The Right to Asylum in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: From the Right to Seek Asylum to the Right of Access to Asylum Seeking

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2, 754 - 828, 30.12.2023

Esra Yılmaz Eren

https://doi.org/10.59933/tauhfd.1411614

Öz

The "right to asylum" is the right of a person to seek protection from another country by leaving the state of citizenship or residence due to oppression. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, asylum is regulated as a right by stating that everyone has the right to seek asylum in other countries in the face of oppression. However, there is no rule of law in international law that eliminates the discretionary power of states to grant asylum and transforms the right to asylum into a claimable right for individuals. Therefore, a State has the ultimate authority to grant asylum to foreigners seeking asylum in its territory.
The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is the most important document determining the legal framework in the field of asylum in comparative law today. However, although the 1951 Geneva Convention contains detailed provisions on the legal status of refugees, it does not include any provision on the right to asylum. On the other hand, the prohibition of non-refoulement regulated in Article 33 of the Convention constitutes the most fundamental principle limiting the behavior of States towards foreigners.
The principle of non-refoulement regulated by the 1951 Geneva Convention, which contains some legal gaps and lacks an enforcement mechanism, has also found a place in supranational human rights instruments. Although the European Convention on Human Rights does not include a provision on the right to asylum, the European Court of Human Rights, through its jurisprudence, has protected the principle of non-refoulement in the context of Article 3, which regulates the prohibition of torture. The Court's dynamic interpretation, minimum standards and procedural safeguards implicitly establish a de facto right to asylum and, provide effective protection.
In recent years, it is observed that the Court's jurisprudence approaching the phenomenon of asylum with a focus on the human rights has lost strength in favor of the view that granting asylum is within the discretion of the state as a reflection of its sovereignty. Especially in the process starting with the N.D and N.T. judgment, the ECtHR started to treat the right to seek asylum as a procedural right, which can be expressed as access to asylum, with a view that prioritizes the security concerns of states.
The present article explores the evolution of ECtHR jurisprudence on right to asylum in terms of non-refoulement principle. In the first part, the asylum concept in international law will be discussed. The ECtHR's judgments on the principle of non-refoulement and the level of protection it provides within the framework of the ECHR and Additional Protocols will be analyzed and the impact of this protection on the right to asylum will be evaluated in the second part. The last part will discuss how states' coercive engineerede migration policies in the face of increased human mobility after the Arab Spring has shaped the Court's jurisprudence.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Right to Asylum, Non-refoulement, Right to Effective Remedy, Push-Back, Externalization of Migration

Das Recht auf Asyl in der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte: Vom Recht, Asyl zu suchen, zum Recht auf Zugang zu Asylbewerbern

Öz

Das „Asylrecht“ ist das Recht einer Person, in einem anderen Staat Schutz zu suchen, indem sie den Staat ihrer Staatsangehörigkeit oder ihres Wohnsitzes verlässt, weil sie unter Unterdrückung leidet. Es gibt keine Rechtsnorm im internationalen Recht, die den Ermessensspielraum der Staaten bei der Gewährung von Asyl aufhebt und das Recht auf Asyl in ein Recht umwandelt, das von Einzelpersonen eingefordert werden kann. Andererseits stellt das in Artikel 33 der Genfer Flüchtlingskonvention geregelte Verbot der Non-Refoulement das Grundprinzip, der das Verhalten der Staaten gegenüber Ausländern einschränkt.
„Keiner der vertragschließenden Staaten wird einen Flüchtling auf irgendeine Weise über die Grenzen von Gebieten ausweisen oder zurückweisen, in denen sein Leben oder seine Freiheit wegen seiner Rasse, Religion, Staatsangehörigkeit, seiner Zugehörigkeit zu einer bestimmten sozialen Gruppe oder wegen seiner politischen Überzeugung bedroht sein würde.“

Anahtar Kelimeler

Right to Asylum, Non-refoulement, Right to Effective Remedy, Push-Back, Externalization of Migration

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi İçtihadında Sığınma Hakkı: Sığınma Arama Hakkından Sığınma Aramaya Erişim Hakkına

