The Refugee Crisis: What Should The Eu Produce Next?

Steve Peers

Last week’s pictures of the tragic decease of a refugee toddler brought into focus the ongoing crisis facing Syrian Arab Republic in addition to other conflict zones, which direct maintain given ascent to increased numbers fleeing persecution worldwide, in addition to inwards the European Union. The events of recent weeks (increasing numbers landing inwards Greece, the journeying of many via the Western Balkans, Republic of Hungary in addition to Republic of Austria to Germany) demonstrate that the Schengen in addition to Dublin systems are coming nether strain equally a result.

How should the European Union address this number next? Should it abolish or reform the Schengen and/or Dublin rules? Are Member U.S. of A. complying amongst European Union in addition to international law inwards their response?

To reply these questions, I volition examine inwards plough (a) the international law framework; (b) the European Union law framework; (c) whether Schengen is at ‘fault’; (d) whether Dublin is at ‘fault’; in addition to (e) what the European Union should do next.  My principal purposes are to explicate the legal background, to request out about legal errors, in addition to to advise the best way frontwards inwards lite of the international refugee law framework.

International law framework 

While it is oftentimes strongly asserted that 'international law requires refugees to apply for asylum inwards the outset rubber province they enter', inwards fact the seat is rather vaguer than that. The United Nations (Geneva) Convention on the status of refugees does non comprise whatever limited dominion to that outcome inwards the rules on the Definition of refugee, or on the cessation (loss) or exclusion from existence a refugee, equally laid out inwards Articles 1.A to 1.F of that Convention.

However, in that location are about indirect suggestions inwards the Convention that the number of countries which a refugee has crossed through mightiness live relevant. Article 31 of the Convention bans U.S. of A. from imposing penalties upon refugees for entering a province illegally - a dominion which contradicts about of the rhetoric virtually refugees existence 'illegal immigrants'. The drafters of the Convention clearly recognised that it mightiness live necessary in addition to legitimate inwards do for a refugee to breach about other country's immigration laws to escape threats to his or her life or freedom. So it is non necessary to live on the territory legally inwards gild to qualify equally a refugee.

This dominion is, however, dependent acre to several atmospheric condition - including the requirement that the refugees were 'coming directly' from the province which they had to flee. If that dominion is interpreted narrowly, in addition to so refugees tin give notice only do goodness from the exemption from penalties for breaching immigration law inwards neighbouring states, non states farther afield. But refugees’ failure to satisfy this status only permits U.S. of A. to prosecute them for breach of immigration law; it does not allow those U.S. of A. to exclude the refugees from protection. As I pointed out already, the rules on Definition in addition to exclusion of refugees inwards the Convention are quite split from the dominion on non-prosecution for breach of immigration law. And it is also possible to translate this status to a greater extent than generously - inwards the feel that the 'coming directly' requirement does non exclude all refugees who direct maintain only transited through other countries, but only those who direct maintain stopped in addition to obtained protection inwards about other State already. 

Another relevant provision is the 'non-refoulement' dominion inwards Article 33 of the Convention, which prevents U.S. of A. removing refugees to an unsafe State. But it does non foreclose refugees from existence removed to a safe State. Furthermore, the restrictions inwards the Convention on expelling refugees to whatever State, in addition to many of the noun benefits which the Convention gives to refugees (such equally welfare in addition to access to employment) are reserved for those who are lawfully resident or acquaint inwards the territory; in addition to the Convention does non require U.S. of A. to give refugees a lawful status nether national immigration law.

So overall, the Geneva Convention gives U.S. of A. a grade of flexibility to insist upon a 'safe 3rd country' requirement, but in that location is no absolute dominion that refugees must ever apply inwards a rubber 3rd country. If the Convention had intended to impose a job solid dominion inwards that regard, it would sure direct maintain said so expressly in addition to provided for obligations for the outset rubber province to readmit the refugee. Moreover, the preamble to the Convention refers to the heavy burden which the grant of asylum may identify upon about countries, in addition to the demand for international cooperation to avoid refugees becoming a source of tension betwixt States. Taken equally a whole, then, the drafters of the Convention recognized that a strict rubber 3rd province dominion could impose undue burdens on countries neighbouring a conflict inwards about cases, but left it to U.S. of A. to go out the details of how to address such burdens when they occur. 

