No abstract

Putting to one side the question of just how many people arriving in Europe constitutes a crisis given the resources that are available in the region, especially after having regard to the numbers that cross into and remain in states in Africa and southeast Asia, this comment is focusing on 'Europe', 'refugees', and the search for solutions. To start with, the alleged crisis is one that is more about the European Union member states than about Europe as a whole. The twenty-eight member states of the EU are arguing about an outdated allocation procedure for deciding where refugees making it to a member state should have their status determined. In June 1990, when the Soviet Union and parts of the Eastern Bloc were still in existence, and when West Germany and Austria constituted part of the eastern border of the EU, it was not a major cause of concern to establish that the state where the asylum seeker entered the EU should be the one to make the determination on refugee status. The original Dublin Convention 1 aimed in part to prevent 'refugee ping-pong', where a failed claim in one member state would result in the refugee applying in another member state and, if that claim also failed, being sent back to the previous member state. Today, with greater but still manageable numbers for the EU as a whole entering from across the Mediterranean from all parts of Africa, and with the war in Syria displacing so many into Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan, some of whom then head for Greece or Bulgaria as the point of entry into the EU, that process cannot be sustained. As Germany has recognised, the current Dublin system 2 for allocating refugee determination processes between member states needs 1 Dublin Convention determining the State responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the Member States of the European Communities, 97/C 254/01 (15 June 1990).

No abstract

The Global Compact on Refugees is not legally binding, but it gives rise to commitments by the international community as a whole. It is also rooted in international refugee law, international human rights law and international humanitarian law. This article addresses how the GCR cannot give rise to binding obligations in international law, yet provide for enhanced protection and assistance to refugees and hosting communities, and establish commitments for a fairer and more predictable sharing of burdens and responsibilities. It does this by reference to other non‐legally binding international documents and rules of law. Additionally, the use of indicators to measure states’ and other international actors’ performance in operationalizing the GCR provides a framework to measure commitments; coupled with greater humanitarian and development co‐operation, commitments can be better facilitated even if the GCR is not legally binding. Finally, the sharing of burdens and responsibilities is also fulfilled by the emphasis on solutions.