The Scales of justice: an analysis of the legality of in-country processing of asylum claims against Article 1.a(2) of the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees

Abstract

“Domestic debates are mostly engaged with the ‘inhumanity’ or ‘softness’ of asylum systems towards applicants who have already arrived. Few observers ask questions about those who have not.”1 The hopes and dreams of numerous asylum seekers are quashed amidst desperate journeys riddled with risks of theft, human trafficking, people smuggling etc. There lies a solution to this problem in the use of ‘in-country processing’ as a complementary pathway – however, this approach has been criticised on grounds of inconsistency with the requirements of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Upon further interrogation, it emerges that the rationale behind the inconsistency is the preservation of the principle of State Sovereignty. As such, this dissertation argues against the appropriateness of the principle of State Sovereignty in dealing with issues of global concern, such as the refugee crisis, within a globalised world. In doing so, it calls for the legal recognition of ‘in-country’ processing as a protected entry pathway in addressing the access crisis. Thus effectively, exempting the practice from the principle of State Sovereignty.