EU law framework 

The European Union law framework consists outset in addition to foremost of the Schengen rules - which laid out atmospheric condition for crossing external borders, inwards conjunction amongst no controls on internal borders. While about seem to assume that the Schengen rules require European Union U.S. of A. to refuse entry to refugees at the external borders, that is clearly non the case. The Schengen Borders Code contains full general exceptions relating to refugees in addition to human rights, equally good equally specific asylum exceptions from the normal rules on the grounds for admission, in addition to from the requirement to penalizing those who cross the external edge without authorization. The latter exception evidently reflects Article 31 of the Geneva Convention, discussed above.

While Member U.S. of A. are by in addition to large obliged to ensure command of the external borders (just similar non-Schengen U.S. of A. aim to command their borders), in that location is no specific requirement to construct fences, equally several Member U.S. of A. direct maintain done. Building fences is non ruled out past times the Schengen rules, but it is Member States which determine to construct the fences equally a agency of controlling the border, non the EU. And anyone who makes it to those fences in addition to applies for asylum is entitled to live admitted to direct maintain their asylum application considered.

This is confirmed past times the EU’s asylum legislation, which says that it applies to all those who apply at the border or on the territory.  There are about optional special rules for asylum applications made at the border, but in that location is no dominion maxim that an application must live refused because it was made at the border, or because the applicant entered the territory without authorization. Reflecting the interpretation of the Geneva Convention discussed above, the EU’s asylum procedures Directive states that an application mightiness live inadmissible if the asylum-seeker gained protection inwards a ‘first province of asylum’, or has links amongst a ‘safe 3rd country’.  The application of these rules doesn’t hateful that the asylum-seeker is non a refugee; rather it agency that about other State is deemed responsible for resuming protection, or for assessing the asylum application.

The job for refugees is reaching the territory inwards the outset place. European Union law imposes carrier sanctions on carry companies if they carry persons without visas, which explains why refugees do non purchase relatively inexpensive tickets to go instead of paying smugglers for unsafe journeys. Arguably the EU’s visa rules require Member U.S. of A. to number special visas for those inwards demand of humanitarian protection (see give-and-take irregular migrants.

Think virtually it. The asylum-seekers who range the European Union direct maintain oftentimes crossed many Asian or African borders already, in addition to those arriving inwards Hellenic Republic excogitation to cross about European borders anyway subsequently they arrive, unless (improbably) Hellenic Republic is their intended destination. They direct maintain fled poverty or persecution, paid smugglers a little fortune, oftentimes been ill-treated on the way to the EU, in addition to endured an appalling in addition to unsafe body of body of water crossing. The EU’s supposition that withdrawing rescue vessels inwards the Mediterranean would deter them from coming proved to live tragically wrong. Compared to all that, why would the reimposition of Schengen edge controls deter anyone who would otherwise come?

Conversely, is Schengen at fault for the handling of asylum-seekers past times Hungary? In principle, if third-country nationals do non (yet) apply for asylum, they are irregular migrants, in addition to so Republic of Hungary had an obligation to take them nether the EU’s Returns Directive. But that Directive does allow Member U.S. of A. to apply higher standards, in addition to it would direct maintain been foolish non to do so (as Republic of Hungary eventually did) inwards circumstances where Deutschland had already signalled its willingness to consider their planned asylum applications.

Is Dublin at fault?

The Dublin organisation has undoubtedly shifted a significantly higher burden to sure Member U.S. of A. (Greece, Italy in addition to Republic of Hungary at present), which is increasingly hard to care equally migration flows direct maintain increased in addition to the Greek economic scheme inwards exceptional has suffered from austerity. It should live noted, however, that inwards regulation the courts direct maintain ruled since 2011 that Hellenic Republic is non responsible for all the asylum-seekers who come upward there. The normal supposition that each European Union province is rubber has had to live suspended, since the ECHR in addition to the European Union courts direct maintain ruled (in the cases of MSS in addition to here), but they rarely do so. Taken equally a whole, then, the Schengen borders rules direct maintain a rather uneasy co-existence amongst asylum law: but they clearly allow for the admission of asylum-seekers who do range the external borders of the EU.

There’s about other uneasy human relationship betwixt the Schengen rules in addition to the Dublin rules, ie the rules which require an asylum-seeker to apply unremarkably inwards the outset European Union province which he or she reaches. That’s because it’s evidently harder inwards do to enforce those rules without edge controls betwixt countries.

Is Schengen at fault?

As noted already, the Schengen organisation does non ban people from seeking asylum at European Union borders, although it makes it harder for them to range the territory in addition to to a greater extent than probable to peril their lives trying. But in that location is zip inwards European Union law to foreclose Member U.S. of A. from resettling large numbers of refugees straight from conflict zones if they wishing to. The determination of most Member U.S. of A. to resettle few Syrians or others inwards demand of protection is upward to them alone.

While the Schengen rules logically brand the Dublin organisation harder to enforce, this difficulty is relative: subsequently all, if an asylum-seeker moves on from Greece, he or she volition direct maintain to cross farther borders anyway earlier reaching the remainder of the Schengen expanse (Romania, Bulgaria, in addition to Republic of Croatia are non inwards Schengen yet; in addition to most asylum-seekers prefer instead to go via the non-EU countries inwards the Western Balkans anyway).

And it is naïve inwards the extreme to assume that reimposing edge controls would halt all motility of asylum-seekers betwixt Member States. As discussed inwards Agnes Hurwitz’ book, the Dublin rules direct maintain their root inwards Council of Europe discussions inwards the 1980s, in addition to were non initially connected to the Schengen project. There was already a ‘refugees inwards orbit’ job of refusal to select responsibleness at that request – when edge controls were still fully inwards place. Otherwise U.S. of A. would non direct maintain opened discussions on the issue. So clearly borders are permeable fifty-fifty when edge controls exist, peculiarly the long ground borders on the continent. Indeed, Deutschland final received huge numbers of asylum-seekers during the Bosnian state of war of 1992, in 1 lawsuit again when the edge controls were fully inwards place, which was years earlier countries similar Republic of Hungary joined the European Union (Austria was non yet a fellow member either).

Does Schengen encourage asylum flows, equally about claim? Looking at the statistics, it clearly does not. The flows of asylum-seekers final reached 2014 levels dorsum inwards 1992 in addition to and so dropped off. There direct maintain been increases in addition to decreases over the years, which tin give notice clearly live linked dorsum to events inwards countries of root (Bosnia, Kosovo, Syria, et al). If Schengen caused asylum flows, 1 would human face the numbers to increment subsequently the borders were abolished inwards 1995, in addition to in 1 lawsuit again when the organisation was extended to Central Europe inwards 2008. But they did not. Nor did the numbers of irregular migrants.

Think virtually it. The asylum-seekers who range the European Union direct maintain oftentimes crossed many Asian or African borders already, in addition to those arriving inwards Hellenic Republic excogitation to cross about European borders anyway subsequently they arrive, unless (improbably) Hellenic Republic is their intended destination. They direct maintain fled poverty or persecution, paid smugglers a little fortune, oftentimes been ill-treated on the way to the EU, in addition to endured an appalling in addition to unsafe body of body of water crossing. The EU’s supposition that withdrawing rescue vessels inwards the Mediterranean would deter them from coming proved to live tragically wrong. Compared to all that, why would the reimposition of Schengen edge controls deter anyone who would otherwise come?

Conversely, is Schengen at fault for the handling of asylum-seekers past times Hungary? In principle, if third-country nationals do non (yet) apply for asylum, they are irregular migrants, in addition to so Republic of Hungary had an obligation to take them nether the EU’s Returns Directive. But that Directive does allow Member U.S. of A. to apply higher standards, in addition to it would direct maintain been foolish non to do so (as Republic of Hungary eventually did) inwards circumstances where Deutschland had already signalled its willingness to consider their planned asylum applications.

Is Dublin at fault?

