New Approaches to Asylum?
| Published date | 01 February 2001 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2435.00180 |
| Date | 01 February 2001 |
Published by Blackwell Publishers Ltd.,
108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK, and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
© 2001 IOM
International Migration Vol. 39 (6) SI 2/2001
ISSN 0020-7985
New Approaches to Asylum?
Khalid Koser*
ABSTRACT
Since its inception 50 years ago, the international asylum regime has shifted
through a series of discernibly different approaches. The most recent
approach has been characterized by restrictions on asylum-seekers, mani-
fested initially through a reluctance to grant asylum, and today through a
reluctance even to admit asylum-seekers.
There is now a growing consensus that this approach is unsustainable.
States are recognizing that restrictions have not fulfilled their original aims
of reducing the number of asylum-seekers, and furthermore have had
unintended consequences that include the growth of human smuggling
and trafficking.
UNHCR is concerned about the erosion of the entire concept of asylum.
Asylum advocates, NGOs and human rights activists argue that restrictions
have impacted as heavily on those who need international protection as on
those who do not. As a result, a wide range of new initiatives are being
proposed, which may pave the way for the evolution of a new approach to
asylum.
This article analyses the evolution of restrictions in the asylum regime,
explains the failing of this approach, and finally reviews possible ways
forward.
INTRODUCTION
Since its inception 50 years ago, the international asylum regime has shifted
through a series of discernibly different paradigms. The 1950s was dominated
by resettlement. The focus was primarily Jewish and other eastern European
refugees created during and in the aftermath of World War II, many of whom
* Migration Research Unit, Department of Geography, University College, London.
86 Koser
were resettled from Europe to North America, Australia and Israel. During the
1960s and 1970s both the geographical focus and the predominant approach of
the regime changed. The majority of refugees originated in poorer parts of the
world, particularly as a result of decolonization in Africa. The vast majority lived
temporarily in refugee camps in nearby countries, and then either settled
permanently in these host countries or repatriated. Smaller numbers were
resettled to countries in the industrialized world.
A third approach emerged around the beginning of the 1980s and has also
dominated the 1990s. It has been characterized by restrictions on asylum-
seekers, mainly in the industrialized countries. Restrictions were manifested
initially through a reluctance to grant asylum, and today through a reluctance
even to admit asylum-seekers. In 2001 this latter approach appears to have
reached its nadir. In August, for example, the Australian government controversially
refused permission for the Norwegian freighter Tampa to dock, and thereby
refused to process the asylum claims of the 433 mainly Afghan asylum-seekers
on board. At the time of writing they await processing on the Pacific island of
Nauru, and it is not yet clear what will happen to those who are found to have
genuine claims for asylum (nor to those who do not). The government is now
seeking to formalize this “Pacific solution” – the island of Palau has also been
offered aid in exchange for housing asylum-seekers heading for Australia.
In Europe, paradoxically the most striking recent example of an increasingly
prevalent trend towards restriction is the Red Cross reception centre for asylum-
seekers in the French coastal village of Sangatte. This centre provides temporary
shelter for people who are apparently intent on applying for asylum in the UK.
The French government refuses to process their asylum claims, yet the British
government has stepped up efforts to prevent their arrival in the UK. One
outcome is that many attempt clandestinely to stow away on trains and trucks
that run between Sangatte and the British port of Dover.
Restrictions on asylum-seekers have not just evolved in the industrialized
countries, but are also increasingly common in poorer parts of the world. For
example, the immediate responses of the governments of Pakistan, Iran and
Tajikistan to the movements towards their borders of Afghans fleeing the recent
conflict was to close those borders. They cited as reasons the economic,
environmental, social and security costs of the many millions of Afghan refugees
that they already host. They have also cited as justification the restrictions that
are being visited upon asylum-seekers – including those from Afghanistan – in
the industrialized world.
A consensus appears to be emerging that the current approach of the inter-
national asylum regime is unsustainable. Different actors in the regime for
broadly different reasons have reached the same conclusion. Their visions of the
future, however, are significantly divergent. The Office of the United Nations
To continue reading
Request your trial