The past year has seen the largest mass migration since World War II. More than four million Syrians have fled the country since conflict began, often risking their own and their family’s lives in a bid for safety. Given the recent authorization of further air strikes in Syria by the US, France, Russia and now the UK, this number is only set to rise. Under International Law, countries have a legal obligation to accept refugees fleeing persecution and violence, yet the United Nations has accused many of breaking such commitments as their borders appear far from welcoming. Furthermore, even those who are accepted by border controls often face further rights violations by the very countries supposedly offering them sanctuary.
The right to seek and receive asylum is a fundamental provision granted for all individuals in the International Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees 1967. Whilst some have suggested many of the migrants are moving for economic purposes, this is empirically incorrect as the UN Refugee Agency reported that a clear majority of those arriving in the EU in particular, are ‘fleeing from war, conflict or persecution;’ seeking asylum and survival rather than economic or work-related prosperity. Whilst these conditions inevitably evoke a moral obligation, they also evoke a legal one. Internationally, under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and further within Europe under the European Convention of Human Rights 1953, over 150 countries have a legal obligation to accept individuals seeking asylum.
The UN has particularly criticized Australia and the Czech Republic for their border processes, as they appear highly selective in the individuals they are allowing to cross their borders. Screening processes are essential to border control in order to ensure the safety of citizens, but countries appear to be considering the economic and skill level of applicants alongside criminal considerations. When horrific violence and possible death faces those who are not granted asylum, using this information to dictate who is turned away essentially places a higher value on the lives of those more economically prosperous or highly educated. This is both a moral atrocity and a legal undermining of the justification for granting asylum.
The border process in the Czech Republic has reportedly included routine strip-searching and detaining of refugees, including children, for up 90 days in what the UN describes as ‘degrading conditions,’ that the Czech Republic’s Minister of Justice Robert Pelikán described as ‘worse than in a prison.’ The UN Committee on the Rights of Children has deemed the subjection of such standards, for minors in particular, as unjustifiable. The right to challenge this detention is also largely inaccessible to migrants, given the lack of information provided and available to them regarding legal aid. While detained, refugees have even reported being forcibly charged for this detainment, even though the Czech Act on Asylum 1999 states all service and administrative charges for asylum seekers shall be ‘borne by the ministry.’
Australia also has a particularly disturbing refugee record. Even disregarding their international legal obligations, their own Australian Migration Act 1958 defines a refugee as an individual with a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and commits to accept those who fit this criteria. From a practical geographic perspective, many more refugees have sought asylum in the EU than Australia, however, the past months have seen Australian authorities turning boats of refugees back to Indonesia, clearly without the chance of a fair hearing or trial with regards to their migrant status. Countries such as Cambodia, where boats have been redirected to, have consequently criticized Australia, arguing that they already struggle to provide many services for their own people, implying further neglect and lack of responsibility on the part of Australia.
There are also clear discrepancies within Europe, as while Germany has committed to accepting over 800,000 refugees, the UK has pledged to accept just 20,000 over five years. Whilst the EU has the right to determine the distribution of refugees, as long as persecution will not be faced within any of the destinations, the most persuasive benefits of this clearly lie in the economic conditions of member countries, yet this is not dictating distribution. It is ironic that countries such as Greece who have faced serious economic upheaval are among the most readily accepting of refugees, whilst growing economies such as the UK and US are increasingly resistant to their acceptance. Even though discriminatory and xenophobic attitudes towards refugees may be present amongst many countries, the varying rhetoric of governmental institutions undoubtedly contributes to the quantity of individuals accepted, and the views of refugee policy by their respective citizens. The UK government in particular has emphasized its political agenda on immigration overall as it has committed to decrease net migration to the tens of thousands in the coming years, including asylum seekers. In vast contrast, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel has repeatedly refused to set a national limit on the number of refugees that will be accepted into the country, arguing the government cannot place a limit on the constitutionally enshrined right to asylum.
Even for those accepted through border controls however, the conditions for refugees does not appear to drastically improve. Camps within Calais commonly referred to as ‘The Jungle’ contains thousands of refugees, most hoping to enter the UK, living in extremely poor conditions. The NGO Medecines du Monde, recently filed a case against the French Court regarding ‘serious human rights violations’ within The Jungle. The group had initially hoped to gain temporary shelter and daily meals for all refugees, but was only granted water and hygiene provisions for those within the camp. The UN has been clear in stating that, regardless of the status of those entering foreign countries, governments’ have ‘the obligation to respect, protect and fulfill the human rights of all individuals under their jurisdiction.’ Whilst acting as a vital first step in increasing the standard of living for refugees therefore, the case may also set a significant precedent as the crisis continues, as many countries can be seen to be neglecting their own responsibilities when it comes to upholding international human rights standards.
When considering historical humanitarian atrocities such as the Holocaust, many societies are often horrified when reflecting on the refusal of nations to accept thousands of citizens fleeing the persecution of the Nazi sphere of control. Yet even today, with global institutions such as the United Nations, and international laws such as the Convention for Human Rights, too many refugees fleeing persecution are left stranded, or met within nations they hope to be their sanctuary, with further human rights violations.
The vast majority of those fleeing Syria and neighboring countries are fleeing terror, like the terrorist attacks seen in Paris, that they have endured on a daily basis. Refusal to offer an alternative to this, paired with the planned increase in air strikes, ultimately sees millions of Syrians without a future. If conditions do not drastically improve we can expect a powerful yet horrific precedent both legally and morally within the international environment that we are unlikely to look back on proudly.