The Dublin organisation has undoubtedly shifted a significantly higher burden to sure Member U.S. of A. (Greece, Italy in addition to Republic of Hungary at present), which is increasingly hard to care equally migration flows direct maintain increased in addition to the Greek economic scheme inwards exceptional has suffered from austerity. It should live noted, however, that inwards regulation the courts direct maintain ruled since 2011 that Hellenic Republic is non responsible for all the asylum-seekers who come upward there. The normal supposition that each European Union province is rubber has had to live suspended, since the ECHR in addition to the European Union courts direct maintain ruled (in the cases of MSS in addition to UNHCR in addition to irregular migrants.

Think virtually it. The asylum-seekers who range the European Union direct maintain oftentimes crossed many Asian or African borders already, in addition to those arriving inwards Hellenic Republic excogitation to cross about European borders anyway subsequently they arrive, unless (improbably) Hellenic Republic is their intended destination. They direct maintain fled poverty or persecution, paid smugglers a little fortune, oftentimes been ill-treated on the way to the EU, in addition to endured an appalling in addition to unsafe body of body of water crossing. The EU’s supposition that withdrawing rescue vessels inwards the Mediterranean would deter them from coming proved to live tragically wrong. Compared to all that, why would the reimposition of Schengen edge controls deter anyone who would otherwise come?

Conversely, is Schengen at fault for the handling of asylum-seekers past times Hungary? In principle, if third-country nationals do non (yet) apply for asylum, they are irregular migrants, in addition to so Republic of Hungary had an obligation to take them nether the EU’s Returns Directive. But that Directive does allow Member U.S. of A. to apply higher standards, in addition to it would direct maintain been foolish non to do so (as Republic of Hungary eventually did) inwards circumstances where Deutschland had already signalled its willingness to consider their planned asylum applications.

Is Dublin at fault?

The Dublin organisation has undoubtedly shifted a significantly higher burden to sure Member U.S. of A. (Greece, Italy in addition to Republic of Hungary at present), which is increasingly hard to care equally migration flows direct maintain increased in addition to the Greek economic scheme inwards exceptional has suffered from austerity. It should live noted, however, that inwards regulation the courts direct maintain ruled since 2011 that Hellenic Republic is non responsible for all the asylum-seekers who come upward there. The normal supposition that each European Union province is rubber has had to live suspended, since the ECHR in addition to the European Union courts direct maintain ruled (in the cases of MSS in addition to Michael Ignatieff). It’s also recognized inwards European Union law past times Article lxxx of the TFEU, which refers to the regulation of solidarity betwixt Member States.

On that point, it’s reported that a grouping of newer Member U.S. of A. is resisting non only the thought of relocating asylum-seekers, but fifty-fifty the compromise proposition of making an extra fiscal contribution inwards lieu of this. This is a flagrant breach of the burden-sharing principles of international in addition to European Union asylum law. Moreover, since these countries direct maintain benefited enormously from their citizens’ refuge-seeking inwards in addition to economical migration to other countries (both into in addition to exterior the EU) equally good equally a substantial inflow of European Union funding, their seat is morally untenable.

Secondly, it’s apparent that in that location needs to live to a greater extent than coordination of national policies inside an overall European Union framework. The overall impression given is shambolic, although this has non stopped about commentators from ascribing responsibleness for every determination of the Hungarian authorities or fifty-fifty a non-EU state’s police force (in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) to the EU. Some novel forum – perchance a framework for ministers, civil servants in addition to the heads of European Union agencies to run into to speak over rapid reactions – needs to live established. Clearly the overall amount of humanitarian assistance for those reaching Member States’ shores also needs to live increased.

Thirdly, on a similar theme, the consistent interpretation of European Union rules needs to live enhanced. There are likewise many examples of divergent approaches to European Union law which should inwards regulation live ‘uniform’ (although Member U.S. of A. direct maintain reach to apply higher standards). These form of issues tin give notice partly live addressed through the coordination framework discussed above, but farther measures are clearly necessary.

