1 The word “new” is in inverted commas because despite the claims that these approaches are “new”, extra-territorial initiatives draw on a legacy of precedents, notably Australia’s “Pacific Solution” and the U.S.’s use of its Naval Base on Guantanamo Bay to process Haitian asylum-seekers in the case of “transit processing-centres”, and so-called “safe havens”, “humanitarian corridors”, “protected entry procedures”, and in-country protection in the case of “regional processing zones”. Gregor Noll, Visions of the Exceptional: Legal and Theoretical Issues Raised by Transit Processing Centres and Protection Zones, Working Paper, (June 2003), http://www.jur.lu.se/forsake/Noll.nsf (accessed August 1 2003).
4 International Service For Human Rights, monitoring notes for the 53rd Session of ExCom.
6 “Special Report on Asylum”, The Economist, March 15, 2003, 35-38.
8 Amnesty International, Observations to UNHCR’s Consultations on Convention Plus, March 7, 2003; Kris Janowski, “UNHCR Asylum Policy: Setting the Record Straight”, June 2003, www.unhcr.org.uk/press/press_releases2003/pr2oJun03.htm. (accessed August 1, 2003).
9 The word “protection” is used rather than “processing” since regional protection areas, for example, need not imply the processing of asylum claims.
10 Although Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands, for example, are technically Australian territory.
11 This has been expressed in both Amnesty International’s papers, such as Unlawful and Unworkable – Amnesty International’s Views on Proposals for Extra-Territorial Processing of Asylum Claims, http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engior610042003 and statements such as those of Eve Lester, Refuge Coordinator of A.I.’s International Secretariat at, for example, Sub-Committee F (Social Affairs, Education and Home Affairs) of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, which conducted an inquiry into the proposals for new approaches to the asylum process. http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld/lduncorr.htm (accessed December 10, 2003).
12 Unlawful and Unworkable, 7.
13 Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration With Diversity In Modern Britain, White Paper, February 2002, 13.
14 The leaked letter from Tony Blair to European Council President Costas Simitis revealed that the other EU heads of state were involved in discussion of the proposals, March 10 2003, http://www.asylumrights.net/ (accessed August 1, 2003).
16 For the theoretical background on this debate see the Special Edition of Journal of Refugee Studies, “European Burden-Sharing and Forced Migration”, 16: 3 (2003).
17 New International Approaches, 5.
18 See, for example, Refugee Council, Unsafe Havens, Unworkable Solutions, May 2003, http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/downloads/policy_briefings/unsafehav_lv_may03.pdf
19 Statement to Sub-Committee F (Social Affairs, Education and Home Affairs) of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, October 29, 2003
20 Ruud Lubbers, “Put An End To Their Wandering”, Guardian, June 20, 2003, 22.
21 New International Approaches, 6.
22 Statement to Sub-Committee F (Social Affairs, Education and Home Affairs) of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, October 22, 2003.
23 Secure Borders, Safe Haven, 48.
25 Ibid, 53.
26 UNHCR’s Agenda for Protection is the outcome of its so-called Global Consultations; it is divided into 6 goals. Goal 3 is “Sharing Burdens and Responsibilities More Equitably and Building Capacities To Receive and protect Refugees”.
27 Agenda for Protection, Overview, 13.
28 New International Approaches, 2.
29 Ruud Lubbers,“Put An End To Their Wandering”, 22.
30 Agenda for Protection, 56.
32 Groupe d’Information et de Soutien des Immigr�s (GISTI) state that “instauration de ‘zones de protection r�gionale’… L'id�e est de les [des refugi�s] emp�cher de poursuivre leur route jusqu'� l'int�rieur de l'Union, en leur assurant une ‘s�curit�’ sur place. L'histoire, avec Srebrenica par exemple, nous a appris ce qu'il en �tait parfois de ces garanties internationales de protection”, Comment l’Europe Se Sanctuarise en Cr�ant des Camps Hors de ses Fronti�res, June 4, 2003, http://www.gisti.org/doc/actions/2003/asile/danger.html
33 Lisa Schuster, The Use and Abuse of Political Asylum In Britain and Germany, (London: Frank Cass, 2003), 277.
34 Erika Feller, Director of International Protection, UNHCR, addressing The House of Lords Select Committee on EU Affairs Sub-Committee F, October 22, 2003.
