We have recently written about the obligations that International Law attaches to States regarding refugees. And we referred to the World’s postwar aspirations of creating a better place, and its efforts to achieve those aspirations after 1945, notably the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and UN’s 1951 Refugee Convention.
“.. as we vowed after the World War II atrocities (in several Int. Treaty preambles – see UN, NATO, EU) we should be determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and unite our strength to maintain international peace and security.”
Promises such as these are extremely important. However, it is in periods of crisis that our beliefs and values are tested and not in periods of tranquility. That is when one’s true self can be seen, by way of his actions. And it appears that dreams are good as long as they last but in the end they are just dreams. Reality has to take over. Just as the EU-Turkey deal took over.
The Deal (One in, One-Out)
A groundbreaking deal is being negotiated between the EU and Turkey. Under this deal, all migrants arriving in Greece from Turkey would be returned (aspect 1) and for every Syrian sent back, a Syrian in Turkey would be resettled in the EU (aspect 2). The deal has yet to be fleshed out, and the full details of the deal are expected to be determined in the EU Summit on 17-18th March.
We are talking about an arrangement between States that equates refugees to ping-pong balls and has them thrown back and forth between Greece and Turkey on the Aegean Sea.
A breach of International Law?
The concerns about the deal’s legality as expressed by the UNHCR chief, Filippo Grandi and the leader of the ALDE group, Guy Verhofstadt should be strongly considered by those negotiating this deal.
Under the 1951 Refugee Convention, a blanket policy of returning anyone from one country to another (see the ping-pong comparison above) is prohibited. Refugees should only be returned to a country if it could be proved that their asylum application would be properly processed and if equal treatment, safety, access to work, healthcare and education is guaranteed. Returning all migrants to Turkey, a country that Human Rights watchdogs are justifiably very wary about may result in the would-be refugees finding themselves in a place where they lack full access to the very rights they are owed. And with Turkey’s record of human rights abuse (allegations involve sending Syrian Refugees back into Syria) it is not just a possibility but most likely a reality.
A breach of EU Law?
The Dublin III Regulation provides all EU Member States with a mechanism for determining which country is responsible for examining an application for refugee status. Practically, the state where the person first entered the EU is responsible for dealing with an asylum claim.
A blanket policy, apart from breaching international law, would also be in breach of Article 19 of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, which expressly states that “collective expulsions are forbidden.” Further, it appears that the EU is trying to control the refugee flow by deliberately creating a system that will evade the general adherence to international obligations, which is deeply concerning in itself. However, what is more concerning is that the EU leaders seem ready to sacrifice their most fundamental values & principles by actively routing asylum-seekers and refugees to a country that poses serious concerns about their very safety.
Under Article 33 of the Directive 2013/32/EU, an asylum application can be deemed inadmissible if the asylum seeker has travelled through a “safe third country.” Assuming that Turkey did fit the definition, it would be possible to essentially deny the asylum application and send the person back to that safe third country. The EU Commission has essentially listed Turkey as a safe third country. Though, considering Turkey’s long history of human rights abuse, and the limited protection it offers to refugees (see its record of refoulement – returning refugees to the country they were fleeing from in fear of their life), it cannot be deemed a safe third country.
Steve Peers, Professor of Law, University of Essex, comments:
“How is it possible for Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans and many others to ‘request refugee status’, to be ‘found to be a refugee’ and to ‘receive protection in accordance with the Geneva Convention’ in a country which (like Turkey) only applies the Geneva Convention to refugees from Europe? The Commission’s selective and misleading quotation from the text of the EU Directive suggests that it knows its argument is weak.”
It is evident then, that the deal as it presently stands threatens the core of the European Union, the very values and principles that the Europeans fought to build after the end of the second world war.