Abstract
In a world in which asylum seekers and refugees number well in excess of ten million, traditional international law concepts of asylum come under a lot of pressure. Developed, industrialized states look for means to constrain the influx of asylum seekers. The concept of “irregular movements,” discussed earlier in this Colloquium, may serve to produce a device of large-scale constraint. A similar device, in use for a much longer period and presumably operating on a somewhat smaller scale, may be found in the traditional rules about the “country of first asylum.”1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
There is little literature in English on the doctrine of the country of first asylum as such; see, however, G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law 52-56 (1983). The subject as a whole has been dealt with thoroughly in the doctoral dissertation of Dr. Franz Bethäuser, Der Anderweitige Schutz vor Verfolgung im Asylrecht (J.W. Goethe Universität, Frankfurt, 1983).
Other constraining devices are numerous. They include the so-called “domestic flight alternative.” In some circumstances, a person genuinely threatened in his home town or province might be able to find reasonable security by moving to other portions of the country — an alternative of “domestic flight.” If so, one might say that he need not be recognized as a refugee, nor granted asylum, if he chooses instead to flee to another country. Although the theory is sound, immigration authorities are sometimes too ready to find that secure alternatives exist within the home country. See generally G. Körner & P. Nicolans, Grundlagen des Asylrechts in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 360-384 (1986).
See generally Melander, Refugees in Orbit, 16 A.W.R. Bulletin 59–75 (1978).
This organization links private bodies that assist refugees and asylum-seekers in various countries, and it has published a helpful book summarizing national laws and practices: ECRE, Asylum in Europe: A Handbook for Agencies Assisting Refugees (3d ed. 1983). I am grateful to Mr. Alexander Takkenberg of the Netherlands Refugee Assistance Organization (VVN) for supplying me with materials from ECRE. The various reports on first asylum practices were published in August 1986 in a booklet titled European Lawyers Workshop on the Principle of “Country of First Asylum” (1986) [hereinafter ECRE Booklet].
Rosenberg v. Yee Chien Woo, 402 U.S. 49, 57 (1971) (quoting with approval from the ruling by the INS district director). See Evans, Political Refugees “Not Firmly Resettled” As in Section 203(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 as Amended, 66 Am. J. Int’l L. 101-107 (1972).
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, 19 U.S.T. 6259, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, 189 U.N.T.S. 137; supplemented by Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, Jan. 31, 1967, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, 606 U.N.T.S. 267. See 1 A. Grahl-Madsen, The Status of Refugees in International Law 173-216 (1966).
See generally Vierdag, “Asylum” and “Refugee” in International Law, 24 Neth. Int’l L. Rev. 287 (1977).
See, e.g., G. Goodwin-Gill, supra note 1, at 101-04; T. Aleinikoff & D. Martin, Immigration: Process and Policy 648-49 (1985).
See Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) §§ 207(c)(1), 209(b)(4), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1157(c)(1), 1159(b)(4) (1982), added by the Refugee Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-212, 94 Stat. 102; 8 C.F.R. §§ 207.1(b),(c), 208.14 (1987).
See, e.g., Najaf-Ali v. Meese, 653 F. Supp. 833 1836 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Damaize-Job v. INS, 787 F. 2d 1332, 1337 (9th Cir. 1986). See also Dietrich, United States Asylum Policy, this volume.
Refugees Without an Asylum Country, Conclusion 15(XXX), para. h(iv), Report of the Executive Comm. of the High Commissioner’s Programme (30th Sess.), 34 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 12A) at 17, U.N. Doc. A/34/12/Add. 1 (1979).
For a general account of that conference, see A. Grahl-Madsen, Territorial Asylum 61-68 (1980).
See U.N. Doc. A/CONF.72/C.l/L.104/Add.l, at 6-7.
Report of the Sub-Committee of the Whole on International Protection, Executive Comm. of the High Commissioner’s Programme (30th sess.) para. 13, U.N. Doc. A/AC.96/571 (1979).
