TNAG-1800-FCO40-2560-Hong-Kong-Vietnamese-refugees-principle-of-first-asylum-1988 — Page 47

C/SCP/16

ge 6

K

15. A number of speakers considered that an essential difficulty lay in the absence of a precise definition of asylum. One speaker pointed out that such definitions had not so far differentiated between temporary and permanent

asylum. Another speaker again questioned the justification of seeking a new

concept of refuge which could only erode the present notion and practice of

asylum, and the application of the principle of non-refoulement.

16. Other speakers again stressed the necessity of looking at the problem

from a humanitarian and not a State's point of view.

Temporary refuge in relation to the principle of non-refoulement (Point 3 of the Agenda)

Temporary refuge and the protection of asylum-seekers in the case of

large-scale influx (Point 4 of the Agenda)

17. Introducing items 3 and 4, the Chairman emphasized that protection

against non-refoulement was an essential element in the institution of asylum irrespective of whether it was granted temporarily or on a durable basis. He hoped that the Group's discussions would recognize the over-riding importance of the principle of non-refoulement which indeed had been described as a peremptory norm of international law. The standards of treatment which should be accorded an asylum-seeker who, once admitted, had been granted asylum on a temporary basis were, however, less well-defined and he suggested that the Group might consider this particular aspect of the question.

18. In the ensuing debate, there was general consensus on the importance of upholding the existing principle of non-refoulement. Several speakers emphasized that this principle should be scrupulously observed with respect to all persons seeking asylum, also under the circumstances of large-scale

influx.

Several experts emphasised the mandatory character of the principle of non-refoulement. Regarding the status of persons who had been admitted on a temporary basis, however, there was widespread doubt as to whether defining standards for their treatment warranted the establishment of a separate legal

concept.