Austria and the United Kingdom have recently entered into a collaborative agreement focused on addressing the complex issue of migration, specifically pertaining to the handling of asylum seekers. The Austrian Interior Minister, Gerhard Karner, and his British counterpart, Suella Braverman, have officially sealed a "migration and security agreement." This bilateral accord sets the stage for both nations to work closely together on a novel approach to asylum, often likened to the "Rwanda-style" policy.

Austria has been grappling with a significant number of asylum applications, even though there has been a notable decrease, around 50 percent, compared to the previous year. The situation has prompted the need for intensive measures to manage these applications effectively. In the midst of this challenge, both Austria and the United Kingdom have taken a keen interest in developing alternative asylum procedures outside of Europe. Denmark has also explored similar models, though its proposals have been temporarily shelved.

As of September 2023, Austria had received approximately 43,700 asylum applications, marking a 40% decrease compared to previous statistics. Relative to its population of around nine million, Austria found itself as the fourth-highest recipient of asylum applications in the European Union last year, with roughly 112,000 claims filed.

The approach of these two countries differs in key ways. While the UK has pursued a policy of offshoring asylum applicants to Rwanda, Austria is investigating a policy that would allow approved asylum seekers to return to Austria. Those whose asylum applications are unsuccessful would be repatriated to their home countries. The overarching goal is to discourage individuals from embarking on dangerous migration routes and instead conduct asylum procedures in third countries, with an emphasis on long-term safety and security.

Furthermore, both the UK and Austria are advocating for broader changes in international asylum agreements, including the United Nations Refugee Convention (UN) and the European Convention on Human Rights. The UN Refugee Convention, originally crafted in 1952 in response to the widespread displacement of people in post-World War II Europe, has since evolved to remove time and geographic limits, rendering it a universal agreement. This convention serves as the cornerstone of the international asylum system, defining a refugee as someone unable or unwilling to return to their home country due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on factors such as race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The principle of non-refoulement, which forbids the return of refugees to countries where they might face serious threats to their life or freedom, is a fundamental tenet of the UN Convention.

In the case of the UK, its policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda has sparked considerable controversy and legal scrutiny. Last year, the UK committed to a substantial £140 million deal to transfer individuals seeking international protection from the UK to Rwanda, where they could apply for asylum. This initiative has faced vehement opposition from politicians and civil rights organizations, who assert that it may infringe upon Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Asylum seekers have also raised concerns regarding the potential for ill-treatment in Rwanda and the consequences of being forcibly returned to their countries of origin.

This controversial policy is currently under review by the Supreme Court to assess its legality. If it receives approval, the UK plans to commence deportation flights as early as February. However, the practical implementation of this policy faces additional hurdles, as most airlines have declined to participate in deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda. This ongoing debate reflects the complexities and ethical considerations surrounding the treatment and management of asylum seekers and refugees.

Source: InfoMigrants