Search

This article examines the European Commission’s 2016 proposals relating to asylum procedures and the Dublin mechanism. In particular, it analyses what State responsibility for protection means in the context of the ‘first country of asylum’ and ‘safe third country’ concepts, which are addressed in the Commission’s Asylum Procedures Proposal. What effect does the common responsibility of all parties to the Refugee Convention have on a particular State’s individual obligations when it examines a refugee’s application for protection? Can a State simply transfer asylum seekers to another State without seeking assurances from that ‘safe third country’ that they will be granted access to refugee status determination procedures? Does a State’s responsibility end after it removes an asylum seeker or is it obliged to cooperate with the destination State? Does merely transiting through a country mean that it is a ‘safe third country’ to which an asylum seeker can be returned? Can an asylum seeker be sent to a State that is safe in one or two regions, but is otherwise unstable? The article considers these and other questions, taking a sceptical approach to the European Commission’s proposal relating to the ‘safe third country’ concept.