Öz

“Sığınma hakkı” bir kişinin vatandaşlığında bulunduğu ya da ikamet ettiği devleti, uğradığı baskılar nedeniyle terk ederek başka bir ülkeden koruma talep etmesidir. İnsan Hakları Evrensel Beyannamesi’nde baskı karşısında herkesin başka ülkelere sığınma hakkının bulunduğundan söz edilerek sığınma bir hak olarak düzenlenmiştir. Ancak uluslararası hukukta devletlerin sığınma hakkı tanıma konusunda takdir yetkisini ortadan kaldıran ve sığınma hakkını kişiler bakımından talep edilebilir bir hakka dönüştüren bir hukuk kuralı bulunmamaktadır. Dolayısıyla bir devlet, ülkesinde sığınma arayan yabancılara sığınma imkanı tanıyıp tanımamakta kural olarak serbesttir.
Sığınma alanında bugün karşılaştırmalı hukukta yasal çerçeveyi belirleyen en önemli belge 1951 tarihli Mültecilerin Hukuki Statüsüne İlişkin Cenevre Sözleşmesi’dir. Ancak 1951 Cenevre Sözleşmesi mültecilerin hukuksal statüleriyle ilgili ayrıntılı düzenlemeler içermesine rağmen, sığınma hakkına ilişkin herhangi bir hüküm içermemektedir. Buna karşın Sözleşme’nin 33. maddesinde düzenlenen non-refoulement yasağı Devletlerin yabancılara yönelik davranışlarını sınırlandıran en temel ilkeyi teşkil etmektedir.
Bazı yasal boşluklar barındıran ve yaptırım mekanizmasından yoksun olan 1951 Cenevre Sözleşmesi’nin düzenlediği non-refoulement ilkesi, Sözleşme’nin sınırlarını aşarak, ulusalüstü insan hakları belgelerinde de yer bulmuştur. Bu belgelerden biri olan Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi sığınma hakkına ilişkin hüküm içermemekle birlikte, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, içtihadıyla işkence yasağını düzenleyen madde 3 bağlamında non-refoulement ilkesini de koruma altına almıştır. Mahkeme dinamik yorumu, oluşturduğu asgari standartlar ve usuli güvencelerle sığınma hakkına ilişkin etkili bir koruma sağlamaktadır.
Öte yandan son yıllarda insan hareketliliğinin artması karşısında devletlerin göç yönetimine ilişkin sıkı politikalar izlemesi sonucunda Mahkeme’nin sığınma olgusuna birey ve insan hakları odaklı yaklaşan içtihadının, sığınma sağlamanın devletin egemenlik hakkının bir yansıması olarak takdir yetkisi dahilinde olduğuna ilişkin görüş lehinde güç kaybettiği görülmektedir. AİHM, özellikle N.D ve N.T. kararıyla başlayan süreçte sığınma arama hakkını, sığınma aramaya erişim olarak ifade edilebilecek ve devletlerin güvenlik kaygılarını ön plana alan bir bakışla, usuli bir hak düzeyinde ele almaya başlamıştır.
Bu çalışma kapsamında ilk bölümde sığınma hakkının uluslararası hukukta nasıl düzenlendiği ele alınacaktır. İkinci bölümde AİHS ve Ek Protokoller çerçevesinde AİHM’nin non-refoulement ilkesine ilişkin kararları ve sağladığı koruma düzeyi incelenerek, bu korumanın sığınma hakkı üzerindeki etkisi değerlendirilecektir. Son bölümde ise Arap Baharı sonrası yaşanan insan hareketliliği karşısında devletlerin zorlaştırılmış göç politikalarının Mahkeme içtihadını nasıl şekillendirdiği tartışılacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sığınma hakkı, Non-refoulement, Etkili Başvuru Hakkı, Geri İtme (Push-Back), Göçün Dışsallaştırılması (Externalization)

