The 'inquisitorialisation' of asylum procedures : are States (still) conforming to the spirit and the letter of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees?

Abstract

The recent so-called refugee crises have sparked controversies over the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees. For some, the Convention is outmoded whilst for others, it is problematic at its core, thus justifying the toughening up of its implementation. This paper explores the concept of 'inquisitorialisation', drawing on some aspects of the crimmigration theoretical framework and using France and Malta as case studies, looking at what ‘inquisitorialisation’ may look like in the future for Mediterranean countries. It also alludes to Switzerland, particularly after its adhesion to the Schengen arrangement and the Dublin association agreement, as prefiguration of what ‘inquisitorialisation’ may look like in the future for Mediterranean countries. The paper posits the following points; i) at its very core, the 1951 Convention on Refugees is still relevant and probably even more so than at its inception; ii) often times, the nation states’ interpretation and implementation are problematic. The paper comes up with the concept of ‘crimasylisation’, that is, the criminalisation of asylees (US expression) or the criminalisation of asylum seekers during the asylum process.