See, e.g., Executive Comm. of the High Commissioner’s Programme (30th Sess.), Note on Asylum: Refugees without an Asylum Country, U.N. Doc. EC/SCP/12 (1979).
ECRE Booklet, supra note 3, at 64-66.
It would exceed the scope of this paper to discuss the effect of such so-called “refoulement agreements” on asylum-seekers. But it would seem that their effect is limited, as they normally contain very short terms for their operation. See 2 A. Grahl-Madsen, The Status of Refugees in International Law 317-322 (1972).
ECRE Booklet, supra note 3, at 67 (emphasis added).
The definition of “asylum” in the authoritative Resolution of the Institute of International Law on “Asylum in Public International Law” adopted in Bath in 1950 (Article 1: “... ‘asylum’ means the protection which a State grants on its territory... to a person who comes to seek it”) does not contain a further definition of “protection.” But it surely suggests security, a true shelter. See 43 Institut de Droit International, Annuaire 376 (1950).
ECRE Booklet, supra note 3, at 48–52, discussing Judgment of June 5, 1984, Bundesverwaltungsgericht, reprinted in 2 Entscheidungssamlung zum Ausländer-und Asylrecht (EZAR) § 205 No.2 (1986).
AuslG, 28 Apr. 1965: [1965] BGB1 I, 353.
AsylVfG, 16 July 1982: [1982] BGB II, 946.
Article 16(2) of the Grundgesetz (Basic Law) provides: “Persons persecuted for political reasons shall enjoy the right of asylum.” 3 A. Peaslee, Constitutions of Nations 364 (3d ed. 1968).
Cf. § 7(2) Asylgesetz und der “Anderweitige Schutz” des Asylwerbers, 34 Österr. Z. Öff. Recht und Völkerrecht 305, 327 n. 110 (1984).
Changes of this sort were in fact enacted in November 1986, but the German courts have not yet ruled on the exact application of the new provision nor on its compatibility with Article 16(2) of the German Basic Law. See Wollenschläger & Becker, Das Gesetz zur Änderung asylverfahrensrechtlicher, arbeitserlaubnisrechtlicher und ausländerrechtlicher Vorschriften, 1987 Zeitschrift fur Ausländerrecht und Ausländerpolitik (ZAR) 51.
A summary of the judgment is in 1981 Receuil des Décisions du Conseil d’Etat 20-21. Short discussions of the decision appear in F. Tiberghien, La protection des réfugiés en France 37-38 (1984), and in Julien-Laferrière [annotation on the decision], 1981 Journal du Droit International (Clunet) 560-566. The text of the summary is reprinted in Tiberghien, at 134, and in the Journal at 558-559.
Tiberghien, supra note 25, at 37, 38; Julien-Laferrière, supra note 25, at 563; referring to Convention, supra note 5, art. 1(E).
Tiberghien, supra note 25, at 38.
Entered into force Sept. 3, 1960, Europ. T.S. No. 31, 376 U.N.T.S. 85.
Entered into force Dec. 1, 1980, Europ. T.S. No. 107, 20 I.L.M. 1391 (1981).
Uibopuu, supra note 23, at 308-09.
Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Responsibility for Examining on Asylum Request (Report No. 1, Lund, 1986).
Id. at 17-21.
Id. at 19.
See note 16 supra.
Raoul Wallenberg Institute, supra note 31, at 21.
Id.
See Jaeger, Irregular Movements: The Concept and Possible Solutions; den Hond, “Jet-Age Refugees”: In Search of Balance and Cooperation, this volume.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1988 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vierdag, E.W. (1988). The Country of “First Asylum”: Some European Aspects. In: Martin, D.A. (eds) The New Asylum Seekers: Refugee Law in the 1980s. International Studies in Human Rights. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6389-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6389-9_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-6391-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-6389-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive