Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Drøftelse vedrørende føtrste asylland

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Nordic Journal of International Law

One of the main problems of solving the first country of asylum problem is to adopt similar definitions in all countries, coupled with a system of exchange of asylum-seekers. The definition of the Conference on Territorial Asylum in 1977 was criticised for including the concept of "links and connections" which might give rise to uncertain problems of interpratation. Most participants felt that the risk of mass influx in case the rule of first country of asylum was abandoned was exagerated. No precise analysis of the size of the problem was at hand, but the total number of refugees in orbit at any time was estimated to be between 1000 and 2000. On the other hand a unilateral withdrawal of the rule, e.g. by the Nordic countries, could lead to a false distribution of refugees. Some participants found a burden sharing agreement superfluous, because refugees would automatically be distributed even without an agreement which would in certain cases be delicate to administer. It was also considered unlikely that political agreement on such a treaty could be found. Others felt agreement of the principle of burden sharing to be a necessary requirement for a common solution to the problem of first country of asylum. The establishment of a European commission to distribute refugees to "first countries" was discussed. It was suggested that administrative and humanitarian reasons call for a system that would work faster, and that the UNHCR might be better qualified to take up this task. It was stressed that criticism of the rule of first country of asylum did not by necessity imply acceptance of elected asylum.


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Nordic Journal of International Law — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation