Border Control: Not a Transparent Reality

  • René Bruin
Chapter

Abstract

The prohibition of refoulement is the cornerstone of international refugee and asylum law and is contained in and developed under various international treaties. To ensure that people seeking protection can have access to a procedure in which their claims can adequately be examined access to the territory of the host State is essential if this is the only way to guarantee a fair procedure. According to UNHCR, more and more States try to prevent the prohibition of refoulement from being applicable in the first place. The EU Dublin Regulation and EU Procedures Directive guarantee asylum seekers on the territory and at the border access to the asylum procedure, at least in one EU country. UNCHR argues that activities at EU border points are not always transparent. Competencies and responsibilities of States vis-à-vis persons intercepted outside Europe are also not well defined. There should be corresponding safeguards and the Council should be more transparent on these issues.

Keywords

Asylum Seeker State Party Border Control External Border Territorial Water 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Den Heijer M (2009) The fight against illegal migration and death at the border. In: Snyder, Thym (eds) Europe—a Continent of Immigration? Legal challenges in the construction of European migration policy, Bruylant, Brussels (To be published)Google Scholar
  2. Den Heijer M (2010) Europe beyond its borders: refugee and human rights protection in extraterritorial immigration control. In: Ryan B, Mitsilegas V (eds) Extraterritorial immigration control: legal challenges. Brill Academic Publishers, Leyden, Intersentia, Antwerpen (To be published)Google Scholar
  3. European council on refugees and exiles (2007) Defending refugees’ access to protection in Europe. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4766464e2.html
  4. Feller E, Türk V, Nicholson F (2001) Refugee protection in international law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Hathaway JC (2005) The rights of refugees under international law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Refugee Council in the United Kingdom (2008) Remote controls: how UK border controls are endangering the lives of refugees. http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy/position/2008/remotecontrols/remote_controls_report.html
  7. UN high commissioner for refugees (2004) European Roma rights centre and others v. Immigration officer at prague airport. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/41c1aa654.html
  8. UN High Commissioner for Refugees (2007a) Refugee protection and mixed migration: a 10-point plan of action. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/45b0c09b2.html
  9. UN High Commissioner for Refugees (2007b) Advisory opinion on the extraterritorial application of non-refoulement obligations under the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 protocol. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/45f17a1a4.html
  10. Weinzierl R (2007) The demands of human and EU fundamental rights for the protection of the European union’s external borders. German Institute for Human Rights, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. Wouters K (2009) International legal standards for the protection from Refoulement. Intersentia, AntwerpenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • René Bruin
    • 1
  1. 1.UNHCRThe HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations