The EU-Turkey Deal and the Safe Third Country Concept before the Greek Asylum Appeals Committees, Movements, Journal for Critical Migration and Border Regime Studies, 3 (2), 2017, 213-224 (original) (raw)
Related papers
European Journal of Legal Studies, 2017
The article discusses the first case law issued on the EU-Turkey deal that authoritatively answers the question whether Turkey constitutes a safe third country for refugees. In 390 out of 393 decisions Greek Asylum Appeals Committees ruled that the safe third country requirements are not fulfilled with respect to Turkey, essentially impeding the application of the EU-Turkey deal. The purpose of this article is, on the first level, through empirical research, to shed light on the reasoning of the decisions of the Appeals Committees and investigate the impact of the EU-Turkey agreement upon them. On a second level, it focuses on evaluating from the perspective of effective legal protection the legislative amendment, subsequent to these decisions, which modifies their composition. The analysis is of significant societal relevance, as it aspires to inform further law, policy, and jurisprudence in the field, especially since it provides access to sources that due to language and other practical barriers would remain far from the reach of legal and policy experts.
DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals), 2018
As a response to the refugee crisis of 2015, the European Union reached an agreement with Turkey for return of all new irregular migrants crossing from Turkey to Greek islands. The major question this paper address related to the application of this agreement is if Turkey could be considered a safe third country for the refugees it tries to contain. Even if the Turkey 2016 Report of the European Commission and the 2016 EU Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World are critical about the current respect for rule of law and human rights in Turkey, the treatment of migrants is not considered to be a major issue. The paper takes into account the ECHR and the General Court perspectives on human rights in the light of the EU-Turkey agreement which seems to be in line with the EU view. The conclusion is that the "offshoring" of the EU migration and asylum policy has been developed before the 2015 refugee crisis and the EU-Turkey agreement is just one step forward in this direction.
Transnational Press London, 2020
Since 2015, the European Union has shown all its internal inadequacy, in dealing with the so-called "refugee crisis". The EU-Turkey Statement has raised a number of questions about its content, including the return of all irregular migrants and the “1:1 scheme” actions. The implementation of these actions would be based on the possibility of recognizing Turkey as a “safe third country” and a “country of first asylum” under Asylum Procedures Directive. This article examines the potential application of the current notion of "safe third country" to Turkey through the formal and substantive analysis of its Asylum System. This is without neglecting the European Commission's proposal to amend the criteria for the “safe third country” concept and the possible spill-over effects, if it is approved. The article shows that the EU externalization of the migration policy, due to Member States divergences, is leading to a significant lowering of refugee protection standards.
2020
The safe third country concept emerged at the end of 1980s as an antidote for the protection challenges associated with the travel routes of refugees. However, practices involving safe third country transfers have ended up rendering refugees’ access to asylum even more difficult. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate, based on the example of Turkey, the challenges in refugee protection that the safe third country transfers create. The article begins with an overview of Turkey’s situation with respect to trans-border migratory dynamics and Turkey’s areas of engagement with international law on migration and asylum. Then, the evolution of the safe third country concept is analyzed with special reference to contributions made by Turkey. Finally, the current state of affairs and future prospects are discussed in view of Turkey’s position as a safe third country with respect to EU countries, particularly with the execution of the EU-Turkey Statement of March 2016 and the EU-Turke...
2017
The EU-Turkey-Statement proposes to reduce arrival rates and deaths in the sea by subjecting individuals who arrive on Greek islands after 20 March 2016 to fast-track asylum procedures and, in the case of negative decisions, to returns to Turkey. In exchange, EU member states have agreed to take one Syrian refugee from Turkey for every Syrian readmitted from Greece to Turkey. The Statement builds on the deterrent effect of returns and turns high return rates into an 1. This Policy Brief was researched and written in the context of a research project initiated by Ilse van Liempt at the University of Utrecht and financed by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). We thank project members Annelies Zoomers, Orcun Ulusoy, Harald Glöde and Saima Hassan, as well as Thomas Spijkerboer, Kleio Nikolopoulou, Valeria Hänsel, Lorraine Leete and the anonymous reviewer for their input and critical reflections. Last, but not least, we would like to thank our interview respondents. If you have any comments about this policy brief, please get in touch with the team of authors under
SBF DERGİSİ, 2021
Nowadays, hundreds of thousands of people have been trying to migrate to another country including the EU member states, and live a stable life without security concerns. However, the EU has increasingly reduced their opportunity and ability to seek international protection via strict policies. Securitization of migration results in a decrease in the number of asylum applications. The EU has been politically realistic considering its own interests in implementing measures to combat irregular migration with regard to the reduction of asylum applications. In this context, the EU Commission suggested that Turkey and the Western Balkan countries should be adopted as a "safe country of origin" in September 2015. In fact, this move aimed at reducing the number of applications, many of which had already been rejected. Although the persons who were subject to the EU-Turkey Joint Statement dated March 18, 2016, used to flee from the conflict zones in the different corners of the World, the EU treated them like irregular migrants and sent them back to Turkey. The Statement, which is the basis for the return of these persons, presents itself with various difficulties in terms of procedure and implementation.
The Impacts of the EU-Turkey Statement on Syrian Refugees in Turkey.pdf
Turkey has taken a number of steps including regulations granting approximately three million Syrian refugees with the guarantee of nonrefoulement, access to basic humanitarian services, and the right to access education, health services and the labour market. The Turkish government’s policy position on the Syrian refugees has gradually begun evolving from ‘hospitality’ to ‘integration’. The Statement between the EU and Turkey has raised concerns about the assumption of Turkey as a “safe third country” to return refugees to, however, one aspect of the agreement, which focuses on the EU’s financial support to improve the situation of Syrian refugees in Turkey, is considered as an important positive step towards the integration of Syrians. This paper aims to address the question of whether Turkey can be considered as a “safe third country” for Syrian refugees. Drawing on fieldwork conducted in İstanbul, İzmir and Gaziantep, this paper focuses on the experiences of Syrian refugees in Turkey to explore whether Turkey can be recognized as a “safe third country” for refugees.
Turkey's New Asylum Law: a Case of EU Influence
The EU’s influence on Turkey’s domestic politics has been characterised as weak due to the lack of credible accession perspective. However, Turkey’s adoption of an asylum law in 2013 which meets almost all demands of the EU points to the EU’s continuing influence in this policy area. The majority of the academic experts in our online survey considered the EU accession process as crucial factor for the adoption of the law. Our interviews with officials from the Turkish government and the European Commission reveal how the EU impacted on the drafting process. EU financed Twinning projects in this policy area contributed to the creation of new institutions and to the socialization of actors, both leading to a more conducive environment for reform.
The EU-Turkey-Statement builds on the deterrent effect of returns and turns high return rates into an indicator for a successful border policy. This policy brief examines the impact of the statement’s focus on returns for people seeking asylum in Greece. The analysis draws on interviews with asylum seekers and practitioners, phone interviews with people who were returned from the Greek islands following the EU-Turkey-Statement, as well as on participant observations at refugee camps and inter-agency meetings on Lesbos and Chios in July and August 2017. While people who arrive on the Greek islands have the right to apply for asylum, the statement’s focus on returns has lead to a series of human rights risks there. First, the EU-Turkey-Statement encourages discrimination and detention on grounds of nationality. As a result, access chances for individuals from nationality groups with low recognition rates are deteriorating. Second, delays in asylum procedures and poor living conditions in hotpots have resulted in asylum seekers and prima facie refugees losing hope and concluding that access to asylum in Europe may no longer be possible for them. With no other alternatives at hand, some have felt obliged to accept returns to either Turkey or to their countries of origin. Third, there are important barriers to comprehensive and effective human rights monitoring for people in pre-removal proceedings after negative asylum decisions. As a result, the Greek authorities and the UN are not always in a position to guarantee that the returns from the Greek islands do not violate people’s right to access asylum.