35 Gregor Noll, Jessica Fagerlund and Fabrice Liebaut, Study on the Feasibility of Processing Asylum Claims Outside the EU Against the Background of the Common European Asylum System and the Goal of a Common Asylum Procedure, European Commission 2002, 3.
36 Ibid, 24-30.
38 Iain Walsh, Deputy Director of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office, addressing The House of Lords Select Committee on EU Affairs Sub-Committee F, October 29, 2003.
40 Astri Suhrke, “Burden-Sharing During Refugee Emergencies: The Logic of Collective Versus National Action”, Journal of Refugee Studies, 11: 4 (December 1998), 396-415.
41 Jutta Weldes, Constructing National Interests: The United States and the Cuban Missile Crisis (Minneapolis: Minnesota, 1999).
42 Keith Krause and Michael Williams (eds), Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases (London: UCL, 1997); Ken Booth, “Security and Emancipation”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 17 (1991), 313-326; Bill McSweeney, Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
43 For example, Amnesty International, Refugee Council, ILPA, GISTI have all produced reports examining the impact in terms of human rights, as has Noll’s Visions of the Exceptional, in particular.
44 The House of Lords Select Committee on EU Affairs Sub-Committee F, November 12, 2003.
45 See, for example, Scott Burchill, Richard Devetak, Andrew Linklater, Matthew Paterson, Christian Reus-Smit, and Jacqui True (eds), Theories of International Relations, (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001).
46 International relations theory is polarised around a so-called “inter-paradigm debate” between so-called “positivists” and “post-positivists”. This dichotomy is particularly apparent in, for example, Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski (eds), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). In reality, nearly all IR scholars use both empirical evidence and interpretivist methodology to varying degrees. Where they differ tends to be in the objects of analysis they privilege and the assumptions they make.
47 Niklaus Steiner, “Arguing About Asylum: The Complexity of Refugee Debates in Europe”, New Issues In Refugee Research, Working paper No. 48, (Geneva: UNHCR, 2001); Gil Loescher, The UNHCR and World Politics: A Perilous Path, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 4.
48 Andrew Shacknove, “American Duties to Refugees: Their Scope and Limits” in Mark Gibney (ed) Open Borders? Closed Societies? (New York: Greenwood Press, 1988).
49 Gil Loescher, “Introduction: Refugee Issues in International Relations” in Gil Loescher and Laila Monahan (eds), Refugees and International Relations, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 11-17; Gil Loescher, Refugee Movements and International Security, Adelphi Papers 268 (London: Brassey, 1992); Gil Loescher, Beyond Charity, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 18-23.
50 Loescher, The UNHCR and World Politics, 13.
51 Steiner, 16.
52 Ibid, 8.
53 Eiko Thielemann, “Between Interests and Norms: Burden-Sharing in the European Union”, Journal of Refugee Studies, 16: 3 (2003), 253-273.
54 Alexander Betts, “Public Goods Theory and the Provision of Refugee Protection: The Role of the Joint-Product Model in Burden-Sharing Theory”, Journal of Refugee Studies, 16: 3 (2003), 274-296.
55 Christina Boswell, Explaining European Public Policy Responses to Asylum and Migration, Paper Presented at the UNHCR-WIDER Conference on Poverty, International Migration and Asylum, Helsinki, 27-28 September 2002.
57 This was the opinion expressed by Richard Williams of the Refugee Council at The Immigration Rights Project discussion forum where Don Flynn’s paper was discussed, 4 Dec 2003.
58 Schuster, 175.
59 Alexander Betts, “The political Economy of Extra-Territorial Processing: Separating ‘Purchaser’ from ‘Provider’ In Asylum Policy”, New issues In Refugee Research, Working paper No. 91, (Geneva: UNHCR, 2003).
60 Noll, Visions of the Exceptional, 20-22.
61 “Asylum Cost Under Fire”, BBC, April 11, 2000, www.bbc.co.uk; “Asylum Error To Cost UK Millions”, Guardian, October 2, 2003, http://politics.guardian.co.uk; “Letwin: Asylum Cuts Will Fund Policing”, Guardian, October 7, 2003, http://politics.guardian.co.uk; “Asylum Seeker Dispersal ‘A Waste of Money’”, Guardian, July 30. 2003, www.guardian.co.uk; “Asylum Cost Hits Eurotunnel”, Telegragh, January 23, 2002, www.telegraph.co.uk
62 The House of Lords Select Committee on EU Affairs Sub-Committee F, October 29, 2003.
63 Oxfam, “Budgeting For Overseas Processing”, www.caa.org.au/campaigns/refugees/still_drifting/budgeting.html (accessed August 1, 2003).
65 Refugee Council, Unsafe Havens, Unworkable Solutions, 8.
66 IPLA, IPLA’s Submission to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union on New Approaches to Asylum Processing, www.ilpa.org.uk/NewApproachestotheAsylumProcess.html (accessed December 10, 2003).
67 Noll, Fagerlund and Liebaut, 3.
68 This is acknowledged by the Home Office in Secure Borders, Safe Haven, 65; see also Gregor Noll, “Rejected Asylum Seekers: The Problem of Return”, New Issues In Refugee Research, Working paper No. 5, (Geneva: UNHCR, 1999).
69 Vaughan Robinson, “Defining the Problem” and “”Dispersal policies in the UK” in Vaughan Robinson, Roger Andersson and Sako Musterd (eds), Spreading the ‘Burden’? A Review of Policies To Disperse Asylum Seekers and Refugees, (Bristol: Policy Press, 2003). Chapters 2 and 5, 3-24 and 103-147.
70 Schuster, 167.
71 Robinson, 103-147.
72 Christina Boswell, “Burden-Sharing in the European Union: Lessons from the German and UK Experience”, Journal of Refugee Studies, 16: 3 (2003), 316-335.
73 Ibid, 324.
74 Alice Bloch, The Migration and Settlement of Refugees in Britain, (London: Palgrave, 2002), 54.
77 Robinson, 167-171.
84 Schuster, 175.
85 David Blunkett, Foreword, Secure Borders, Safe Haven.
86 Ibid, 13.
87 New International Approaches, 1.
92 Steiner, 5-6.
93 Boswell, Explaining European Public Policy Responses, 4-5.
94 See, for example, Alexander Aleinikoff, and Vincent Chetail (eds), Migration and International Legal Norms (Hague: Asser, 2003); Gregor Noll, Negotiating Asylum, (Hague: Nijhoff, 2000) for a discussion on the role of norms in asylum policy.
95 Loescher, The UNHCR and World Politics, 12-14.
96 B.S. Chimni, “The Geopolitics of Refugee Studies: A view From the South”, Journal of Refugee Studies, 11: 4 (1998), 365-368.
97 Mikhael Barutciski, “The Reinforcement of Non-Admission Policies and the Subversion of UNHCR”, The International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol. 8:1 (1996), 49-110.
98 Cecile Dubernet, The International Containment of Displaced Persons (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001)
99 Betts, “Public Goods Theory and the Provision of Refugee Protection”, 290-1.
100 Loescher, The UNHCR and World Politics, 4-8.
101 Lubbers, “Put An End To Their Wandering”.
102 Agenda for Protection, 58.
103 The House of Lords Select Committee on EU Affairs Sub-Committee F, November 12, 2003.
104 Amnesty International, Unlawful and Unworkable, 10-13.
105 Ibid, 8.
106 Lubbers, Agenda for Protection, Foreword, 6.
107 The House of Lords Select Committee on EU Affairs Sub-Committee F, October 22, 2003.
108 Robinson, 171.