Abstract
This article investigates recently imposed restrictions in the asylum regimes in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. The purpose of the paper is twofold. First, we aim to identify general changes in asylum policies and asylum legislation. Second, we discuss and compare the policy tools, practices and legislation that have undermined the rights of unaccompanied Afghan minors. We also observe new tools of internal and external deterrence and restrictive asylum policies, combined with tighter border controls. In the case of adult asylum seekers from Afghanistan, high rejection rates and deportations were used for years as an important tool of deterrence. However, these tools were seldom used against unaccompanied Afghan minors before the large influx of asylum seekers in 2015. Since 2015, increased use of rejections, combined with temporary protections, have emerged as the major tools for restriction. We identify similarities and differences in the policy restrictions targeting unaccompanied minors between the countries. Although we identify some recent diverging trends in Scandinavian asylum policies regarding unaccompanied minors from Afghanistan, the general trend of policy restrictions still prevails in all three countries.
Highlights
Scandinavian countries, especially Sweden, have traditionally had a well-established image as peaceful nations that have humanitarian asylum and refugee policies
According to these institutions, unaccompanied minors are defined as an especially vulnerable group, and a set of special rights have been given to this category of asylum seekers, which is in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
By mapping general and specific policy responses and regulations in each Scandinavian country, we aim to provide knowledge of recent policy developments and to identify prevailing and diverging political strategies and tools that have had direct and indirect impacts on the rights of unaccompanied minors from Afghanistan
Summary
Scandinavian countries, especially Sweden, have traditionally had a well-established image as peaceful nations that have humanitarian asylum and refugee policies. We can observe a change to a more restrictive asylum policy in Sweden, starting with amendments of the Alien Act. 19See https://www.ft.dk/samling/20101/lovforslag/l37/index.htm 20See https://www.ft.dk/ripdf/samling/20101/lovforslag/l37/20101_l37_betaenkning.pdf 21See https://fyens.dk/artikel/dansk-flygtningehjælp-færre-afghanere-får-asyl-mens-volden-stiger-i-afghanistan 22See https://www.nyidanmark.dk/da/Applying/Asylum/Unaccompanied%20minor 23Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals. It can be argued that the increased focus on the inward and outward measures of deterrence, such as high rejection rates, subsidiary protection regimes, the introduction of border controls and the increasing pressure of return, have gradually transformed and undermined the Swedish identity and image as a safe port for those in need of international protection It seems that this shift does not represent a temporary divergence from the relatively liberal stance Sweden has been known for (Valenta and Bunar 2010). In 2018, the Norwegian government declared that it wanted to use Norway’s position as an aid provider to secure more return agreements. Norwegian authorities have contributed strongly to several FRONTEX operations in efforts to curb irregular migrations and strengthen the Schengen borders.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
