Madam, - Neil Warner (October 31st) asks that I clarify a seeming discrepancy between my saying that there is no such thing as a "right to asylum" and Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution".
I understand his puzzlement but it would be easily dissipated if he read an article on the matter on our website (www.immigrationcontrol.org). This relates to the drafting history of Article 14 and well repays attention.
Shortening it for your letter columns: Draft 1 says "Every State has the right to grant asylum to political refugees".
Draft 3 says "Everyone has the right to escape persecution on grounds of political or other beliefs or on grounds of racial prejudice by taking refuge on the territory of any State willing to grant him asylum."
Draft 5 says "Everyone has the right to seek and be granted, in other countries, asylum from persecution".
The sixth, and final draft was framed in circumstances which focussed minds on the implications of the asylum right article and which forced a return to the more classic interpretation of that right that we saw in the first draft.
It was the autumn of 1948. Some of Israel's neighbours had become concerned about the burden on their societies posed by the continuing influx of Palestinian refugees. In the ensuing discussion the right to be "granted" asylum from persecution was diluted to become the right to "enjoy" asylum. This brought us back to the classic right of the State to grant asylum. The individual's right to "enjoy" asylum is no more than the State's right to say to the country of origin "We have given him asylum; you will not be allowed to have him back; he will continue to 'enjoy' or maintain that situation".
Delegates from many countries were persuaded to vote for this change after Mrs Corbett, the UK delegate, pointed out that a right to be "granted" asylum would conflict with the immigration laws of nearly every country.
The article then read and remained: "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."
The reason, it would appear, for this particular wording instead of a literal reversion to Draft 1 was a wish for stylistic unity, beginning each article with either "everyone has the right to" or "everyone is entitled to". (See Professor Mary Ann Glendon's book on the drafting history of the declaration).
I hope that clarifies the position. - Yours, etc.,
AINE NI CHONAILL, PRO, Immigration Control Platform, PO Box 6469, Dublin 2.