The safe third country (STC) concept allows a state to decline to examine an asylum claim on the merits and instead transfer or return the applicant to another country considered capable of providing effective protection. The logic is that refugees should seek protection in the first safe country they reach, rather than choosing a preferred destination — a principle sometimes called "first country of asylum."
Criteria typically include that the third country: respects the principle of non-refoulement under Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention; permits the applicant to request and receive protection consistent with the Convention; and offers conditions broadly compatible with human rights obligations. The concept is distinct from "country of first asylum," which refers specifically to a state where the applicant has already received protection.
In EU law, the STC concept is codified in the recast Asylum Procedures Directive (Directive 2013/32/EU), which permits Member States to declare applications inadmissible when an applicant could seek protection in a designated safe third country. The related Dublin III Regulation allocates responsibility among EU states but is separate from STC rules governing transfers to non-EU countries.
Prominent bilateral arrangements include the Canada–U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement (in force 2004, expanded in 2023 to cover the entire land border) and the EU–Turkey Statement of March 2016, under which irregular migrants arriving in Greece could be returned to Turkey. The UK's 2022 Rwanda partnership invoked similar logic but was ruled unlawful by the UK Supreme Court in R (AAA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department in November 2023, on the ground that Rwanda could not be presumed safe.
UNHCR has cautioned that designations must be made case-by-case rather than by blanket lists, and that applicants must have a genuine connection to the third state and a meaningful opportunity to rebut the safety presumption. Critics argue STC regimes risk "refugee orbiting" and chain refoulement.
Example
In November 2023, the UK Supreme Court ruled in *R (AAA) v SSHD* that Rwanda could not lawfully be treated as a safe third country for asylum seekers removed from Britain.
Frequently asked questions
A country of first asylum is one where the applicant has already been recognised as a refugee or otherwise received effective protection. A safe third country is one where the applicant could, in principle, seek such protection but has not yet done so.
Keep learning