EU: There are many hurdles still to be crossed before a deal can be struck on asylum procedures, writes Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Correspondent.
The Irish presidency of the EU will see an increase in joint flights from member-states to countries like the Russian Federation, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It will also see a number of trial schemes on assisted repatriation.
But agreement on minimum standards for an EU-wide asylum procedure is proving more elusive.
Such agreement is required by May 1st under the Amsterdam Treaty, and both the Minister for Justice, Mr McDowell, and the European Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs, Mr Antonio Vitorino, were upbeat about the possibility of compromise. But there are many hurdles to cross.
The first is the understandable reluctance of member-states to subordinate their asylum procedures to a common position. These procedures have grown out of national needs and experiences, and what suits and is politically acceptable in a state with a traditionally liberal position is unlikely to be popular in a state under pressure from extreme right-wing politicians.
One way out of this would be for the directive to contain a number of optional provisions. But the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Mr Ruud Lubbers, has warned against such an approach, fearing it will involve "significant departures from accepted international refugee and human rights law and principles established over more than 50 years".
Another contentious issue is that of "safe countries". This could be the refugee's country of origin, which might be considered "safe" by the EU regardless of the experience of the refugee, or it could be a "safe third country" to which the refugee could be sent, especially if he or she had been there before arriving in the EU.
The definition of a "safe third country" has generated considerable debate. The UNHCR does not object to this concept in principle, but is concerned that it should be defined in such a way as to give the refugee adequate protection.
The kind of protection it would like to see is adherence to the Geneva Convention on Refugees, and to the European Convention on Human Rights, and also that the refugee would have some connection with the country, like passage through it or time spent in it.
So far there is no full agreement on such a definition. Nor is there agreement on what would constitute a safe country of origin.There is also no agreement on whether there should be legal aid for applicants to the asylum process.
The accession of 10 new member-states will bring a raft of new problems. It will push the border of the EU further to the east, and therefore the considerable number of asylum-seekers coming from the Russian Federation, the former Yugoslavia, and further east into Asia, will seek asylum in the new border countries.
This raises two issues: what help will they get from the EU in processing such applications, and how will the numbers be accommodated? They are likely to get some assistance in processing applications, both in terms of resources and training of personnel. But "burden-sharing" of the number of refugees will be more contentious.
Mr Lubbers has pointed to the way in which Ireland, for example, benefited from EU solidarity in the past, and suggested that it would only be fair for refugees to be distributed around the EU, irrespective of where they first seek asylum.This proposal is unlikely to be met with enthusiasm from the Irish, or most other, governments.