TNAG-1800-FCO40-2560-Hong-Kong-Vietnamese-refugees-principle-of-first-asylum-1988 — Page 25

CONFIDENTIAL

Ken i sitialhna f'latyp ovale milus, keys -71 | tariye otherdd curly be a fauviskumal status, The pimciple of equitable burden-sharing will normally require that the State granting temporary refuge will eventually accept for lawful residence a reasonable number of the asylum seekers. Normally, it is impossible for a State to decide at the time of admission who shall be granted asylum, and who should be eligible for resettlement elsewhere. Also, the important possibility of the optimum solution of voluntary repatriation must be kept in mind.

In the light of all the considerations, it may be possible to define temporary refuge in its widest sense as temporary admission falling short of lawful entry or presence within the meaning of the 1951 UN Convention, pending the determination of a durable solution.

Durable Solutions

Recent events have demonstrated clearly that in situations of large-scale influx international solidarity, including burden-sharing and temporary refuge, are important elements in a regime for the international protection of refugees.

In any international regime for the universal admission of bona-fide asylum-seekers at the frontier, we believe that there should be a forceful statement of the principle of international solidarity. What is required is a formula similar to that found in the 1959 OAU Convention that States shall take appropriate measures to lighten the burden (Article II (4)). The obligation should be on 'taking! and not just on 'considering'. The question arises who accepts ultimate responsibility for asylum if a refugee granted temporary refuge cannot be repatriated voluntarily?

None of the existing international instruments addresses itself directly to this question. In practice, of course, resettlement takes place following consultations and negotiations between the relevant States and international organisations. It cannot be said that the results have always been timely or effective, but it is clear that they are essential if those States which are reluctant to shoulder alone the burden of protection are not to close their frontiers or retum the refugees found in their territory. While such closure or return would be deplorable and contrary to a ? fundamental humanitarian principle, it is hardly less deplorable

if other States fail to take effective measures promptly to assist a State burdened by a large-scale influx. International solidarity in refugee protection is also a fundamental principle.

Various proposals have been made to secure the equitable distribution internationally of refugees requiring resettlement, but so far none of these proposals have commanded wide support. Basically, we believe that it is almost impossible to devise mathematical distribution formulae which are not too rigid to cope with the multi- faceted aspects of refugee situations, and most States are unwilling to commit themselves to general resettlement plans of universal scope. The international preference has been in favour of ad hoc solutions, which take into account the circumstances of each case, the form of assistance most appropriate in the circumstances, fluctuating national. capacity, existing resettlement commitments, regional considerations, and so on.

../5