The Dublin 2 System or the Problems with the European Community Asylum Policy

The Dublin Convention determining the State responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the Member States of the European Communities was adopted in 1990. Its implementation has met a number of problems, and in the treaty of Amsterdam, the Member states agreed to replace it by a Regulation. In its Regulation proposal, and in keeping the wish expressed at the Tampere European Council, the Commission was supportive of a fully renovated, efficient and fair Dublin system. This paper seeks to demonstrate that these aims are not achieved because Dublin 2 is mainly the reproduction of the Dublin 1 system. This paper shows that the two regulations 343/2003 of February 18, 2003, and 1560/2003 of September 2, 2003, do not bring about substantive changes. The choice made by the Council is the status quo and to wait and see; the logic that guides the allocation of responsibility for the examination of asylum applications is unchanged. In addition, the paper purports to demonstrate that the new regulation fails to grasp what asylum migration actually is. This is firstly the case because the position of EC institutions vis à vis the strategies whereby asylum seekers move in the EU and chose their destination state is that of suspicion. Secondly, Dublin 2 is based on the illusion that it is possible to actually control these moves and choice. Finally the paper shows that, because the adoption of the regulation is embedded in the harmonisation process, it is an in-between system which efficiency is very unlikely.