EU needs common policy on asylum

Ensuring that asylum seekers receive the protection they deserve requires EU member states to come to an accord on migration laws.

Commentary by Chantal Berger for ISN Security Watch (31/07/07)


The EU has been seeking to create a Common European Asylum System ever since negotiations began at the 1999 European Council summit in Tampere, Finland, and now there is a new discussion concerning the release of a Green Paper in June on the system targeted to go into effect in 2010.

The paper calls for an "integrated, comprehensive approach to asylum" seeking to improve "all aspects of the asylum process." It encourages all EU member states to share the responsibility for asylum.

A single asylum policy would entail creating a common application and evaluation procedure for migrants seeking asylum in any of the EU member states. Progress has been painstakingly slow, however, as countries continue to implement self-established asylum procedures in an effort to keep the number of asylum seekers as low as possible.

Despite those attempts, many asylum seekers seek protection in Europe every day. The majority of asylum seekers arrive on the coasts of Spain, Italy and Malta, setting sail across the ocean from northern Africa, often in dilapidated fishing boats. In 2006, an estimated 30,000 African migrants risked their lives traveling to the Canary Islands, according to the BBC. About 6,000 of them died or went missing along the way, Spanish immigration officials report.

In May this year, a Maltese boat refused to pick up 26 African migrants clinging to a tuna net in the Mediterranean, claiming they were in Libyan waters. According to the BBC, the migrants ended up stranded in the sea for three days and nights until an Italian vessel finally brought them to safety.

Authorities are overwhelmed with the number of refugee applications. It has quickly become clear that individual countries no longer have the capacity to deal with the rising number of asylum seekers.

European Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini has criticized EU member states for not giving enough help to countries who carry most of the burden of handling refugees, such as those around the Mediterranean, the International Herald Tribune reports.

The core of the problem remains that European countries vary extensively in their immigration and asylum policies. According to the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, asylum seekers face widely varying chances of refugee recognition in different EU countries.

Sweden, for example, which has shown greater sympathy toward asylum seekers, received close to half of all Iraqi asylum applications (8,950) in Europe in 2006. After Sweden, the UNHCR reports that the largest number of Iraqi asylum applications was accepted by the Netherlands (2,765), followed by Germany, Greece, the UK and Norway. Sweden is now struggling with the immense increase in applications, which has prompted the country's Migration and Asylum Policy Minister Tobias Billström to call on other EU nations for help.

Up to now, however, no one has stepped up to the plate.

The overload in applications has resulted in an increased use of accelerated procedures, which often leads to the immediate rejection and deportation of persons in need of international protection. Thomas Hammarberg, the Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe (COE) in Strasbourg commented in an opinion piece that "the quick decisions on sending back large groups of new arrivals" can potentially totally undermine "the right to seek asylum."

The situation begs a re-examination of what exactly the "right for asylum" means.

The asylum story in Europe can be traced back to a much more fundamental, legal challenge. With the exception of the non-legally binding 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides for a right to "seek and enjoy asylum," there is no provision in any human rights treaty that provides for a right to asylum. Not even the European Convention on Human Rights directly protects asylum seekers.

"Member states of the Council of Europe are hesitant to step in for asylum. It has always been a tabooed topic causing dispute among states with differing policies," a COE representative in Strasbourg said during a talk in October 2006.

So the question remains, will the EU hold firm to its commitment to shelter asylum seekers with no legal instruments protecting their right to seek asylum in the first place?

The free movement of individuals within the EU established through the Schengen Agreement enabled asylum seekers refused access in one country to apply in a neighboring country, a process commonly known as "asylum shopping." This process has been reduced since 2003 due to a common EU centralized fingerprint database, which is aimed at preventing abuses of the asylum system. Yet considering the still distinct asylum policies among EU countries today, some question whether this system is just.

While almost all EU member states are in favor of the Common Asylum Policy, many, including the UK, are worried that it may be too optimistic, disregarding the fundamental issue of individual state sovereignty. "On a practical level, the communication is to be welcomed. On a political level, however, serious questions remain about how far down this road we can go before fundamental questions of sovereignty are addressed," Mark Hunter, member of the UK House of Commons European Standing Committee, said in a statement.

The EU still needs to work on its unified appearance. The key is to ensure that no matter where a person applies for asylum, that they will receive proper treatment and protection. A single protection status for people allowed into the EU on humanitarian grounds - in other words, a single asylum policy - is the only way to address this pressing issue.





Chantal Berger is an intern at the ISN in Zürich and holds a BA in Political Science from Drew University in New Jersey. She will continue her studies in September for an MA in International Affairs at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva.

The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author only, not the International Relations and Security Network (ISN).