Toward a Gender-Sensitive Securitization of the Common European Asylum System

Amandine Le Bellec

doi:10.3389/fhumd.2021.635809

Amandine Le Bellec

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3389/fhumd.2021.635809

Copy DOI

Abstract

EU Member States may legally designate a country as a Safe Country of Origin when human rights and democratic standards are generally respected. For nationals of these countries, asylum claims are treated in an accelerated way, the underlying objective of the “safe country” designation being to facilitate the rapid return of unsuccessful claimants to their country of origin. The concept of “safe country” was initially blind to gender-based violence. Yet, in the reform of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), which began in 2016, the European Commission proposed two changes: first, that a common list of “safe countries” should be applied in all Member States, and second, that this concept should be interpreted in a “gender-sensitive” manner. In consequence, the generalization of a policy that has been documented as largely detrimental to asylum seekers has been accompanied by the development of special guarantees for LGBTI+ asylum seekers. In light of this, there is a need to examine the impact of “safe country” practices on LGBTI+ claimants and to investigate the extent to which the securitization of European borders is compatible with LGBTI+ inclusion. Based on a qualitative document analysis of EU “safe country” policies and on interviews with organizations supporting LGBTI+ asylum seekers, this article shows that despite the implementation of gender-sensitive safeguards, LGBTI+ asylum seekers are particularly affected by “safe country” practices. These practices permeate European asylum systems beyond the application of official lists, depriving many LGBTI+ asylum seekers of their right to have their protection claims fairly assessed.

Highlights

In 2019, the local and general elections in Greece were won by candidates from the conservative New Democracy party
The accelerated procedures entail a reduction in procedural safeguards: claimants have less time to prepare for their interview, they benefit from reduced material assistance, and in some Member States laws may allow them to be deported before their appeal has been examined (AIDA, 2020)
This article has shown that LGBTI+ asylum seekers are negatively affected by the tightening of asylum policies and by “safe country of origin” practices, calling into question the hypothesis of a homonationalist turn in EU asylum policies

Summary

INTRODUCTION

In 2019, the local and general elections in Greece were won by candidates from the conservative New Democracy party. The case of Senegal illustrates one of the major blind spots of the “safe country of origin” concept; namely the lack of consideration for gender-based violence when assessing the “safety” of designated countries This is problematic for LGBTI+ asylum seekers. This means that in this article, the concept of “safe country of origin” is analyzed for what it “is” (a tool used in the management of asylum claims), and for what it “does” to asylum policies It is understood in terms of practices rather than as a legal notion, as these practices exceed the official implementation of lists. The second part of this article investigates the impact of this concept on LGBTI+ asylum seekers today It shows that “safe country” practices permeate the entire asylum procedure and lead to generalized, nationality-based dismissals of asylum applications that affect LGBTI+ asylum seekers very harshly. The third part of this article analyzes the emergence of new understandings of “safety” and “safe country” in the EU debate, showing that local organizations have developed a Europeanized counter-narrative on “safe countries of origin.” It concludes, that the informal and superficial structure taken by the network of LGBTI+ organizations working on asylum in Europe has inhibited the development of a shared advocacy at the EU level

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Findings

CONCLUSION