Seminar on International Protection Within a Single

Asylum Procedure. Opening statement by Ms.

Maj-Inger Klingvall.

Date: 23/04/2001

Policy area: Justice, home affairs and civil protection

News item: Speeches

Opening statement

by Ms. Maj-Inger Klingvall

Minister for Development Cooperation,

Migration and Asylum Policy,

Seminar on International Protection Within a Single

Asylum Procedure, 23-24 March 2001, Norrköping,

Sweden

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen

It gives me particular pleasure to welcome you all to

the seminar 'International Protection Within a Single

Asylum Procedure'. Norrköping is my home town and

this very session room of the Municipal Council used

to be my place of work for many years, so you can

imagine that it brings back many memories to be

standing here again.

We are here today to discuss international

protection. A year and a half has passed since

Tampere and the Amsterdam Treaty has now been in

force for two years. What Tampere did was to inject

more political will and ideological vision into the

harmonisation work of creating an area of freedom,

security and justice. This ongoing harmonisation

process within the EU is being paralleled, at least in

part, with the so called Global Consultations,

initiated by the United Nations High Commissioner

for Refugees.

We can be in no doubt about the importance of

respecting the fundamental right to seek asylum and

of providing international protection to those in need

of it. Two key questions we need to ask ourselves in

this connection are: Who is a refugee? and Who is

the person in need of other forms of international

protection? These questions will be discussed during

this seminar.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Geneva

Convention. I think we can all agree on the

instrument's continued relevance and its role as the

base for international protection. However, not all

states consider that persons persecuted by

non-state agents qualify for refugee status under the

Geneva Convention. I would like to illustrate this

with an example! In recent years, progress in the

field of human rights has served to raise awareness

of the rights of the individual, and human rights are

now being fully vested in individuals. States have

recognised that individual rights must be protected.

Human rights and refugee law are interrelated. This

means that individual rights must be taken into

account when deciding who is a refugee and who is

not.

Let me give you an example that describes the

situation in far too many countries around the world.

Picture the case of a woman – a victim of

wife-burning, or a crime of honour or a girl child being

the victim of female genital mutilation. What does the

government do to protect her rights? The police

might refuse to take up a complaint. The prosecutor

says there is no case – and why would there be when

the penal or civil laws of the country say nothing on

the subject? The government closes its eyes and

does not provide the woman with protection.

Are these women's human rights being respected? I

would say no! Bearing in mind the progress in human

rights and the way the world has changed since

1951, can we as states close our eyes and maintain

that this woman is not in need of international

protection? As the Swedish minister for development

cooperation, migration and asylum policy, I say NO!

Thus, situations involving persecution on grounds of

sex or homosexuality can generate convention

refugee status.

Also picture situations where one or more guerrilla

groups are operating on a state's territory, spreading

terror and death among the population. The

government proves unable, or even unwilling, to

protect the population. Scenarios like these are also

covered by the Geneva Convention.

States must be ready to respond to situations where,

and I quote: "Persecution…emanates from sections

of the population that do not respect the standards

established by the laws of the country

concerned…[and]…can be considered as persecution

if they are knowingly tolerated by the authorities, or

if the authorities refuse, or prove unable, to offer

effective protection". Some of you may think these

words are new, but the fact is they were written some

two decades ago when the UNHCR Handbook was

drafted.

As I previously mentioned, far from all situations in

today's world are necessarily covered by the Geneva

Convention. It is important that states recognise

that there are cases where other forms of

international protection must be provided.

Although complementary forms of protection have

been discussed for some time in the EU, it is a fact

that the Member States of the Union do not yet have

a common position on what constitutes

complementary protection. However, the European

Commission will shortly be presenting a proposal for

directive setting out an approximation of rules on the

recognition and content of refugee status. Another

proposal will propose measures on complementary

forms of protection offering an appropriate status to

any person in need of such protection. The outcome

of the negotiations on the Commission's proposal on

asylum procedures will be of importance to these

future proposals.

