Université de Montréal EQUAL YET DIFFERENT: WHY SHOULD BENEFICIARIES OF SUBSIDIARY PROTECTION HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS REFUGEES? A comparative study between Canada, Germany, Hungary, and the EU par Katharina Dolezalek Faculté de Droit Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l’obtention du grade de Maîtrise en droit (LL.M.) Option : droit international Septembre 2018 © Katharina Dolezalek, 2018 To all families that cannot reunite Résumé Les demandeurs d'asile qui obtiennent une protection internationale sont soit considérés comme des réfugiés, soit comme des bénéficiaires d'une protection (subsidiaire). Cette différence pourrait influencer les conditions de séjour des demandeurs d'asile reconnus et leurs avantages dans plusieurs pays. Au Canada, les deux termes existent mais ils n'affectent pas les conditions de séjour d'une personne. Dans l'UE, la protection accordée peut faire la différence en fonction du pays d'accueil. Cette étude analyse si l'Allemagne, la Hongrie et l'UE doivent réformer leurs systèmes d'asile pour améliorer les droits des bénéficiaires de la protection subsidiaire. L'objectif est de répondre à la question de savoir pourquoi il devrait y avoir une différence entre les deux groupes en déterminant la différence entre les réfugiés et les bénéficiaires de la protection (subsidiaire). À cette fin, les différents cadres juridiques du Canada, de l'Allemagne, de la Hongrie et de l'UE seront comparés afin de discuter des différentes approches. Ensuite, une analyse basée sur les droits de la personne montrera que la distinction entre les deux groupes est une discrimination à l'encontre d'un groupe de demandeurs d'asile. En outre, une évaluation démontrera que la vulnérabilité devrait prévoir un traitement égal des réfugiés et des bénéficiaires de la protection subsidiaire. S'appuyant sur l'utilitarisme, l'étude fournira une perspective économique sur le statut de la protection. Enfin, des recommandations pour le traitement des bénéficiaires de la protection subsidiaire concernant l'UE, l'Allemagne et la Hongrie seront fournies. Mots-clés: demandeur d’asile - réfugié - protection subsidiaire - UE - Canada - Allemagne - Hongrie - droits de la personne - discrimination - vulnérabilité Abstract Asylum seekers who obtain international protection are either considered as refugees or as beneficiaries of (subsidiary) protection. This difference might influence the terms of stay of recognized asylum seekers and their benefits in several countries. In Canada, both terms exist but they do not affect a person’s terms of stay. In the EU, the protection that has been granted can make a difference, depending on the reception country. This study analyzes if Germany, Hungary and the EU should reform their asylum systems to improve the rights of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. The objective is to answer the question why there should be a difference between both groups by determining the difference between refugees and beneficiaries of (subsidiary) protection. For this purpose, the different legal framework of Canada, Germany, Hungary, and the EU will be compared to discuss the different approaches. An analysis based on human rights will show that the distinction is a discrimination against a group of asylum seekers. Furthermore, an evaluation will demonstrate that the factor vulnerability should provide for an equal treatment of refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. Arguing with utilitarianism, the study will provide an economic perspective about the status of protection. Last, recommendations for the treatment of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection regarding the EU, Germany, and Hungary will be given. Key words: asylum seeker - refugee - subsidiary protection - EU - Canada - Germany - Hungary - human rights - discrimination - vulnerability TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 PART I: ASYLUM IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND STATE PRACTICE IN CANADA, GERMANY AND HUNGARY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 Chapter 1: Application of International Law and the concept of asylum in Canada, Germany, Hungary and the EU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 A Asylum in international law and in State practice: definitions of asylum, asylum seekers and refugees arising from history -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 B Subsidiary protection and temporary protection in State practice ------------------------------------------------------- 22 Chapter 2: State practice: The granting and the cessation of asylum in Canada, Germany, Hungary and the EU ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25 A The admission of asylum seekers and the introduction of the term cum-citizen -------------------------------------- 26 B The cessation of cum-citizens’ right to asylum ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34 Conclusions Part I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 53 PART II: DIFFERENT OR EQUAL? ANALYZING THE REASONS FOR AN EQUAL TREATMENT OF CUM-CITIZENS ------------------------------------------------------------------- 58 Chapter 3: Could refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection be in Alike circumstances? -------------- 59 A Equity and The interpretation of notions of threat ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 59 B Equity in different phases of cum-citizens’ trajectory --------------------------------------------------------------------- 67 Chapter 4: Are human rights law for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection? --------------------------------------- 75 A The right to equality for cum-citizens ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 78 B Human rights deriving from the principle of equality --------------------------------------------------------------------- 83 Chapter 5: Statistical economic analysis of asylum ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 94 A How do countries’ acceptance statistics compare? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 96 B The cost of granting similar protection to subsidiary protected persons and refugees ------------------------------ 100 C Creating incentives: the benefit of a fast integration and a long-term stay -------------------------------------------- 115 Conclusions Part II -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 122 PART III: RECOMMENDATION - THE NEED FOR AN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON CUM-CITIZENS’ RIGHTS ------------------------------------------------- 124 Chapter 5: Recommendations for the EU, Germany, and Hungary -------------------------------------------------- 124 Chapter 6: A declaration on the rights of Persons in need of protection --------------------------------------------- 125 A The need for codification ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 126 B Rights and obligations of cum-citizens ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 131 CONCLUSION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 135 SOURCES -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 138 ANNEX I: DEFINITIONS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ANNEX II: STATISTICS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- III LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: Cum-citizens in Hungary ............................................................................................. 98 TABLE II: Cum-Citizens in Germany ........................................................................................... 98 TABLE III: Cum-Citizens in Canada ............................................................................................. 98 TABLE V: Costs of asylum in Canada, Germany and Hungary Based on OECD Numbers ...... 104 TABLE IV: GDP in Canada, Germany, and Hungary (WORLD BANK 2018) ......................... 106 TABLE VI: Asylum in Canada ...................................................................................................... iii TABLE VII: Asylum in Germany ................................................................................................... iv TABLE VIII: Asylum in Hungary ................................................................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: ASYLUM SEEKER ................................................................................................... 25 FIGURE 2: CUM CITIZEN ........................................................................................................... 34 FIGURE 3: THE FOUR PHASES OF A CUM-CITIZEN’S PROTECTION ............................... 68 ACKOWLEDGEMENTS First, I wish to thank professor Nanette Neuwahl. For the last two years, she has been a great support. When the study was challenging, professor Neuwahl guided me, remained always open to include new ideas and