Kaynakça

• AKAL Cemal Bali, Modern Düşüncenin Doğuşu, Dost Kitabevi, 2016. ALLEIN Jean, “The jus cogens Nature of non‐refoulement”, International Journal of Refugee Law, 2001, C. 13, S. 4, 533–558.
• ARENDT Hannah, “The Rights of Man: What Are They?”, American Labor Conference on International Affairs, Modern Review, 1949, 24-37.
• BALDACCINI Anneliese, “Extraterritorial border controls in the EU: The role of frontex in operations at sea”, Extraterritorial Immigration Control: Legal Challenges, B Ryan/ V Mitsilegas (eds), 2010, Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 229-255.
• BOED Roman, “The State of the Right of Asylum in International Law”, 5 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 1994, C. 5, p. 1-34.
• BORELLI Silvia/ STANFORD Ben, “Troubled Waters in the Mare Nostrum: Interception and Push-backs of Migrants in the Mediterranean and the European Convention on Human Rights”, Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika, 2014, C. 10, S. 37, 29-69.
• CARRERA Sergio, The Strasbourg court judgement ‘N.D. and N.T. v Spain’: a 'carte blanche' to push backs at EU external borders?, EUI RSCAS Working Paper, 2020/21, Florence, 2020.
• CARRERA Sergio/STEFAN Marco (eds), Fundamental Rights Challenges in Border Controls and Expulsions of Irregular Immigration in the European Union: Complaint Mechanisms and Access to Justice, Routledge, 2020.
• CHERUBINI Francesco, Asylum Law in the European Union, Routledge, 2015.
• CLARK Tom, “Human Rights and Expulsion: Giving Content to the Concept of Asylum”, 4(2) Internatİonal Journal Of Refugee Law, 1992, C. 4, S. 2, 189-204.
• COLEMAN Nils, “Non-Refoulement Revised: Renewed Review of the Status of Non-Refoulement as Customary International Law”, European Journal of Migration Law, 2003, S. 5, 23-65.
• EDWARDS Alice, “Human Rights, Refugees and the Rights to ‘to enjoy’ asylum”, International Journal of Refugee Law, 2005, C 17, 293- 330.
• EDWARDS Alice, Back to Basics: The Right to Liberty and Security of Person and Alternatives to Detention of Refugees, Asylum-Seekers, Stateless Persons and Other Migrants, UNHCR Legal and Protection Policy Research Series, 2011.
• EGELİĞİ Ömer E., İnsan Hakları Avrupa Sözleşmesi ve Anayasa Çerçevesinde Etkili Başvuru Hakkı, On İki Levha yayıncılık, 2021.
• EINARSEN Terje, “The European Convention on Human Rights and the Notion of an Implied Right to de facto Asylum”, International Journal of Refugee Law, 1990, C. 2-3, 361-389.
• DIENER Alexander C./HAGEN Joshua (eds.), Borderlines and Borderlands – Political Oddities at the Edge of the Nation-State, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2020.
• FITZGERALD David Scott, “Remote Control of Migration: Theorising Territoriality, Shared Cooercion and Deterrence.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 2020, C. 46, S. 1, 4–22.
• GAMMELTOFT-HANSEN Thomas / HATHAWAY James, “Non- Refoulement in a World of Cooperative Deterrence”, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 2015, C. 53, 235-284.
• GARCÍA-MORA Manual R., International Law and Asylum as a Human Right, Washington, Public Affairs Press, 1956.
• GIL-BAZO Maria Theresa, “The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Right to be Granted Asylum in the Union’s Law”, Refugee Survey Quarterly, 2008, Cilt 27, Sayı 3, 33- 52.
• GIL-BAZO Maria Theresa, “Asylum as a General Principle of International Law”, International Journal of Refugee Law, 2015, Cilt 27, Sayı 1, 3-28.
• GIUFFRÉ Mariagiulia, “Watered-Down Rights on the High Seas: Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy”, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 2012, C. 61, S. 3, 728-750.
• GOODWIN-GILL Guy, International Law and Movement of Persons between States, OUP, 1978.
• GOODWIN-GILL Guy/ McADAM Jane/DUNLOP Emma, The Refugee in International Law, 4. Bs., OUP, 2021.
• GRAHL-MADSEN Atle, Territorial Asylum, Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1980.
• GRAHL-MADSEN Atle, The Status of Refugees in International Law, Leyden: A.W. Sijthoff, 1972.
