Lighting

Immigration: outsourcing asylum requests, a contagious temptation in Europe

While Italy and the United Kingdom plan to transfer their asylum seekers to third countries, the idea of ​​outsourcing these requests is increasingly attractive to European states. A trend strongly criticized by associations, which point to significant legal obstacles and denounce potential threats to the right to asylum.

Migrants from sub-Saharan Africa sit in a makeshift boat towards Italy, in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Sfax (Tunisia) on October 4, 2022. AFP - FETHI BELAID

By: Caroline Renaux Follow

Advertisement

Read more

Political victory for the President of the Italian Council Giorgia Meloni who had promised to stop the arrival of migrant boats on the country's coasts. This Monday, January 29,

the Albanian Constitutional Court gave the green light

to the migration agreement concluded with Italy, providing for the construction in Albania of two reception centers for migrants rescued in Italian waters. Up to 3,000 asylum seekers would be “relocated” there every month, while waiting to know whether they will be eligible for asylum on the Peninsula or will have to be repatriated.

With this project, Rome follows in the footsteps of London, which

continues to defend the transfer of asylum seekers

to Rwanda. Rejected by the Supreme Court in November and then modified, the Sunak government's bill ended up obtaining a first vote in the upper house of Parliament that same Monday. After more than six hours of debate, the text was passed by the Lords at second reading without a formal vote, meaning it will now face scrutiny for several days.

With a record level of asylum applications in 2023 –

almost 30% increase in the first half of the year

according to figures published in September by the European Union Agency for Asylum – projects to outsource applications asylum are becoming more and more popular in Europe. The idea, which aims to reduce the pressure on the asylum systems of the Old Continent, is popular in Denmark and Austria as well as in Germany.

An idea almost forty years old

Last November, the Austrian Interior Minister, Gerhard Karner, announced that he wanted to work on outsourcing on the advice of his British counterpart. Its German neighbor, whose asylum requests jumped by 51% in 2023, began to think about it as part of a feasibility study, under pressure from the liberal FDP party.

Although it is constantly mentioned in discussions in Brussels, the project to relocate the reception of asylum seekers is not new. It was proposed by Denmark in 1986, resurrected by Tony Blair in 2003, then increasingly mentioned when Australia began subcontracting asylum applications to Pacific micro-states in 2001 – a procedure which

costs it ten times more

than if it took place on its soil. “ 

The idea of ​​outsourcing has been in the pipeline for more than thirty years

 ,” summarizes Laurent Delbos, advocacy manager for the asylum rights association

Forum Refugees

.

For the moment, no outsourcing has really seen the light of day on the continent, hampered by several legal obstacles. For good reason, current law does not provide for extraterritorial asylum procedures. The agreement concluded between Rome and Tirana seems to escape from this by only concerning migrants rescued in the Mediterranean Sea, and not those who have already set foot on Italian soil. “ 

It’s a

legal pirouette

,” believes Laurent Delbos.

An obligation which no longer falls on the United Kingdom since Brexit, which however cannot escape the Geneva Convention relating to refugee status. “ 

Outsourcing

means

saying:

'Asylum requests are no longer my responsibility, I delegate them to another State.'

It is a disengagement that does not speak its name, which is contrary to the commitment that the United Kingdom made by signing the Geneva Convention 

,” recalls the advocacy manager of Forum Refugees.

Out of sight, away from rights?

For its part, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

maintains its long-standing position

: transfers to third countries must respect the human rights obligations established by the conventions. According to the associations, this is where the problem lies. For Italy, where the number of illegal migrants (155,754) has doubled compared to the previous year, the NGO International Rescue Committee castigated a " 

dehumanizing

 " agreement, while Amnesty International deplored a " 

threat

[ for]

the rights of migrants and refugees

 ”.

Indeed, by postponing procedures and delegating them to third parties, rights violations could be numerous: long maritime transfers for people in distress, automatic detentions, risks of refoulement, lack of access to care, etc. “The 

problem ", it is out of sight, also far from all the control authorities, whether they are jurisdictional, associative or citizen ," says Matthieu Tardis, director of the

Synergies migrations

research center

.

For the Italian case, the Albanian camps will be placed under Italian jurisdiction and therefore under the legal responsibility of a Member State. If the model gives rise to reservations from members of the Albanian opposition, who contest the "

sale of a piece of territory

 ", the agreement will oblige these relocations to comply with Italy's European and international commitments.

In the case of the United Kingdom, the management of asylum seekers will be handled entirely by Rwanda, with no promise of ever setting foot on British soil. “

This is the most successful case of de-responsibility for the right to asylum ,” maintains Camille Le Coz, researcher at the

Migration Policy Institute

 think tank

. “ 

By putting aside the right to asylum in the territorial sense, the United Kingdom is putting aside fundamental rights

,” continues Matthieu Tardis.

Coming back to this does not only mean going back to the right to asylum, it is ultimately going back to the rule of law and the foundation of our democracies. 

»

Towards the “ 

weakening

 ” of the right to asylum

A domino effect which alerts specialists, who fear in the long term a disintegration of the right to asylum for candidates for exile. According to Laurent Delbos, this trend towards outsourcing would amount to “ 

weakening or even eliminating the right to asylum in Europe

 ”. Others fear a more global decline in these guarantees, which are already difficult to ensure on the continent. “ 

If Europe puts all these systems in place, why would Jordan, Lebanon, Kenya or Pakistan take in refugees? These attempts weaken the global system of international protection 

,” explains Camille Le Coz.

Finally, according to the specialist, the projects aim more to discharge responsibility towards refugees than to share it. “

 If we can process asylum requests in nearby countries rather than letting asylum seekers travel the entire migratory route while risking their lives several times, why not. But here, we are not in this logic of sharing responsibility, we are rather trying to get rid of our international responsibilities 

,” she laments. This “transfer of responsibility”, which had already pushed the UNHCR to oppose the agreement signed between London and Kigali, would be all the more worrying as the reception of refugees

already weighs more heavily on developing countries

. Developed countries only welcome 15% of all refugees.

Newsletter

Receive all the international news directly in your inbox

I subscribe

Follow all the international news by downloading the RFI application

Share :

Continue reading on the same themes:

• Immigration

• International Migration

• European Union

• Refugees

• our selection