The Refugee Policies of West European Governments: A Human Rights Challenge at our Doorsteps

  • Johan Cels
Part of the Southampton Studies in International Policy book series (SSIP)


An important aspect of the European human rights record has been the traditional liberal policies toward asylum-seekers and refugees since the Second World War. Daily the media reports the hopeless fate of refugees worldwide. These reports, however, challenge the widely held belief of the traditional humanitarian policies of European governments toward persons having a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality or political opinion.


Asylum Seeker Refugee Status European Government Refugee Problem United Nations High Commissioner 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 25 July 1951, 189 United Nations Treaty Series (UNTS) 137, as amended by the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, 26 July 1967, 606 UNTS 267.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Henri-Juri Uibopuu, Der Schutz des Flüchtlings in Rahmen des Europarats’, Archiv des Völkerrechts 21, no. 1, 1983, pp. 60–103.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Plender, Problems Raised by Certain Aspects of the Present Situation of Refugees from the Standpoint of the European Convention on Human Rights (Strasbourg: Directorate of Human Rights, Council of Europe, 1984); andD. S. Nance, ‘The Individual Right to Asylum Under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights’, in Michigan Yearbook of International Legal Studies, Transnational Legal Problems of Refugees (New York: Clark Boardman, 1980) pp. 477–92.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Article 1.2 Organisation for African Unity Convention of 10 September 1969 governing the specific aspects of refugee problems in Africa, UNTS no. 14.691.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. A. Hoeksma, Tussen Vrees en Vervolging: een inleiding tot het Vluchtelingenrecht (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1982).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Field, Resettling Refugees: The Lessons of Research (London: Home Office, 1985) Research Study No 87.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    The quality of the available statistical data of the numbers of asylum-seekers, their countries of origin and the numbers granted refugee status is deplorable. Belgium and the Netherlands apparently do not publish detailed data for technical and diplomatic reasons. Governments have manipulated the statistics in order to serve political ends. The Federal Republic of Germany claimed in 1985 that it had received 529 000 refugees since the Second World War, while figures from the UNHCR indicated that Germany have given hospitality to approximately 310 000 refugees. Critics have argued that the Federal government, by consistently misrepresenting the figures, has aimed to influence the asylum debate in a restrictive way by implying that Germany already carries a significant part of the burden and that this justifies the adoption of deterrent measures.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. Avery, ‘Refugee Status Decision Making: The Systems of Ten Countries’, Stanford Journal of International Law, 19, no. 2, 1983.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Loescher and J. Scanlan, Calculated Kindness: Refugees and Americas Half-Open Door, 1945 to the Present (New York and London: The Free Press, Macmillan, 1986).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    US Committee for Refugees, Flight to Uncertainty: Poles outside Poland (New York: US Committee for Refugees, 1982).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Note from Herman De Croo, Belgian Minister of Communications and Foreign Trade of Belgium, to all airline companies operating on Belgian civil airports, 6 February 1986.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deutscher Bunderstag, Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Kleine Anfrage uber die Einreise von Asylbewerbern uber die DDR bwz. Berlin (Ost) Drucksache 10/5557, 28 May 1986.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Die Welt, 9 November 1985.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Standaard, 9 March 1986.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Die Welt, 25 July 1986; Der Spiegel, Nr 31 and 32, 1986.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Deutscher Bunderstag, Antwort der Bundesregierung, 28 May 1986.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Hand-book on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (Geneva: UNHCR, 1979) pp. 14–15.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. Van Krieken, ‘Torture and Asylum’, SIM Newsletter, no. 13, February 1986, pp. 27–43.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ibid p. 27.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Atle Grahl-Madsen, Territorial Asylum (London: Oceana Publications, 1980).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Henn-Jüri Uibopuu, ‘Der Schutz des Flüchtlings’; Jean-Pierre Gerber, Wir brauchen eine europäische Asylpolitik’, in H. Däpp and R. Karlen, Asylpolitik gegen Flüchtlinge, (Basel: Leons Verlag, 1984) pp. 97–120.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    The principal agreements and recommendations are: the European Agreement on Transfer of Responsibility for Refugees (1980); Recommendation on the Acquisition by Refugees of the Nationality of the Receiving Country R(84)21; Recommendations on the Harmonization on the Protection of Persons satisfying the Criteria in the Geneva Convention who are not formally recognised as Refugees R(84)1. The effectiveness of these instruments is however being undermined by the slow ratification to the agreements by the national parliaments and the failure to adopt measures to adhere the recommendations.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Raoul Wallenberg Institute, Responsibility for Examining an Asylum Request, Report of seminar held in Lund (Sweden), 24–26 April 1985.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    CAHAR, Confidential.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    G. Jaeger, `Menschliche Losungen fur Flüchtlingen in irregularen Situationen’, in P. von Bethlenfalvy (Hrsg) Aktuelle Probleme bei der Aufnahme und Integration von Flüchtlingen und Aussiedlern in Mitteleuropa (Stuttgart: Doc-Lap Zentrum, 1983) p. 124.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Note by the High Commissioner, Consultations on the Arrival of Asylum-Seekers and Refugees in Europe, Geneva, May 1985.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Statement Mr J. Widgren, at Seminar on the Responsibility for Examining an Asylum Request, organised by the Raoul Wallenberg Institute, Lund, 24–26 April 1986.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tribune de Genéve, 14 April 1986.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gilbert Jaeger, ‘Study of Irregular Movements of Asylum Seekers and Refugees’, Geneva, UNHCR, unpublished study, August 1985, p.41.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Background paper submitted to the Colloquium on the Development in the Law of Refugee with Particular Reference to the 1951 Convention and the Statute of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Bellagio, 21–28 April 1965.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ibid, p. 10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dilys M. Hill 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johan Cels

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations