Document Type

Article

Abstract

Part I of this Article analyzes third country agreements and refugee transfer practices of the United States and the European Union. Part II demonstrates that, under international law, all countries are obligated to protect refugees and are prohibited from directly or indirectly sending them to a country where there is a substantial basis for believing that their life or freedom would be threatened. Part II will likewise show that the notion of "safe third country" transfer agreements and practices is often a fallacy, an oxymoron. Instead of keeping refugees safe, such agreements and practices seriously erode the fundamental non-refoulment obligation by increasing the risk of a refugee being physically or "constructively removed" to states where they face a threat to their lives or freedom or to where they are likely to be subject to other grave international human rights violations. Such forced transfers to third countries may also result in "chain refoulement": The destination state deports refugees and asylum seekers to the "safe" third country, and that country deports them-often after summary proceedings to their country of origin.

Part III questions the argument that "safe third country" agreements enable states to share "the burden" of admitting refugees equitably. The policies and practices of destination states reveal that, with little consideration of any fair approach to distributing the "burden," they generally intend to push refugees and asylum seekers onto low-income, often formally colonized countries. To challenge the argument that safe third country agreements serve to share the burden of receiving refugees, this Part includes social science and current and historical data in the Appendix, detailing the ability of selected countries to receive asylum seekers and refugees based on various metrics, including the country's wealth, population density, poverty rate, birth rate, unemployment rate, number of refugee admissions, violence level, corruption level, and human rights record. The selected countries include the countries with the largest economies, the countries that have received the most refugees, and a sampling of "safe third countries." The data demonstrate that wealthier countries are far better equipped and suited to accepting refugees than far less wealthy countries, but, generally, the wealthier countries refuse to accept their fair share.

Part IV criticizes the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for accepting the state practice of concluding safe third country agreements and their equivalents. Although the UNHCR has generally vigorously advocated the rights of refugees in monitoring states' compliance with the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, the UNHCR's ratifying safe-third country agreements may have contributed to refoulement, the "practice of forcing refugees to return to a country [where they face persecution]." The prohibition of refoulement is the most fundamental right in refugee law.

Download

Share

COinS