The safe third country concept refers to any country that provides adequate protection to refugees seeking safety under international law. Several developed countries such as Canada, Australia, and Germany use this principle to manage refugee admission and visa assessment processes. However, despite the potential of the concept to create a fair cross-border system to share protection responsibility, it often serves as a tool to reject those seeking asylum. So, what acutally is the third safe country concept?
What is a safe third country?
The safe third country concept is applied in the context of international protection of refugees and asylum-seekers. It refers to any country that provides protection to those seeking safety in accordance with the Geneva Convention, applies the principles of international law with regards to refugees, and guarantees the prohibition of removal to the territory of a country where s/he would be exposed to the death penalty, torture, inhuman treatment, or punishment. Thus, a person arriving from a safe third country who seeks asylum in a state applying this concept (e.g., a person from Norway seeking asylum in Sweden) might find his/her application for international protection rejected as inadmissible.
In the realm of the European Union (EU) asylum legislation, the safe third country principle needs to be distinguished from other associated concepts. One of these, the first country of asylum concept, for example, highlights that a country can be considered to be the first country of asylum for a particular applicant if s/he has already been recognized as a refugee there or enjoys sufficient protection. Another concept, the safe country of origin, dictates that applicants can be rejected if it is demonstrated that s/he has the nationality of a country that is considered safe or no serious arguments have been submitted for that individual’s situation that could influence the decision.
It is important to mention that the safe third country concept can serve as the grounds for inadmissibility even if the applicant only stayed or traveled there for a short period but sufficient time to have the opportunity to request effective protection.
Moreover, instances of transit or stay in a safe third country that occurred outside the control of the applicant (e.g., human trafficking) are still considered to be sufficient reason for rejection.
In the event that the applicant is now allowed to (re)enter the safe third country, the refugee authority in the destination country will withdraw its decision and continue with the initial procedure. Nonetheless, this provision is rarely respected in practice according to the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE).
Which countries apply the safe third country concept?
About 90% of the states in the European Economic Area (EEA) have incorporated the safe third country concept into their national legislation applying it on a case-by-case basis. Among them are Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, and Iceland. At the same time, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia have adopted the relevant legislative acts but are not applying this concept in practice. France, Italy, and Poland do not foresee similar legal provisions within their national legal frameworks.
Australia has been developing the legislative framework that governs the interpretation and application of the safe third country concept since 1997. It states that applicants seeking asylum in Australia who also have the right for protection in any other (safe) country, including those of which they are a national, will have their application rejected. Currently, these provisions are applied as part of the national visa assessment process. Canada and the United States have also signed a Safe Third Country Agreement that allows both states to better manage access to the refugee system in each country for people crossing the Canada–U.S. land border.
Fig.1. EU states that apply the safe third country concept
Source: European Agency for Asylum (EUAA) – Situational Update
What’s wrong with the safe third country concept?
Despite the potential to create a fair cross-border system to share protection responsibility, this concept often serves as a tool to reject those seeking asylum. Several non-profits stress the inconsistency and the ambiguity around this concept and the associated protection procedures at national levels.
Furthermore, the lack of bilateral or supranational migration agreements with third countries and the poor implementation of (re)admission criteria could leave numerous refugees in border buffer zones without adequate humanitarian protection.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) recommends that all countries currently applying or intending to apply the safe third country concept should develop implementation strategies for migration management that are based on reliable, objective, and up-to-date information from a range of sources. Moreover, the list of designated safe third countries must be complied based on transparent procedures that are compatible with national and international legislation.
DevelopmentAid is the leading provider of business intelligence and recruitment tools in the development sector. Join today and gain access to exclusive information on upcoming funding opportunities (tenders and grants), past awards, and contractor lists for over 200 international donor organizations.
