II.2.3 Access to procedures

Main Debates

  • Should asylum seekers have a choice?
  • Are states free to delegate the task of refugee protection to other states?
  • Under what conditions, should a state be entitled to return/send an asylum seeker to another state (if any at all)?

Main Points

  • Content of effective protection

The need to specify the grounds for removal

  • To the asylum seeker
  • To the authorities of the destination state

Readings

Core

  1. S. Kneebone, ‘The Legal and Ethical Implications of Extraterritorial Processing of Asylum-Seekers: The “Safe Third Country’ Concept”, in J. McAdam (ed.), Forced Migration, Human Rights and Security (Portland Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2008).

Editor’s Note

See Section VI.2.3 for analyses of European jurisprudence on access to procedures.

 II.2.3 Access to ProceduresII.2.3 Access to Procedures

 II.2.3.1 Protection Elsewhere (First Country of Asylum and Safe Third Country)II.2.3.1 Protection Elsewhere (First Country of Asylum and Safe Third Country)

UNHCR DocumentsUNHCR Documents

#NameSize
1UNHCR, ‘Global Consultations on International Protection, Background paper no. 3: Inter-State agreements for the re-admission of third country nationals, including asylum seekers, and for the determination of the State responsible for examining the substaUNHCR, ‘Global Consultations on International Protection, Background paper no. 3: Inter-State agreements for the re-admission of third country nationals, including asylum seekers, and for the determination of the State responsible for examining the substaEmpty
2UNHCR, ‘Global Consultations on International Protection, Background paper no. 2: The application of the “safe third country” notion and its impact on the management of flows and on the protection of refugees’, May 2001.UNHCR, ‘Global Consultations on International Protection, Background paper no. 2: The application of the “safe third country” notion and its impact on the management of flows and on the protection of refugees’, May 2001.Empty
3UNHCR, Global Consultations on International Protection/Third Track: Asylum Processes (Fair and Efficient Asylum Procedures), 31 May 2001, EC/GC/01/12.UNHCR, Global Consultations on International Protection/Third Track: Asylum Processes (Fair and Efficient Asylum Procedures), 31 May 2001, EC/GC/01/12.Empty
4UNHCR, Global Consultations on International Protection/Regional Meetings: Conclusions (Regional Meeting in Budapest, 6-7 June 2001), 15 June 2001, EC/GC/01/14.UNHCR, Global Consultations on International Protection/Regional Meetings: Conclusions (Regional Meeting in Budapest, 6-7 June 2001), 15 June 2001, EC/GC/01/14.Empty

CasesCases

#NameSize
1Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home department ex parte Adan; Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Aitseguer, UK House of Lords (Judgments of 19 December 2000) (2001) 2 WLR 143–169. (holding that Somali and Algerian asylum aRegina v. Secretary of State for the Home department ex parte Adan; Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Aitseguer, UK House of Lords (Judgments of 19 December 2000) (2001) 2 WLR 143–169. (holding that Somali and Algerian asylum aEmpty
2Canadian Council for Refugees v. Her Majesty, 2007 FC 1262 (Federal Court), 29 November 2007 (Canadian judicial opinion striking down Canada’s designation of the United States as a safe third country). Canadian Council for Refugees v. Her Majesty, 2007 FC 1262 (Federal Court), 29 November 2007 (Canadian judicial opinion striking down Canada’s designation of the United States as a safe third country). Empty