Sir, - There is a conflict at the heart of the emerging response to the present refugee crisis which explains the indecision we have witnessed this week. It is, if you like, a tension between fragile rights.
The first is the "right" of individuals not to be forcibly displaced; some have begun to describe this as the "right to remain". The focus here is on the root causes of flight and thus with keeping refugees as close as possible to the state of origin until the conflict has ended and return becomes possible. Those favouring this approach are keen to stress that dispersal of refugees aids human rights abusers by unwittingly lending legitimacy to what they are doing. This, conveniently, plays down the role of protection beyond first countries of asylum.
The second right is the right of individuals to seek asylum. In some quarters asylum has become the solution that dare not speak its name. The right has suffered in the past decade from a concerted campaign by powerful states to label refugees as seekers after better lives rather than genuine protection. The remarkable shift in imagery that has followed the displacement from Kosovo is worth noting. Those who continue to defend the right to seek asylum, often today against great odds, do so on the basis that any "right to remain" becomes meaningless in situations such as this. In reality the root causes of flight are not being effectively tackled and protection elsewhere is a practical necessity. Protection elsewhere is, however, not a privilege; it is the right of those who seek it.
European states have developed a range of tools to deal with forced displacement. There is a clear message in the concepts that have emerged: protection must primarily be sought as close to the state of origin as possible. While sympathetic to the stress on eradicating the root causes of flight, this is only one part of a comprehensive approach which acknowledges the right of individuals to seek protection.
On this it is interesting to note the almost complete absence of references to international refugee law during this debate. The reality is that return may not become an option for some time. Therefore protection, adequate to the needs of refugees, must persist over the entire period when it is required and not simply when the media glare is on the issue. Refugees want to return home as soon as possible but there is a legal duty to protect them until this becomes a feasible option. The EU, guided by the principle of regional solidarity, has legal and moral obligations to ensure that those in need are effectively protected. Ireland can, and should, make a valuable contribution to this collective effort to share our regional responsibilities. - Yours, etc.,
Dr C.J. Harvey, School of Law, Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast 7.