The Concept of ‘Safe Country’ and Expeditious Asylum Procedures: A Western European Perspective

This article analyses two different contexts in which the concept of ‘safe country’ is used, namely, in the sense of a third country in which an asylum seeker was safe or could have found protection from persecution; and the relatively new idea of ‘safe country of origin.’ The former has been apparent in State practice for some time, whereas the latter is now beginning to appear as a basis for excluding certain categories of asylum applicants from access to refugee status procedures. The author suggests that the ‘safe country’ concept is essential to the development of more expeditious asylum procedures. At present, the practice of case-by-case analysis is bringing many European systems to the point of collapse, undermining the possibilities for generous refugee policy. Many asylum requests in Europe are made for economic or social purposes, and a large proportion of asylum seekers do not need ‘protection’. The author reviews recent Western European and Canadian practice, and the criteria being developed for the identification of ‘safe countries.’ Special attention is given to the latest legislative proposals in the Federal Republic of Germany, the effect of the Dublin and Schengen agreements, the Maastricht Treaty, and the conclusions and recommendations adopted by the EC Immigration Ministers at the Edinburgh Council in December 1992. The author locates the debate on safe countries against the background of the provisions of the 1951 Convention, UNHCR Executive Committee conclusions, as well as relevant human rights instruments, such as the 1966 Covenants. He concludes by suggesting that, provided there are clear procedural safeguards, a system for generally determining which countries are safe may well be a step forward in curbing illegal immigration, and concentrating procedures on those asylum seekers urgently in need of protection.