Safe country of origin list at the eu level: The bargaining process and the implications

Abstract

Critics have often highlighted that the 1999 Tampere decision to establish a common European Union (EU) asylum system has been too focused on security and not enough on human rights, leading to increased denial of protection for asylum seekers. This paper focuses on a controversial asylum policy, which is part of this debate: the safe country of origin (SCO) policy. This policy revolves around having a list of countries deemed “safe,” which ensures asylum seekers from these countries are fast tracked through the system and likely denied asylum in the end, based on a general assumption that the application is unfounded. Human rights groups have argued the SCO policy violates the Geneva Convention. Widely used at the national level, officials proposed the creation of a supranational SCO list in the early 2000s. However, disagreements among Member States over what countries to deem “safe,” as well as the need to place the European Parliament in a co-decision (as opposed to consultative) position for the creation of the EU SCO list have led to an impasse. This paper employs two major European integration theories, neofunctionalism and liberal intergovernmentalism, to explain the bargaining dynamics between Member States and their failure to agree on what “safe” means. Factors such as different national migratory pressures, varied procedural understandings and applications of the SCO policy, a limited successful harmonization in related asylum policies, along with a reluctance to have the European Parliament in a co-decision position all contributed to the non-adoption of a supranational SCO list.