With reference to the purpose of the Charter of the United

Nations, and taking the concept of security into consideration,

critically assess the extent to which the rights of refugees are
protected in Europe.

The term 'refugee' is defined as the person whose human rights have been violated and lack
protection in their country of origin (Lavenex, 2001). Even if they are subject of numerous
conventions including the UDHR, the UN Charter and the UNHCR Convention (1951) and
Protocol (1967) relating to the Status of Refugees, the protection of their rights is still debated
and challenged when the concept of security intervenes. This paper will treat the concept of
security both from states' predisposition to internal threats and from refugees’ standpoint as
vulnerable humans whose security should be ensured by the international community.

The aim of this work is to show that Europe protects successfully the rights of refugees in
times of crisis through balancing their national interests with the protection of refugees,
guaranteeing their fundamental human rights inside the host countries. This argument is
constructed in the context of the 2015 refugee crisis by using the liberal-idealist view of the
state as promoter of human rights and ''the realisation of universal values'' (Lavenex, 2001).

The work will follow a comparative analysis between the approaches of Sweden and
Denmark. The first part of the essay analyses the civil and political rights of refugees, arguing
that the European states managed to ensure the protection of the rights mentioned by the legal
framework in the context of the rising security threats. The second part looks at the guarantee
of social, economic and cultural rights and analyses refugees' protection through integration in
the European society in connection with the measures adopted by community and
government.

The Refugee Convention (1951) provides a legal system which ensures the balance between
the security of states and the refugees protection system, including the nations’ right for
refoulement if the state finds them as threatening to the national security (UNHCR, 2006), but
also the right of every person to seek asylum, the right for residence, social security, identity
papers, travel documents, and the freedom of movement. Acknowledging the increased
security measures which restrict the policies of asylum, this argument will show that in the
context of the 2015 refugee crisis, Europe managed to guarantee the protection of the civil
and political rights of individuals who sought asylum, adapting their policies to the rising
internal security threats. The argument shows that, despite their similarities in their welfare
systems, Sweden and Denmark developed different goals in the presented context.

According to the realist perspective, the refugee problem should be treated from the national
sovereignty's standpoint, arguing against the international duty of protecting the refugees and
the universal characteristic of their rights, their protection only concerning their origin state
(Lavenex, 2001). However, the 2015 Crisis matrix comes against this perception, the
international approach based on the Kantian 'idealistic' theory supporting the goal of states to
achieve universal values, ''not the pursuit of specific national interests'' (idem), refugees being
considered in need of protection and the international community’s responsibility. This is why
I argue that Europe's standpoint when confronting this crisis showed a high level of
cooperation, the management of refugees depending on states' capacities to work together in
order to accommodate the high numbers of people entering the continent, fulfilling UN
Charter’s 1st article.

I will argue that, by respecting the above mentioned conventions, Sweden and Denmark,
assuming the responsibility of refugees’ protection (Olwig, 2011), adopted different
approaches in solving the crisis, balancing their interests with the goal for refugees’ security.

In the presented context, Sweden is the European country who accepted the most refugees per
capita, having, in my perspective, the goal of increasing their population. Their policy of open
borders contributed significantly to the crisis’ solving, the government working on
guaranteeing the asylum seekers their civil and political rights. In 2015, the number of asylum
applications reached over 160,000, the numbers dropping under 30,000 in 2016 and 2017
(Migrationsverket, 2017). Statistics show that more than half of these applications were
granted in 2015 (idem). This decision offered them residency, their protection and the
enjoyment of the welfare benefits, having the same rights with other immigrants - including
the work permit - as the 1951 Convention states (Art. 3-5, Art. 12, Art. 24-35).

Denmark has adopted another position, its policies, despite following the existent legal
framework, being salient towards welcoming refugees (Mouritsen & Jensen, 2014). Adopting
a Conservative approach supported by their government, Denmark cut social benefits to
refugees and immigrants by 45% (The Atlantic, 2016) having as the main argument the
preservation of the welfare benefits for its citizens. This approach should be seen as a method
of prioritising their national interests, instead of an aggressive stand against refugees, fact that
does not oppose their rights. By acknowledging their economic and social capacities,
Denmark made a rational managerial decision which contributed to a balanced receiving
system -in 2015, from 21.300 received applications, 85% were granted - a significant
difference compared to Sweden’s case (The World Bank, 2017).

To ensure the balance between protection and national security in the context of the rising
security threats caused by the recent terrorist attacks in Europe, the receiving policies
tightened. Thus, at the end of 2015 Sweden imposed border controls, the focus being the
Öresund Bridge connecting Denmark to Sweden, the number of applications falling by 50%
(Migrationsverket, 2017). I argue that these measures should not be seen as restricting the
right of free movement mentioned by the 1951 Convention (Art. 26), but as a measure to
maintain the safety of both refugees and their citizens by limiting the travel of the people
without any valid travel documents (Mahoney, 2017).

This argument showed that, in the context of internal security tensions, the policies of
European governments changed in order to balance the national interests with the goal of
international cooperation. However, this does not mean a rejection of refugees’ rights or their
protection. Through their regulatory measures, Sweden handled the refugee influx, ensuring
their internal security while respecting the legal framework of protecting the refugees’ civil
and political rights. In the context of the seemingly-restrictive Danish case, one should
consider that Denmark did not over-estimated their capacities, accepting the maximum
number of refugees which would guarantee both their internal stability and the feasible
integration, outlining their success in ensuring protection, while maintaining their national
interests.

One of the UN Charter goals is ''to achieve international co-operation in solving international
problems (…) promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental
freedoms for all without distinction'' (Art. 1). In this context, the achievement of this goal is
strongly connected not only to the protection of civil and political rights, but also to the
fulfilment of social, cultural and economic rights which guarantee the integration of the
refugees in the community. The integration should be seen as a feature of personal security in
the context in which UNHCR (2006) proclaims protection as also the guaranteeing of human
dignity of every refugee. The second part of this work will show that Europe managed to
integrate the refugees in communities by both the implementation of governmental
programmes and the work of NGOs and citizens, fact that guarantees their security as part of
the community.

As it is widely known, the predisposition of refugees to xenophobia and discrimination

reaches high levels if the community is against them, the implementation of governmental
protection agencies not being enough (UNHCR, 2006). According to a theory of cultural
integration, the cultural diversity could affect the social communion of the citizens, damaging
the main mechanisms of the welfare system and the balance of the society (Algan, Bisin,
Verdier, 2012). The liberal view shows that, in the presented context, the cooperation between
the state and the civil society is essential to ensure the integration of refugees in all aspects of
the society.

Having the same goal, but following different approaches, Sweden and Denmark aim for the
refugees' integration starting with the language learning opportunities, their integration in
education and work field, everything being dependent on the ability of states to protect their
social, cultural and economic rights (1951 Convention - Art. 17,21, 22).

Their position during the European response to the 2015 Refugee Crisis constructs the
flexible approach that Sweden took in refugees’ social integration. Establishing a balance
between the governmental and the community response, I argue that Sweden built a feasible
system of protecting fundamental rights by ensuring refugees' comfort in their cultural and
social transition. The Swedish government implemented a series of welfare benefits,
including financial support and healthcare, accommodation services and special allowance
opportunities (Migrationsverket, 2017). By doing this, they ensured the wellbeing of every
refugee, analysing every individual case, following the 1951 Convention recommendations.
The process included the educational integration, every refugee having access to a two hours
language course daily (The Independent, 2017). The Swedish approach provides a smooth
transition of refugees to their new society, being based on accommodation, acceptance and
then integration. This is why the government provides a first-contact person to every refugee
in order to support them in the legal and social integration process, without forcing them to
adapt immediately to a context which will worsen their vulnerable condition. In this context,
the social programmes implemented by the community contributes to the integration system -
Kompis Sverige - a matchmaking service ensures the integration of refugees directly into
community. Also, the Invitationsdepartementet helped the fight against xenophobia by linking
up fluent Swedish-speakers with beginners to improve their language skills
(Invitationsdepartementet, 2017).

Meanwhile, the Danish approach is built on more conservative grounds, aiming for a
homogenous society, their programme being part of the Integration Act (2015). This system is
based on an intensive goal - ''work from day one'' (Mahoney, 2017), prioritising the fast
integration through employment over comfort. Even if it might seem harsher that the Swedish
approach, this system might be proven more effective, its goal being a level of independence
of refugees from the state's support. In 2016 a further step towards integration was made, the
internships combined with Danish language classes being offered to the refugees who lack
any competences (Jørgensen, 2016). I argue that this approach is oriented towards the self-
interests of the state, a rapid integration in the workforce benefiting the economic system. In
comparison to the Swedish case, the Danish case seems more feasible, damaging less the
overall welfare system in terms of resources, employment, and accommodation availability
(where, according to Migrationsverket (2017), Sweden experienced issues in handling the
requests from both immigrants and locals).

This argument highlighted that, in regard to the social, cultural, and economic rights, using
different approaches, the European countries managed to guarantee refugees’ protection and
fulfilment as a vital factor for integration. Following the liberal line, I argued that cooperation
is essential not only at the international level, but also at the national one, the integration of
refugees depending on the cooperation between non-governmental actors and the state
through social programmes, reinforcing the main points of UN Charter (Art. 1).

Using liberal principles, this paper showed that the approach to the 2015 crisis was based on
international cooperation, shaping the first steps towards ''a common European refugee
regime'' (Lavenex, 2001). The first part Europe’s managing measures to guarantee the civil
and political rights of refugees, showing that the policies adopted respect the legal
framework’s principles, establishing a balance between national security interests and the
protection of refugees. The second part considered integration the key factor in ensuring the
protection of refugees, showing that by respecting their social, cultural and economic rights,
Europe successfully started to integrate them into its communities.

It is true that in the presented context, European states’ responsiveness varied dependent on
their economic capacities and national interests. However, the significant response of nations
like Sweden shaped an overall success of Europe in protecting the refugees. The balance
between the national security and the protection of refugees was achieved following UN
Charter’s principles, international cooperation being the key tool. Europe’s future aim should
be an emergency protection system ensuring a safe route for refugees to the continent,
avoiding the problematic journeys of 2015 Crisis.

REFERENCES

https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/About-the-Migration-Agency/Facts-and-statistics-/
Statistics.html

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.REFG?end=2016&locations=DK&start=2015

http://www.unhcr.org/uk/3b66c2aa10

http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/32020/INTERACT-RR-2014_06.pdf

https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/About-the-Migration-Agency/Facts-and-statistics-/
Statistics.html

http://tracks.unhcr.org/2015/12/2015-the-year-of-europes-refugee-crisis/

https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/
CEPS%20PB332%20Refugee%20Crisis%20in%20EU_0.pdf
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660094.001.0001/
acprof-9780199660094-chapter-1

The Independent, 2017

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/refugees-welcome-how-britain-and-sweden-
compare-on-education-for-young-migrants-a7769556.html