Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Countries have been faced with significant and very unequal responsibilities as a result of highly fluctuating inflows of asylum seekers into their territories. National (unilateral) policy responses in this area have often failed to achieve their objectives while producing significant externalities for other states. In an attempt to deter 'non genuine' asylum seekers, states have engaged in the competitive introduction of increasingly restrictive deterrence measures that have driven down protection standards and brought states into jeopardy of breaching their obligations under international law. As unilateral policy responses have become increasingly seen as inadequate, unfair and ultimately unsustainable, policy makers have increasingly advocated multi-lateral approaches to deal with the policy challenges posed by asylum seekers and refugees.. Against this background, the paper will analyse the rationale, mechanisms and effectiveness of international burden/responsibility-sharing in this policy area. Building on theoretical insights from the literature on international public goods, the proposed analysis will focus on four distinct approaches to international asylum/refugee burden-sharing: regulatory (policy sharing), distributive (resource-sharing), re-distributive (people-sharing) and a market-based approach (based on the idea of countries' comparative advantages in contributing to international public goods). By comparing and contrasting these four approaches, the paper aims to explore the driving forces and obstacles to international burden-sharing initiatives in this area and assess their past record and future potential in achieving a more equitable and sustainable system of international refugee protection.