Unpacking the Safe Third Country Concept in the European Union: B/orders, Legal Spaces, and Asylum in the Shadow of Externalization

Berfin Nur Osso
{"title":"Unpacking the Safe Third Country Concept in the European Union: B/orders, Legal Spaces, and Asylum in the Shadow of Externalization","authors":"Berfin Nur Osso","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eead028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since its origins in the 1980s, the concept of safe third country (STC) has increasingly been used to deter and curb ‘irregular migrant’ arrivals. A burgeoning body of research has considered these measures throughout the world, particularly in the European Union (EU), Canada, Australia, and the United States. While much STC scholarship has been doctrinal in nature and has focused on the protection standards required in a third State, some of the literature has also examined more theoretical questions. Against this background, this article explores the consequences of the STC concept for refugees and their (in)ability to seek and enjoy asylum by drawing on critical border studies literature. The article first conceptualizes this concept with reference to theories of bordering, dissecting the STC concept as a bordering tool which constructs subjects as worthy and unworthy of protection, and decides where the latter are to be protected. It then explores how this concept has been operationalized within the EU’s Common European Asylum System and the implications of this phenomenon for refugees, using the Greek–Turkish context as a case study. The article particularly considers the developments after the EU–Türkiye Statement of 18 March 2016 and a joint ministerial decision of 8 June 2021 by which Greece formally designated Türkiye as a STC. It reveals that while these measures came in response to the so-called irregular arrivals at the Greek–Turkish border, thousands of refugees affected by these measures have been either removed from the Greek territory and returned to Türkiye without protection, or trapped in limbo in Greece because of their removal from the EU asylum system. The article demonstrates that the STC concept, which is increasingly used as a bordering practice, spatially and temporally prevents certain people from being recognized and treated as refugees in accordance with the Refugee Convention.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Refugee Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eead028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since its origins in the 1980s, the concept of safe third country (STC) has increasingly been used to deter and curb ‘irregular migrant’ arrivals. A burgeoning body of research has considered these measures throughout the world, particularly in the European Union (EU), Canada, Australia, and the United States. While much STC scholarship has been doctrinal in nature and has focused on the protection standards required in a third State, some of the literature has also examined more theoretical questions. Against this background, this article explores the consequences of the STC concept for refugees and their (in)ability to seek and enjoy asylum by drawing on critical border studies literature. The article first conceptualizes this concept with reference to theories of bordering, dissecting the STC concept as a bordering tool which constructs subjects as worthy and unworthy of protection, and decides where the latter are to be protected. It then explores how this concept has been operationalized within the EU’s Common European Asylum System and the implications of this phenomenon for refugees, using the Greek–Turkish context as a case study. The article particularly considers the developments after the EU–Türkiye Statement of 18 March 2016 and a joint ministerial decision of 8 June 2021 by which Greece formally designated Türkiye as a STC. It reveals that while these measures came in response to the so-called irregular arrivals at the Greek–Turkish border, thousands of refugees affected by these measures have been either removed from the Greek territory and returned to Türkiye without protection, or trapped in limbo in Greece because of their removal from the EU asylum system. The article demonstrates that the STC concept, which is increasingly used as a bordering practice, spatially and temporally prevents certain people from being recognized and treated as refugees in accordance with the Refugee Convention.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解读欧盟的安全第三国概念:外部化阴影下的边界、法律空间与庇护
自 20 世纪 80 年代起源以来,安全第三国(STC)的概念越来越多地被用来阻止和遏制 "非正常移民 "的到来。世界各地,特别是欧盟(EU)、加拿大、澳大利亚和美国,对这些措施进行了大量研究。虽然许多 STC 学术研究都是理论性的,侧重于第三国所要求的保护标准,但一些文献也探讨了更多的理论问题。在此背景下,本文借鉴批判性边境研究文献,探讨了STC概念对难民及其寻求和享受庇护的(不)能力的影响。文章首先参照边界理论将这一概念概念化,将STC概念剖析为一种边界工具,它将主体建构为值得保护和不值得保护的对象,并决定后者在何处受到保护。然后,文章以希腊和土耳其为案例,探讨了这一概念如何在欧盟的欧洲共同庇护体系中得以实施,以及这一现象对难民的影响。文章特别探讨了 2016 年 3 月 18 日欧盟-土耳其声明以及 2021 年 6 月 8 日希腊正式指定土耳其为 STC 的联合部长决定之后的事态发展。文章指出,虽然这些措施是为了应对所谓的非正常抵达希腊-土耳其边境的难民,但受这些措施影响的数千名难民要么被驱逐出希腊领土,在没有任何保护的情况下返回土耳其,要么因被欧盟庇护系统除名而被困在希腊。文章指出,STC 概念作为一种边界做法被越来越多地使用,从空间和时间上阻碍了某些人根据《难民公约》被承认为难民并受到难民待遇。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The journal aims to stimulate research and thinking on the protection of refugees and other displaced persons in international law, taking account of the broadest range of State and international organization practice. In addition, it serves as an essential tool for all engaged in the protection of refugees and other displaced persons and finding solutions to their problems. It provides key information and commentary on today"s critical issues, including the causes of refugee and related movements, internal displacement, the particular situation of women and refugee children, the human rights and humanitarian dimensions of displacement and the displaced, restrictive policies, asylum.
期刊最新文献
Constitutionalizing Protection for Refugee Women and Girls in South Asia Financial Crimes as ‘Serious Non-Political Crimes’: Consequences for the Concepts of Seriousness and Unworthiness in Exclusion Law The Gender- and Sexuality-Based Harms of Refugee Externalization: A Role for Human Rights Due Diligence Resisting Domestic Violence Gender in European Union Asylum Law: The Istanbul Convention as a Game Changer?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1