Norway’s Labor Party (Ap) government is considering a significant shift in migration strategy by potentially sending asylum seekers to “safe third countries.” While the government maintains this move will remain within human rights frameworks, Amnesty International warns that such a policy could lead to grave human rights violations by outsourcing asylum responsibilities to nations with documented records of abuse.
What is a “safe third country” in the context of asylum?
In migration policy, a “safe third country” refers to a nation located outside the country or region where a specific case is being processed. For Norway, this means a country outside of Norway or the EU/EEA where asylum seekers or individuals with rejected applications could be sent.
The proposal suggests that Norway might pay other nations to accept migrants who do not meet the criteria for protection within Norway. This discussion comes as the European Union’s new migration and asylum pact is scheduled for gradual implementation starting June 12, a move that grants member states increased flexibility in determining which countries qualify as “safe.”
The principle of non-refoulement is a core component of international refugee law. It prohibits authorities from returning individuals to a country where they face a real risk of persecution, torture, or other serious human rights violations.
Why is Amnesty International opposing the government’s plan?
John Peder Egenæs, Secretary-General of Amnesty International Norway, argues that attempting to bypass asylum responsibilities by paying other countries to host refugees will inevitably result in fundamental human rights breaches. Egenæs contends that if Norway pushes these individuals away, the country shares responsibility for the consequences.
Amnesty’s critique suggests a broader political trend. Egenæs notes that proposals once considered “extreme” in European migration politics are now being presented as “normal policy” by social democratic governments. He warns that this shift represents one of the largest reconfigurations of Norwegian asylum policy in decades, potentially moving the problem “away from the consciousness of Norwegians” while the underlying issues grow.
Furthermore, Egenæs claims that asylum seekers and refugees are increasingly being used as “political pawns” in a competition between parties to appear “tougher” on immigration.
Which countries are cited as having human rights risks?
Amnesty International has conducted a review of countries currently being considered as safe third countries by the EU. Their findings highlight significant dangers in several regions:
- Libya: Amnesty reports that refugees and migrants face extensive and systematic human rights violations by militias, armed groups, and security forces. These include arbitrary detention, torture, rape, sexual violence, and illegal killings.
- Tunisia: The organization states that migration policies in Tunisia endanger the lives, security, and dignity of migrants, with reports of torture and inhuman treatment.
- Egypt: Reports indicate that Sudanese refugees and migrants have been held under inhumane conditions while awaiting forced return to Sudan.
- Rwanda: While Rwanda has already established agreements with the United Kingdom and the United States, these deals have faced criticism for potentially violating the UN Refugee Convention and the principle of non-refoulement.
Amnesty also noted that many EU countries are monitoring the model used by Italy, which involves establishing asylum centers in Albania, citing concerns over lack of transparency and weakened legal protections when asylum responsibility is moved beyond national borders.
How does the Norwegian government justify these potential measures?
Astri Aas-Hansen, the Minister of Justice and Emergency Preparedness, asserts that the Labor Party government is committed to finding solutions that operate within the boundaries of international law, the Constitution, and human rights. According to Aas-Hansen, the goal is to manage illegal migration through effective administration, strengthened border controls, and the return of individuals without legal residency.
The government views these considerations as a way to:
- Prevent migrants from undertaking dangerous journeys.
- Discourage the exploitation of migrants by human smugglers.
- Ensure the asylum system is reserved for those with a genuine right to protection.
Additionally, Norway is exploring the possibility of leading a Nordic collaboration regarding the establishment of return centers or asylum centers in third countries, leveraging the shared values and interests of the Nordic nations.
When evaluating migration news, distinguish between a “return center” (a facility for those without legal stay being processed for return) and an “asylum center” (a facility for processing new applications). The distinction is vital to understanding where a government intends to place people.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a return center?
A return center is a reception facility or camp where individuals without legal residency are placed while authorities attempt to facilitate their return to their home country.
What is the main concern regarding “safe third countries”?
The primary concern is that countries labeled as “safe” may actually have documented patterns of torture, arbitrary detention, and other human rights abuses, making them unsafe for vulnerable refugees.
Is this policy already being implemented in Norway?
The Labor Party government is currently considering these solutions and exploring Nordic cooperation, but it has not been officially implemented as a finalized policy.
What do you think about the shift in European asylum policies? Should countries be allowed to partner with third nations to manage migration? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below, and subscribe to our newsletter for more deep dives into global human rights developments.
