2004), 10-12.

Global Consultations on International Protection

UNHCR, 'Global Consultations in International Protection, Regional Meeting Budapest, 6-7 June 2001, Conclusions'.
you have to login to access this document

Western European Asylum Policies For Export: The Transfer of Protection and Deflection Formulas to Central Europe and the Baltic

'Western European Asylum Policies for Export: The Transfer of Protection and Deflection Formulas to Central Europe and the Baltics' in R. Byrne, G. Noll, and J. Vedsted-Hansen (eds.) New Asylum Countries?  Migration Control and Refugee Protection in an Enlarged European Union (The Netherlands: Kluwer, 2002) 5-28.

Reproduced from New Asylum Countries? Migration Control and Refugee Protection in an Enlarged European Union (The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2002), ISBN 9041117539 (c) 2000 Kluwer Law International. Published with the kind permission of Brill Academic Publisher.

Extended

you have to login to access this document

The Safe Country Notion in European Asylum Law

R. Byrne and A. Shacknove, 'The Safe Country Notion in European Asylum Law' (1996) 9 Harvard Human Rights Journal 190-196.

Reproduced from the Harvard Human Rights Journal (1996). Copyright (c) 1996 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Harvard Human Rights Journal.

The Concept of "Safe Country" and Expeditious Asylum Procedures: A Western European Perspective

K. Hailbronner, 'The Concept of "Safe Country" and Expeditious Asylum Procedures:  A Western European Perspective' (1993) 5 International Journal of Refugee Law 31.

Passing the Buck: European Union Refugee Policies towards Central and Eastern Europe

S. Lavenex, '"Passing the Buck":  European Union Refugee Policies towards Central and Eastern Europe' (1998) 11 Journal of Refugee Studies 134.