The Right to Grant or Deny Asylum

This article examines the decision to European Union’s top court on right to grant or deny asylum in the light of increasing refugees.

Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. However, the manner in which a state exercises its sovereignty has a direct effect upon the ability of refugees to seek protection from persecution, and without a meaningful opportunity to make refugee application, the right to seek asylum seems to be illusory. In the recent time, instances of civil wars, anarchy, and brutal dictatorships is becoming common in many industrialized countries and at the same time more of them are putting restrictions on the ability of refugees to seek asylum. This shift toward a more stringent exercise of sovereignty by the state appears to be in response to the recent significant increase in the number of asylum seekers around the world.

Restrictions in Europe

In the recent times, it is seen that EU has made it more difficult for people to claim refugee status. There are number of factors which has prompted EU to do so, such as an increased influx of migrants arriving at the borders, harsh conditions in reception facilities in some EU countries, lack of uniform standards for assessing asylum etc. Amidst the growing refugee and immigrant crisis in Europe, the verdict of the European Court of Justice, giving member-states the right to grant or deny asylum has come as a big twist.

The European Court of Justice ruledagainst the family from the city of Aleppo, which had applied for the humanitarian visas at the Belgian embassy. The family had challenged the refusal of the Belgian immigration office, citing the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights. The man claimed to have been abducted by an armed terrorist group, then beaten and tortured, before being release on payment of a ransom. They emphasized the deteriorating security situation in Syria in general, and in Aleppo especially, and on the fact that, being Orthodox Christians, they are at risk of persecution on account of their religious beliefs.

The court in its ruling said that, “allowing third-country nationals to lodge applications for visas in order to obtain international protection in the Member State of their choice would undermine the general structure of the system established by the Union for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection”. And thus, held that Belgium was right in refusing visas to the family.

This judgment has earned very mixed response across the globe. On one side it has been welcomed since itcloses the gates to uncontrolled immigration and on the other side, this decision has been criticized inhuman terms as it leaves many refugees in the hands of traffickers and close all the doors for help.

Implication of the decision

Positive

• It will help EU to keep a check on an uncontrolled immigration. It will enable the member countries to pay more attention to the issues pertaining to their internal law and order.
• It will ease the financial burden of the respective countries which will help the countries to manage proper redistribution of resources in a more efficient way.

Negative

• Since refugees are already vulnerable section of the society, this decision will worsen their situation more. Adopting such ruthless attitude towards the asylum seekers will lead to humanitarian catastrophe.
• Leaving the choice of granting asylum on the member states appears to be a futile effort because they will be see these refugee as a financial burdenand therefore will be reluctant to help.
• It will push the asylum seekers to use the increasingly dangerous irregular routes. Women and children are at greatest risk of violence and exploitation along these routes.
• Europe being a signatory to conventions like United Nations declaration of human rights and Convention of refugees have a huge responsibility towards asylum seekers.
• It will weaken the unity and sense of brotherhood across the globe.

Conclusion

As it can be seen that negative implication of this decision outweighs the positive implication, there is an urgent need to reconsider this issue as this decision might set a dangerous precedent leading to human catastrophe. In the present time, when the whole global order is under attack, the rights of migrant populations emerges as significant humanitarian issues around the world.In the absence of a concerted efforts on the part of developed countries to find a balance between domestic concerns over increasing refugee crises and the need to provide refugees with humanitarian assistance and genuine protection from persecution, the current scenario reflects that the right to seek asylum is reducing to a hollow piece of right. Therefore, this growing sense of protectionism should be allowed to grow but only after a careful consideration of other problems or else it will prove to be fatal for world peace and security.