The right to protection is provided for – directly or

indirectly – by several international conventions. I

believe states should at the very least be prepared

to accept their existing responsibility under

international law. For signatory states to the

European Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the principle of

non-refoulement is included as protection from the

risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.

This very same responsibility is also embodied in

the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,

Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

States are thus under the obligation to live up to

these responsibilities and to provide asylum seekers

with international protection should they fall outside

the scope of the Geneva Convention. Furthermore,

as in the case of Female Genital Mutilation,

signatory states to the Convention on the Rights of

the Child, have taken upon themselves to take all

effective and appropriate measures with !

!

a view to abolish traditional harmful practices.

I should point out in this connection that in addition

to providing protection to refugees in accordance

with the terms of the Geneva Convention, Sweden

has found it appropriate to afford protection to

persons who: 1) have a well-founded fear of corporal

punishment or being sentenced to death or of being

subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading

treatment or punishment, 2) need protection

because of an external or internal armed conflict and

3) have a well-founded fear of persecution because

of his or her sex or homosexuality.

A system based on a single asylum procedure, where

complementary protection is granted in addition to

Convention refugee status, is sometimes criticised

on grounds that it weakens the Geneva Convention.

In my experience, the opposite is the case. Let me

give you an example. In a system based on a single

procedure, an asylum officer deciding the merits of

an asylum claim, first of all determines whether an

asylum seeker falls within the scope of the Geneva

Convention. Should this not be the case, the asylum

claim is further processed to establish whether any

other form of international protection should be

granted. Any other factors, such as humanitarian or

family reasons, are looked into to see whether a

residence permit should be granted on these

grounds. All in a single procedure!

All decisions leading to the rejection of an asylum

application must be accompanied by an exhaustive

account of the grounds for denial. There is no risk of

an authority failing to establish whether an asylum

seeker fulfils the criteria laid down in the Geneva

Convention. All the arguments leading to a refusal to

grant asylum can be appealed against. This system

is not only time-effective, it is also cost-effective. It

is Sweden's experience that both the asylum seeker

and the state benefit from this system.

Under the Amsterdam Treaty, the EU is required to

adopt common rules on the interpretation of the

Geneva Convention and on measures on

complementary forms of protection. As regards to

the external relations, the work of building an area of

freedom, security and justice in Europe will call for

an integrated and consistent approach. This is in line

with the Tampere Conclusions. In this connection, I

believe we should stress the importance of the

absolute right to seek asylum under the provisions of

the Geneva Convention. The Global Consultations

set in motion by the UNHCR may bring a breath of

fresh air into the system. It is with great interest

that the EU follows and takes part in this process,

while proceeding with our own work of creating a

common European asylum system.

Today's seminar is very important. I am very

pleased to see so many participants from the EU and

it is particularly gratifying to see representatives of

the EU candidate countries, Norway, Iceland and

Switzerland. I would also like to give a warm welcome

to our transatlantic co-organisers and transatlantic

guests at this seminar. Also present are

representatives of the European Parliament, the

European Council, the European Commission, the

Council of Europe and international and

non-governmental organisations. To this list of

distinguished participants should also be added our

keynote speakers, Mrs. Erica Feller, Director of the

Division for International Protection, UNHCR,

Professor James Hathaway of the University of

Michigan Law School, Professor Jens Vested Hansen

of Århus University, Mrs. Lena Häll Eriksson,

Director General of the Swedish Migration Board and

Mr. Göran Håkansson, Director General of the Aliens

Appeals Board in Sweden.

I hope that the agreeable atmosphere created by all

those taking part and by the City of Norrköping will

contribute to fruitful and informal discussions over

the next two days. It only remains for me to thank

you for your attention and to hand the floor to the

Director General of the Swedish Migration Board,

Mrs. Lena Häll Eriksson.

Thank you.