Let’s human face at several examples. The Hungarian authorities has precisely passed a law to impose custodial criminal penalties upon those who cross its external borders fence. As nosotros direct maintain seen already, refugees must live exempt from penalties for irregular edge crossing, at to the lowest degree inwards about cases. Moreover, the CJEU has ruled that irregular migrants should non live dependent acre to custodial penalties for unauthorised entry, since that delays their removal (for a summary of the instance law to date, reckon the persuasion inwards the pending instance of Celaj).

Several Member U.S. of A. also direct maintain stated that they do non wishing to select Islamic refugees. This is in 1 lawsuit again a clear breach of international in addition to European Union law: the Geneva Convention specifically states that it applies without discrimination on Blue Planet of religion, spell the European Union Charter of Rights bans discrimination on grounds of faith when applying European Union law (and the asylum physical care for inwards all its aspects amounts to applying European Union law). As for the bizarre declaration that ‘our province doesn’t direct maintain a mosque’, it is inwards fact possible for Muslims to pray elsewhere. Refusing refuge to Muslims is non necessary to go along Europe Christian; rather It’s a Christian duty to offering refuge, equally Pope Francis in addition to the Archbishop of Canterbury direct maintain pointed out.

Also, in that location direct maintain been examples of private mistreatment of groups of refugees in addition to irregular migrants, inwards the shape of police force activity or edge guard pushbacks, or inadequate living conditions. While Member States’ edge guards in addition to armed services forces direct maintain sure rescued many to a greater extent than people than they direct maintain mistreated, in that location needs to live a commitment to ensure redress for the latter cases. Although the Schengen Borders Code by in addition to large requires edge guards to acquit courteously in addition to fairly, it would live useful to concord mutual standards on prohibited behaviour.

On the living standards point, authorities annotation that it is non accurate to say (on 1 journalist’s blog) that someone who applies for asylum inwards 1 Member State fifty-fifty though about other Member State is responsible for their claim nether the Dublin is a ‘migrant’. The CJEU expressly ruled inwards its judgment in CIMADE in addition to Gisti that such a soul is an asylum-seeker in addition to is entitled to the relevant benefits until they are transferred to the responsible Member State nether the Dublin rules, The same dominion is at nowadays expressly laid out inwards the preamble to the Dublin III Regulation.

More generally, the European Union should reverberate on whether to a greater extent than far-reaching moves to accomplish to a greater extent than harmonisation inwards do should live attempted: for instance, transforming the European Asylum Support Office into a torso able to brand decisions on asylum applications inwards ‘overflow’ cases (if demand be, past times seconding national officials for the duration), and/or creating a mutual European asylum appeal court. There are soundless broad differences inwards recognition rates of refugees betwixt Member States, despite a mutual legal acquis: the depression recognition charge per unit of measurement of Eritreans inwards French Republic equally compared to other Member U.S. of A. may direct maintain contributed to the ‘Calais crisis’, for instance. In the meantime, the Commission needs to pace upward infringement actions for breaches of European Union immigration in addition to asylum law.

Fourthly, to a greater extent than generally, should Schengen survive? It follows from the analysis to a higher identify that ending the Schengen organisation in addition to reimposing internal edge controls would probable direct maintain footling affect on the overall flows of migrants in addition to refugees coming to the EU. It mightiness direct maintain a small-scale affect on restricting their motility betwixt Member States, but the desirability of that outcome is tied upward amongst the merits of the Dublin rules, to which I plough below.

But if Member U.S. of A. are serious virtually ensuring that irregular migrants in addition to asylum-seekers do non cross borders to flout the Dublin rules, they would direct maintain to convey dorsum internal edge controls amongst a vengeance, edifice fences in addition to installing edge guards across many thousands of kilometres of mutual borders.  Except for Malta, the Schengen states do non direct maintain the built-in edge command that the UK, Republic of Ireland in addition to Republic of Cyprus (also non inwards Schengen) have, for obvious geographic reasons. The probable outcome would live dozens of ‘Calais’ situations at the diverse internal borders of the Union.

Furthermore, the basic obligation to driblet internal edge controls is laid out inwards the Treaties, in addition to so a permanent time out of Schengen would require a Treaty amendment. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 reasonable compromise mightiness live to amend the Schengen rules to allow for to a greater extent than temporary internal edge checks whenever intelligence shared betwixt Member U.S. of A. suggests that a large number of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers is probable to cross an internal border.

