The Rise of International Asylum Coordination: Understanding the Evolution and Impact of Safe Third Country Policies

Why it matters

The increasing reliance on safe third country agreements represents a significant shift in how states manage asylum claims, often leading to debates about burden-sharing and the protection of fundamental human rights. These policies, which designate certain countries as safe for asylum seekers to be returned to, raise critical questions about due process, non-refoulement, and the potential for vulnerable individuals to fall through the cracks of international protection systems. Understanding their evolution is crucial for grasping contemporary challenges in global migration.

The workshop's focus extends to the geopolitical implications of these agreements, examining how they influence bilateral and multilateral relations between states. For instance, agreements between countries like CAN and USA, or the proposed arrangements involving GBR and RWA, highlight the intricate diplomatic and legal challenges involved. Analyzing these dynamics provides insight into the future trajectory of international cooperation on migration and asylum, and the potential for both enhanced coordination and increased friction among nations.

How to prepare

Delegates preparing for discussions on international asylum coordination should thoroughly research the legal frameworks governing safe third country policies, including relevant international conventions and domestic legislation in key states. A strong understanding of the principle of non-refoulement and its application in various contexts will be essential. Consideration should also be given to the ethical dimensions of transferring asylum responsibilities, particularly concerning the capacity and human rights records of designated 'safe' third countries.

Furthermore, delegates should engage in a comprehensive stakeholder mapping exercise, as outlined in the lessons on 'what-is-stakeholder-mapping' and 'stakeholder-workshop'. Identifying the diverse actors involved – including governments, international organizations, NGOs, and affected communities – and understanding their respective interests and power dynamics will be crucial. This approach, informed by 'dynamic-analysis', will enable a more nuanced understanding of the political economy of asylum and the various pressures influencing policy decisions. Exploring 'hidden-stakeholders' and their influence on policy outcomes will also be beneficial for a complete picture.

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 7 countries stand on the core issues in play. Click through for the full country profile.

Canada

Canada has a long-standing safe third country agreement with the USA, which has been a subject of legal challenges and public debate regarding its fairness and impact on asylum seekers.

Role in topic

CAN is a key player in the development and implementation of safe third country policies, particularly through its agreement with the USA. Its experience offers a case study in the legal and practical complexities of such arrangements, including ongoing discussions about human rights implications and border management.

United States

The United States is party to a safe third country agreement with CAN and has explored similar arrangements with other countries, reflecting a broader strategy to manage asylum claims at its borders.

Role in topic

The USA's role is central to understanding the bilateral application of safe third country policies, particularly concerning its northern border with CAN. Its approach to these agreements influences regional migration patterns and sets precedents for other nations considering similar mechanisms.

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom has pursued controversial plans to implement a safe third country arrangement with RWA, sparking significant international and domestic debate.

Role in topic

GBR represents a contemporary example of a state actively seeking to establish a safe third country policy with a non-contiguous nation, highlighting the evolving and often contentious nature of these agreements. Its efforts underscore the political and ethical challenges inherent in such proposals.

Germany

Germany, while not having direct safe third country agreements in the same vein as CAN-USA, participates in broader EU mechanisms that involve concepts of safe countries of origin and safe third countries for asylum processing.

Role in topic

DEU's perspective is crucial within the European context, where discussions around asylum responsibility and externalization are prominent. Its experience with large-scale asylum applications and its role in shaping EU migration policy provide valuable insights into the challenges and debates surrounding international asylum coordination.

Türkiye

Turkey has played a significant role as a 'safe third country' in agreements with the EU, particularly concerning Syrian refugees, raising questions about its capacity and the protection standards offered.

Role in topic

TUR's involvement in agreements with the EU demonstrates the complexities of designating countries as safe third countries, especially when dealing with large refugee populations. Its experience highlights the challenges of ensuring adequate protection and the geopolitical implications of such arrangements.

Rwanda

Rwanda is a proposed partner for a safe third country agreement with GBR, which has generated considerable international scrutiny regarding human rights and asylum processing capabilities.

Role in topic

RWA's potential role as a safe third country for GBR asylum seekers brings into sharp focus the ethical and practical considerations of transferring asylum responsibilities to countries with varying human rights records and resource capacities. Its case is a focal point for debates on the morality and legality of such policies.

Australia

Australia has implemented offshore processing policies for asylum seekers, which, while not strictly safe third country agreements, share similar principles of externalizing asylum responsibilities.

Role in topic

AUS's approach to offshore processing provides a parallel case study to safe third country policies, illustrating alternative methods of externalizing asylum claims. Its experience offers insights into the long-term consequences and international reactions to such strategies.

Related conferences

• JD

  J.W. Dafoe Political Science Students’ Conference 2026

  Jan 26, 2026Winnipeg, Canada
• L2

  Leadersphere 2026 Conference

  Feb 19, 2026Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Canada
• CT

  CIC Toronto: Canada in a Fragmenting World – Navigating Geopolitics, Alliances, and Emerging Security Challenges

  Apr 8, 2026Toronto, Canada
• PS

  Parliamentary Symposium: The Future of Middle Powers After the Rupture: Perspectives from Canada and Beyond

  May 28, 2026Ottawa, Canada
• IC

  Implementing Canada's Defence Industrial Strategy

  Jun 9, 2026Ottawa, Canada
• 2C

  2026 CANADIAN INTELLIGENCE CONFERENCE (CANIC 2026)

  Jun 10, 2026Ottawa, Canada

Frequently asked questions

• What is the primary focus of this workshop?

• Where will this event take place?

• What kind of event is this?