Diverging interpretations of humanitarian exceptions: assisting rejected asylum seekers in Norway

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study explores the tension between regulations aimed at hindering the mobility of irregular migrants in Europe and the individuals who identify with humanitarian ideals and assist rejected asylum seekers. Drawing on legal document analysis and qualitative interviews with individuals who have supported rejected asylum seekers from Afghanistan, this study analyses how the term ‘humanitarian assistance’ is interpreted both legally and socially in the Norwegian context. Although Norway has implemented a humanitarian exception from criminal liability for humanitarian assistance to irregular migrants, the concept of humanitarian assistance is narrowly interpreted as life-saving assistance provided by publicly known formal organisations. This is in contrast with the broader understanding of humanitarian assistance maintained by the respondents, who understand the term as support beyond mere physical survival and which includes upholding human rights. It is shown that even though respondents align themselves with international human rights and humanitarian motives, they might still be prosecuted by the EU and national legislation. It is argued that the criminalisation of acts that are commonly deemed as morally right and humanitarian challenges fundamental principles of the use of punishment as a tool to prohibit harm in society.