It is submitted here that this view is reductive in the extreme as it fundamentally denies that the EU Member States have a responsibility under the Refugee Convention and EU asylum law to protect and support those that flee the violence of their regimes (or the inability of their State to protect them from such violence). The imagery of drowned children should rightly haunt politicians who in the past or present have made a case for ‘Fortress Europe’, inter alia by imposing stringent visa requirements coupled with carrier sanctions – forcing displaced persons into the hands of people smugglers.

The current asylum policy is, in fact, broken. The Dublin system in principle assigns responsibility to examine an application for an asylum seeker to the Member State of first entry, meaning that the geographical location is the main determinant rather than say capacity for reception. As a result, the system lacks solidarity in that asylum responsibilities are unevenly divided among the Member States. Moreover, its maintenance threatens the EU internal market, as overburdened Member States may close borders and reinstate border controls, as Germany has recently done. This also has a beggar-thy-neighbour quality to it, as one Member State closing borders will inevitably cause a shift in the flows to other Member States.

Finally, the current system denies shared responsibility for what can be considered an international public good: effective refugee protection is meant to reduce potential for escalating conflicts as a result of homeless displaced persons aimlessly wandering, seeking refuge but finding none. Since it is to the benefit of all EU Member States to avoid these conflicts, and to introduce a degree of stability in the region, the response should be collective rather than individual.[4]

Refugee crisis

Following the State of the Union speech of Commission President Juncker, several instruments have been proposed by the Commission in order to deal with the current refugee crisis. The main message of Juncker to the EU Member States was to demonstrate ‘responsibility’ and ‘solidarity’ with the reception of refugees.

So, which instruments have been proposed by the Commission? More importantly, what has been the outcome of the Extraordinary Council meeting on the refugee crisis?

Proposals

1) Internal dimension on asylum

Relocate on the basis of a distribution key 120,000 refugees from Greece, Italy and Hungary. This is on top of the 40,000 refugees the relocation of whom was agreed upon earlier this year. In total this would amount to 160,000 refugees. Secondly, adoption of a permanent Relocation Mechanism within the Dublin system is foreseen.

2) Return policy:

A common European list of safe country of origin has been proposed.[5] This would mean that nationals from those countries who apply for protection in the EU can be processed in a fast-track procedure. Secondly, initiatives to carry out more effective return procedures have been presented.

3) External dimension on asylum:

Next to continuation of diplomatic and political initiatives, the Commission proposed to intensify the financial support to the countries hosting the millions of Syrian refugees. Secondly, the Commission introduced a Trust Fund for Africa in order to tackle the root causes of migration.

Evaluation

The outcome  of the Council meeting is disappointing on several counts. Most importantly, the Council only managed to agree ‘in principle’ to relocate 120,000 refugees. Whether the Council will reach a formal agreement on the relocation mechanism to be applied has been delayed until a follow-up meeting on 8-9 October. This remains a sensitive aspect within the Council discussions. Most Member States are willing to relocate, however, solely on a voluntary basis. Several Member States have expressed their resistance to take more refugees even before the Council meeting took place. A modest positive decision by the Council is to relocate 40,000 refugees from Italy and Greece. This step is not sufficient to lift the extreme pressure experienced by the Member States on the external borders.

Rather more firm is the stance as regards the return policy: a strong focus lies with border control (para. 2), return and detention measures, and preventing secondary movements (para. 8); indeed Member States are reminded that effective return and readmission policies are to be implemented with ‘with utmost urgency’ and that ‘all leverages (…) should be mobilized’ to ensure that third countries take back their nationals (para. 12). The Council also managed to agree – this time not ‘in principle’ – to adopt a common EU list of safe countries of origin and to speed up the legislative process in this regard.

As to the external dimension of asylum, Member States will increase their budgets to assist the UNHCR in regional countries (Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq) and has vaguely pledged to further develop resettlement possibilities.