41. Comparative perspectives on airport asylum procedures before and during the COVID-19 pandemic
- Author:
- Regina Jefferies
- Publication Date:
- 12-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW Sydney
- Abstract:
- The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted unprecedented border restrictions and closures around the world, slowing international air travel to a fraction of its pre-pandemic levels. Yet, persecution, conflict, disasters and violence – at times exacerbated by COVID-19 –continue to displace millions of people, forcing many to seek safety in other countries. Problematically, many States’ pandemic-related border restrictions have failed to provide exceptions for refugees and people seeking asylum.1 This has not only left people at risk of serious harm but has potentially resulted in numerous instances of refoulement. Even prior to the pandemic, overlapping international legal regimes governing air travel, passenger processing and international protection created particular difficulties for refugees and people seeking asylum, who were often unable to satisfy visa or other documentary requirements.2 Arguably, these have become even more entrenched during the pandemic, especially as some States have used COVID-19 as a cover for justifying blanket restrictions. Furthermore, in practical terms, limits on ‘non-essential’ travel have drastically reduced the number of flights available and severely curtailed access to air travel. This Policy Brief examines how different countries have dealt with international protection needs during the pandemic and provides guidance moving forward. It does so by examining the pre-pandemic use of airport asylum procedures in seven different countries (Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Germany, Uganda and the United States), as well as those countries’ subsequent use of border restrictions and/or closures in response to COVID-19. By reviewing a range of different approaches, it highlights persistent issues of transparency, procedural fairness and accountability that pre-date – but have been exacerbated by – the pandemic. With respect to measures suspending or limiting air travel, it identifies a number of recommended practices to ensure that States continue to meet their international protection obligations towards refugees and asylum seekers, while also responding to public health concerns. Although human rights law permits States to impose exceptional measures in a public health emergency (which must be necessary, proportionate and reasonable, as well as non-discriminatory), international law still requires that people seeking protection are given an effective opportunity to do so. As such, no risk to public health can justify a State denying asylum seekers and refugees access to their territory without appropriate safeguards to prevent refoulement and safeguard minimum rights.
- Topic:
- Borders, Mobility, COVID-19, Protection, and Asylum Seekers
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus