Safe Agreement Wikipedia

Since 2016, the Washington Conservation Guild (WCG), the Potomac Chapter of the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), the Smithsonian Institution`s Office of Safety, Health, and the Environment (SI-OSHEM), and the Smithsonian National Collections Program have collaborated with the Lunder Conservation Center to host an annual conference on health and safety issues in collectible care. The so-called “first country of asylum” principle often justifies the decision to return asylum seekers to another country. This means that a country can refuse a person`s asylum application if they have already received protection from another country. It is also often referred to as the “safe third country” principle. This broader term encompasses other relationships between an asylum seeker and a third country in which he or she is considered safe. These two principles are at the heart of the Dublin Regulation, of which Norway is a part. The Dublin Regulation aims to streamline the management of asylum in Europe by being able to process an asylum application by only one country; normally, the country where the person arrives first in Europe. It aims to avoid “asylum shopping” when a person applies for protection in one country after being rejected by another. Although the Dublin Regulation applies only to European countries that have signed it, the two current principles are based on an interpretation of the 1951 Refugee Convention and therefore apply to all countries that have acceded to it. The principles are not directly mentioned in the Convention, but derive from article 31, which states that a refugee should not be punished for illegal entry into a country when he arrives directly from a country where he was threatened.

In November, the majority of parties in the Norwegian parliament approved an amendment to the Immigration Act. Norway no longer requires a state to accept and process asylum applications in order to be considered a safe third country. The change meant that Russia was considered safe to take in asylum seekers and, subsequently, people were forced to return. The Norwegian government amended the immigration law in a single week in November, assuring the public that it had consulted leading human rights experts and that the amendment was in line with international obligations. However, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and several experts in international law have strongly contested this change. To achieve an acceptable level of security at global, regional and local level, the interfaces between entities in the above categories must also be managed consistently. There are few examples where Western countries have viewed countries in other parts of the world as safe third countries, as Norway has done with Russia and how the EU currently views with Turkey. UNHCR reviewed the practices of 12 EU countries in 2010. It showed that only two non-EU countries considered safe third countries; the United Kingdom and Spain.

However, in the United Kingdom, the practice concerned only the United States, Canada and Switzerland. Spain had considered the countries of North Africa and Latin America to be safe only in certain cases. UNHCR has also indicated that after enlargement to Eastern Europe, the EU should no longer consider certain neighbouring countries as safe third countries; These include Russia and Turkey. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees stressed that it was not enough for refugees to be safe from return to their country of origin to be persecuted in their country of origin (principle of non-refoulement). Other requirements of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees must be met, including access to social assistance, health care, work and education. . . .

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Comments are closed, but you can leave a trackback: Trackback URL.