Working title of paper proposal:

Compliance of EU Member States with International Refugee and Human Rights

law after the implementation of exclusion clauses of Qualification Directive

Current global threats to the national security, such as terrorism, have a strong impact on
the asylum policy of EU Member States. It seems that expulsion clauses contained in the
Article 1(F) of Refugee Convention are no longer a sufficient safeguard against terrorism.

EU adopted a Qualification Directive that expands the 1(F) expulsion clauses. Articles
14(4) – (5) of the Qualification Directive allow Member States to revoke, end or refuse to
renew refugee status where there are reasonable grounds for regarding a refugee as a
danger to the security. Under the Refugee Convention that kind of danger is a reason for
the exception to the principle of non-refoulement that applies to the refugees and not as
an exclusion clause, applied to the persons before even being recognized as refugees. But
paragraph 5 of Article 14 of the Qualification Directive states that in such situations,
Member States may decide not to grant a refugee status and by that they expand the
Refugee Convention’s exclusion clauses.

With the focus on the exclusion and non-refoulment clauses of Qualification Directive, I
will try to explore the protection offered to the asylum seeker suspected of being engaged
in terrorism. Do the standards still comply with the International Refugee and Human
Rights law? Is the principle of non-refoulement as understood under the Refugee
Convention and as extended in the prohibition of expulsion to torture or inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment under the Article 3 of the European Convention of
Human Rights endangered by the recent practice of EU Member States?

I will look at the legislation and jurisprudence of UK and Germany, before and after the
implementation of Qualification Directive. Although the directives do not preclude
Member States from keeping the higher standards of protection, there seems to be a
tendency to lower the existent standards while implementing the directives. Is it really
necessary that in order to attain the result demanded by the directive, the Member States
must adopt the provisions that are not in accordance with Refugee Convention and
International Human Rights law?

I will try to examine how Member States handle the obligation to respect International
Refugee and Human Rights law while implementing the EU asylum legislation and what
prevails in the conflict between them.