Fairness Versus Efficiency

The belief that certain asylum seekers do not deserve a full consideration of their claim first arose in Europe in the 1980s. At the time, many refugee-receiving countries were being overwhelmed with applications for asylum. Popular opinion had it that the majority of these applications were not from individuals fleeing persecution and seeking protection, but were from people fleeing economic hardship and seeking a better life. This situation was regarded as problematic for two reasons. First, applications from ‘bogus ’ asylum seekers placed extreme pressure on asylum systems and led to increased administration costs. Second, ‘genuine ’ asylum seekers suffered as the resultant backlog of applications meant that it took longer for them to receive refugee status. Therefore, it became accepted that certain asylum applications should be processed in an accelerated procedure. While there is no standardized definition of an accelerated procedure, it is generally understood that an accelerated procedure processes asylum applications at a significantly faster rate than does the normal asylum system. Accelerated procedures can either be classed as ‘inclusionary ’ or exclusionary. While the main objective of an inclusionary accelerated procedure is to speedily grant an individual refugee status, the main objective of an exclusionary accelerated procedure is to speedily deny an individual refugee status. It is widely held that the accelerated procedures currently in operation in Member States of the European Union are examples of the latter. This paper examines whether or not it is possible for accelerated procedures to be both fair and efficient. The case for speedier decision-making needs to be balanced against the requirement of States to fulfill their obligations under international human rights and refugee law. Research findings from the first independent assessment of the accelerated procedure (fast track procedure) in the United Kingdom are presented. On the basis of this and comparative 2 secondary data the paper suggests that some States may be in danger of violating the principle of non-refoulement and returning refugees to places where their lives or freedoms could be threatened.