Filling the Gaps? Subsidiary Protection and Non-EU Harmonized Protection Status(es) in the Nordic Countries

Abstract

The interpretation and use of subsidiary protection in Europe has received much atten tion in recent years. An area that has received considerably less attention is that of the residual forms of complementary protection that exist in national legislation but that have not been harmonized at a European level. The key to understanding the contemporary use of complementary protection in the Nordic region lies in its origin and development to date. This article will therefore explain the conception of and contents of other complementary forms of protection and their use today compared to EU harmonized subsidiary protection. The article will analyse the existing legislation and practical examples of its application at first instance, on appeal, or by other precedent setting bodies. 1. In TR odu CTI on Prior to the adoption of the EU acquis on asylum, the Nordic countries were considered to be at the forefront of the use of complementary forms of protection. The Nordic countries had had domestic forms of complementary protection for decades, in addition to refugee status as stipulated by the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951 Convention). The different types of status were called de facto status or humanitarian protection. When the EU introduced subsidiary protection in Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third coun try nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (Qualification Directive), the EU member states, Finland, and Sweden transposed the statuses as prescribed * Doctoral candidate, International Law, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva. UN staff member. The opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author and do not reflect the position of the UN. The author wishes to thank Professor Terje Einarsson, University of Bergen; Professor Emeritus Goran Melander, University of Lund; and Professor Jens Vedsted-Hansen, University of Aarhus, for sharing their comments and insights on earlier versions of this paper.