• GROTIUS Hugo. The Rights of War and Peace, çev. A.C. Campbell, M. Walter Dunn, London, 1990.
• HAILBRONNER Kay, “The Right to Asylum and the Future of Asylum Procedures in the European Community”, International Journal of Refugee Law, 1990, Cilt 2, 1990, 341.
• HAILBRONNER Kay/GOGOLIN Jana. “Territorial Asylum”, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, September 2013, paras 31- 33 <http://www.mpepil.com> Erişim Tarihi 4 Ekim 2023.
• HAILBRONNER Kay, “Legal Requirements for the EU-Turkey Refugee Agreement: A Reply to J. Hathaway”, Verfassungsblog, 11 Mart 2016, < https://verfassungsblog.de/legal-requirements-for-the-eu- turkey-refugee-agreement-a-reply-to-j-hathaway/> Erişim Tarihi 15
• HAMACHER Werner/MENDOZA-DE JESUS Ronald, “On the Right to Have Rights: Human Rights; Marx and Arendt”,The New Centennial Review, 2014, C. 14, S. 2, 169–214.
• HANNUM Hurst, “Status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in National and International Law”, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, Cilt 25, 1995-1996, 287-398.
• HANSEN Randall, “State Controls: Borders, Refugees, and Citizenship”, The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies, Elena Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, Gil Loesher, Katy Long, and Nando Sigona (eds), OUP, 2018.
• HARVEY Colin, “Time for Reform? Refugees, Asylum-Seekers, and Protection under International Human Rights Law”, Refugee Survey Quarterly, 2015, C. 34, S. 1, 43-60.
• HEMME Battjes, European Asylum Law and International Law, Martinus Nijhoff, Laiden, 2016.
• HEUSER Stefan, “Is There a Right to Have Rights? The Case of the Right of Asylum”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 2008, C. 11, S. 1, 3- 13.
• İÇDUYGU Ahmet, The Irregular Migration Corridor between the EU and Turkey: Is It Possible to Block It with a Readmission Agreement?, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute, 2011.
• JOLY Daniele, “The Porous Dam: European Harmonization on Asylum in the Nineties”, International Journal of Refugee Law, 1994, C. 6, S. 2, 159–193.
• KÄLİN Walter /CARONI Martina /HEIM Lukas, “Article 33, para. 1”, The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol: A Commentary, A Zimmermann (ed), OUP 2011.
• KIMMINICH Otto, Der internationale Rechtsstatus des Flüchtlings, Köln: Carl Heynmans Verlag, 1962.
• KJAERUM Morten, “Refugee Protection Between State Interests and Human Rights: Where is Europe Heading?”, Human Rights Quarterly, 2002, C. 24, 513-536.
• KLEPP Silja, “A Contested Asylum System: The European Union between Refugee Protection and Border Control in the Mediterrenean Sea”, European Journal of Migration and Law, 2010, C. 12, 1-21.
• LAMBERT Hélène, “Protection Against Refoulement From Europe: Human Rights Law Comes to the Rescue”, International Law and Comparative Law Quarterly, 1999, C. 48, 515-544.
• LAUTERPACHT Hersch, International Law and Human Rights, Frederick D. Praeger, 1950.
• LAUTERPACHT Elihu/BETHLEHEM Daniel, “The Scope and Content of the Principle of Non-Refoulement: Opinion”, Refugee Protection in International Law UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International Protection, E Feller/ V Türk/F Nicholson (eds.), Cambridge, 2003, 87-177.
• LAVANEX Sandra, Safe Third Countries, Extending the EU Asylum and Immigration Policies to Central and Eastern Europe, Central European University Press, 1999.
• LOESHER Gil/ MILNER James, “UNHCR and the Global Governance of Refugees” in Alexander Betts Global Migration Governance, OUP 2011, 189-209.
• MACOVEI Monica, The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person: A Guide to implementation of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Council of Europe Directorate General of Human Rights, Human Rights Handbooks, No. 5, 2004, https://rm.coe.int/168007 ff4b (Erişim Tarihi 15 Ekim 2023).
• MARKARD Nora, A Hole of Unclear Dimensions: Reading ND and NT v. Spain, EU Migration Law Blog, 1.4.2020, https://eumigrationlawblog.eu/a-hole-of-unclear-dimensions- reading-nd-and-nt-v-spain/ (Erişim Tarihi 1 Ekim 2023).
• MORENO-LAX Violeta, “Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy or the Strasbourg Court versus Extraterritorial Migration Control?”, Human Rights Law Review, 2012, C. 12, S. 3, 574–598.
• MORENO-LAX Violeta/ GHEZELBASH Daniel/ KLEIN Natalie, “Between Life, Security and Rights: Framing the Interdiction of ‘Boat Migrants’ in the Central Mediterranean and Australia”, Leiden Journal of International Law, 2019, C. 32, 715-740.
• OPESKIN Brian/ PERRUCHOUD Richard/ REDPATH-CROSS Jillyanne, “Conceptualizing International Migration Law”, Foundations of International Migration Law, Ed. Brian Opeskin, Richard Perruchoud ve Jillyanne Redpath-Cross, Cambridge, 2012, 1-16.
• OVIEDO-MORENO Carlos, “A Painful Slap from the ECtHR and an Urgent Opportunity for Spain”, Verfassungblog, 14 February 2020. https://verfassungsblog.de/a-painful-slap-from-the-ecthr- and-an-urgent-opportunity-for-spain/Law Blog,
• ÖVÜNÇ-ÖZTÜRK Neva, “Avrupa Birliği Temel Haklar Şartında Yer Alan Sığınma Hakkının Tahlili”, İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2012, C. 3, S. 2, 187-228.
• PAPANICOLOPULU Irini, “Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy”, The American Journal of International Law, 2013, C. 107, S. 2, 417-423.
• PAZ Moria, “The Incomplete Right to Freedom of Movement”, American Journal of International Law, 2017, C. 111, 514-518.
• PAZARCI Hüseyin, Uluslararası Hukuk, Turhan Kitabevi, 15. Bası, Ankara 2016.
• PEERS Steve, “Human Rights, Asylum and European Community Law”, Refugee Survey Quarterly, 2005, C. 24, S. 2, 24-38.
• PEERS Steve/MORENO-LAX Violeta/GARLICK Madeline/GUILD Elspeth (eds), EU Immigration and Asylum Law (Text and Commentary): Second Revised Edition, Brill-Nijhoff, 2015.
• PICHL Maximilian/ SCHMALZ Dana, “Unlawful” may not mean rightless. The shocking ECtHR Grand Chamber judgment in case N.D. and N.T.”, Verfassungblog, 14 Februar 2020. https://verfassungsblog.de/unlawful-may-not-mean-rightless/
• PLENDER Richard/MOLE Nuala, “Beyond the Geneva Convention: constructing a de facto right of asylum from international human rights instruments”, in Frances Nicholson/Patrick Twomey (eds.), Refugee Rights and Realities: Evolving International Concepts and Regimes, Cambridge University Press, 1999.
• SOREL Jean-Marc, “Is the Wall Soluble into International Law?”, Borders, Fences and Walls: State of Insecurity?, E Vallet (ed), Routledge, 2014, 131-141.
• SUHRKE Astri, Safeguarding the Right to Asylum, Working Paper Programme of Human Rights Studies, Chr. Michelsen Institute Department of Social Science and Development, M 92: 3, Bergen, December 1992.
• THYM Daniel, “The End of Human Rights Dynamism: Judgments of the ECtHR on ‘Hot Returns’ and Humanitarian Visas as a Focal Point of Contemporary European Asylum Law and Policy”, International Journal of Refugee Law, 2020, C. 32, S. 4, 569-596.
• THYM Daniel, “A Restrictionist Revolution? A Counter-Intuitive Reading of the ECtHR’s N.D. & N.T.-Judgment on ‘Hot Expulsions”, EU Migration Law Blog, 17.2.2020, https://eumigrationlawblog.eu/a-restrictionist-revolution-a- counter-intuitive-reading-of-the-ecthrs-n-d-n-t-judgment-on-hot- expulsions/ (Erişim Tarihi 1 Ekim 2023).
• UZUN Elif, “Geri Göndermeme (Non-Refoulement) İlkesinin Uluslararası Hukuktaki Konumu Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme”, Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika, 2012, C. 8, S. 30, 25-58.
• VALLET Elisabeth (ed), Borders, Fences and Walls: State of Insecurity?, Routledge, 2014.
• WISSING Ruben, Push Backs of “Badly Behaving” Migrants at Spanish Border are not Collective Expulsions (But Might Still Be Illegal Refoulements), Strasbourg Observers, 25.2.2020, https://strasbour gobservers.com/2020/02/25/push-backs-of-badly-behaving- migrants-at-spanish-border-are-not-collective-expulsions-but- might-still-be-illegal-refoulements/ (Erişim Tarihi 1 Ekim 2023);
• WORSTER William Thomas, “The Comtemproray International Status of the Right to Receive Asylum”, International Journal of Refugee Law, 2014, C 26, S 4, 477-499.
• WOUTERS Cornelis W., International Legal Standards for the Protection from Refoulement, Intersentia, 2009.