EU Refugee Qualification Directive: a Brave New World?

This article aims to map some of the major implications forasylum–related law in Europe of the Refugee QualificationDirective, which twenty-four EU Member States were requiredto implement by 10 October 2006. It seeks to build on importantstudies of the Directive completed by, among others, Hemme Battjes,in his book European Asylum Law and International Law, Nijhoff2006, and Jane McAdam, in her book Complementary Protectionin International Refugee Law, OUP 2007, albeit it takes a differentview of some key questions. Part 2 deals with the impact of the Directive on the applicationand interpretation of the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967Protocol. It is argued that, even read simply as a set of provisionsgiving interpretive guidelines on the application of the RefugeeConvention, it affects many things concerned with refugee eligibility,since these provisions cover key elements of the refugee definition. Part 3 deals with the impact of the Directive on the asylum-relatedhuman rights jurisdiction that currently prevails in Europein one form or another.¹ It is argued that the effect of theDirective is and must be to render Article 3 ECHR protection– or its domestic equivalent – a largely residualcategory, save in exclusion cases. Part 4 addresses to what extent, if at all, the Directive containsmandatory provisions and how, post-implementation, these canbe integrated into the national law of Member States. It isargued that, considered in purely textual terms, the key definitionaland interpretive provisions of the Directive are mostly in mandatoryform. Further, that whilst, by virtue of being a minimum standardsdirective, the Directive allows Member States to introduce orretain more favourable standards (A3), the same article stipulatesthat such standards must be compatible with the Directive. Thatproviso is of some importance given that the Directive’spreamble (at R7) identifies as one objective the avoidance ofsecondary movements. In relation to articles of the Directivewhich specify in mandatory terms how elements of the refugeedefinition are to be applied, Member States cannot be free tointroduce or retain differing standards. Parts 5 and 6 analyse suggested differences, first, betweenthe Directive’s refugee definition and the Refugee Convention(it is argued that the only potential difference of real significanceconcerns the Directive’s rendering of the Article 1F exclusionclauses of the Refugee Convention) and, secondly, between theDirective’s subsidiary protection definition and Article3 ECHR. The extent of symmetry between the new subsidiary protectioncriteria and ECHR protection under Article 3 is explored, inparticular, arguing that, whilst there are three respects inwhich subsidiary protection criteria are narrower (relatingto personal scope; the existence of cessation and exclusionclauses; and limited application to ‘health cases’),there may be limited respects in which it may be broader inscope than Article 3 ECHR. Part 7 examines patterns of implementation in the light of earlyevidence to hand from, for example, the November 2007 UNHCRsurvey of five Member States. The UK is considered as a furtherexample, that of a member state where, despite it being seenas unnecessary to make any substantial changes, the implementingmeasures have required important changes in method of approachand in conceptual language.