Why Do States Grant Asylum?
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-9256.00055 |
| Author | Liza Schuster |
| Date | 01 February 1998 |
| Published date | 01 February 1998 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
WhyWhy dodo States GrantStates Grant
Asylum?Asylum?
11
Liza Schuster
Recent legislation introduced by European
states to limit access to asylum is an attempt
to reinforce the State's control of admission to
its territory. However, while certain of these
states have eectively ceased to permit immi-
gration, none have indicated that asylum
should cease to be granted. This paper exam-
ines the reasons why States continue to grant
asylum and suggests that there are certain
conditions which are necessary for granting
asylum, in particular, that the bene®ts to the
asylum granting State outweigh any costs.
All European nations have the legal right to
grant asylum, but, with the single exception
of Germany, are under no obligation do so
2
.
Asylum is a right of states, not of individuals,
whose only right is to request asylum from a
state and to enjoy it once it is granted (Art.14
of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights). Recent legislation (for example Car-
riers' Liability Acts, visa requirements) intro-
duced by European countries to limit the
number of people who can claim and enjoy
asylum appears to demonstrate that states
fear that their right to grant asylum has
become a costly liability. Given the unwilling-
ness of European states to grant asylum,
manifested in the hurdles erected by legisla-
tion for those seeking asylum, the question is
raised, why do states grant asylum at all?
In attempting to answer this question by
examining reasons why asylum had been
granted in the past, it became apparent that
certain conditions have always been present
when asylum has been granted. These are
separate jurisdictions, parity of power and an
advantage for the asylum granting state or
body. This advantage can take and has taken
many dierent forms: a demonstration of one
state's sovereignty vis a
Ávis another, a means
of limiting the worst eects of blood feuds in
the absence of a legal system, a source of
scarce skills and/or labour, or a means of
legitimating a regime by demonstrating its
moral worth. Historically, where such advan-
tages are absent, asylum falls into disuse. This
explains why today, although its use is
severely curtailed, asylum's continued utility as
a means of demonstrating the moral princi-
ples which legitimate liberal democracies
ensures it will not be abolished altogether.
Asylum is the protection granted to a fugi-
tive. During asylum's long history, asylum
might be granted to anyone accused of a
crime
3
. However, this paper focuses on
asylum itself, rather than those who request
it, on the motivations of those who grant it,
rather than those who seek it. There are three
dierent types of asylum: temple or church
asylum; diplomatic asylum; and external
asylum. While examining the genealogy of
asylum, certain common features emerged:
®rstly a move from one jurisdiction to
another was necessary, if not from one's own
physical territory to another, then at least
from the jurisdiction of the secular to that of
the religious; secondly in order for one body
Politics (1998) 18(1) pp. 11±16
#Political Studies Association 1998. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK
and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 11
Liza Schuster, University of Southampton.
To continue reading
Request your trial