Fifthly, should Dublin survive? I volition forego answering this inquiry until nosotros reckon whether Member U.S. of A. are willing to dorsum a much to a greater extent than ambitious relocation system. If they are, in addition to so a pregnant chunk of the excess burden existence borne past times about Member U.S. of A. would live redistributed. Asylum-seekers would also do goodness from improve atmospheric condition in addition to a fairer peril of getting protection equally a final result – although it would live best to select job organisation human relationship of their preference inwards whatever relocation organisation equally far equally possible, so equally to cut down ‘secondary movements’.

Sixth, the individual enthusiasm of refugee advocates should live harnessed equally far equally possible. Why non assay to discovery coin from the European Union budget to pay those who are willing in addition to able to give humanitarian or other back upward to refugees in addition to asylum-seekers inwards an over-burdened Member State, or fifty-fifty a 3rd State? (This would supplement the EU’s existing programmes for volunteers). Why non address a recommendation to Member States, encouraging private sponsorship of refugees to cut down the burden on taxpayers? As good equally household unit of measurement in addition to friends, corporations in addition to NGOs should also live allowed to sponsor, in addition to (for instance) universities could inquire if students, staff in addition to alumni wanted to sponsor refugees who would run into the criteria to enrol inwards courses.

Critics of refugee advocates oftentimes fighting that those advocates should pose refugees upward inwards their homes – but many thousands of those advocates direct maintain inwards fact offered to do so. (For my part, permit me reassure those panicking virtually the admission of refugees that I was non beheaded past times my Middle Eastern refugee roommate at university).  But let’s plough this declaration around: why don’t critics of refugees pass a twelvemonth inwards Syria, or inwards the refugee camps which many Syrians direct maintain fled to, earlier they criticise the refugees for leaving or others for wanting to welcome them?

This brings me neatly to the international framework. To repeat, burden-sharing inwards refugee matters is non precisely an European Union principle, it’s a requirement of international law too. As regards Syrians, the neighbouring U.S. of A. (Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, in addition to Lebanon) direct maintain borne a far heavier burden than the European Union or whatever other countries direct maintain done. So it is solely correct for the European Union to aid them to a greater extent than amongst this burden than it is doing already (the European Union in addition to Member U.S. of A. already give pregnant fiscal assistance).

While refugees inwards those countries may live rubber from immediate persecution, they human face upward hard living conditions: reckon the farther analyses hither of the seat inwards Turkey in addition to the nearby Arab States. Moreover, nutrient back upward from United Nations agencies has precisely been halved. The EU’s farther back upward for these U.S. of A. does non direct maintain to live solely inwards the shape of admission of refugees: it could brand a farther fiscal contribution to increment the refugees’ living standards. Nor does the European Union lonely direct maintain to offering this assistance: the international law rules apply across the globe, in addition to the nearby Gulf states in addition to other wealthy or middle-income countries could do to a greater extent than past times way of taking refugees in addition to offering fiscal assistance.

In the medium term, about to a greater extent than imaginative solutions are possible. One job facing Syrian refugees inwards Turkey is that they are technically non refugees there, since Turkey applies the optional geographical limitation to the Geneva Convention, applying it to European refugees only. This agency that many Syrians are non allowed to work. The European Union could offering to waive visa requirements for Turkey inwards render for it lifting the geographical limitation (along amongst other conditions).

Another thought is the creation of a United Nations agency amongst the remit of the Syrian refugee crisis. This would hateful that a special regime inwards the Geneva Convention in addition to European Union law would apply: if the agency could non select adequate attention of Syrian refugees for whatever reason, they would live fully entitled to refugee status. Otherwise, their applications could live refused (see farther the CJEU judgment inwards El-Kott, on the application of these rules to Palestinians). At the really least, the European Union needs to select the maiden to grip a major international conference on the Syrian refugee situation, inwards gild to encourage in addition to coordinate many other countries’ efforts to select efforts to select a greater portion of the burden of relieving this unfolding human tragedy.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

Share this post