After the Estoril 2017 Conferences, the goal for which they proposed themselves was not yet reached: Change the World.
On the first day of the Estoril Conferences, at the opening ceremony, the President of the Conferences, Teresa Violante, launched a call to action: the Global Safety Passport (GSP), with the goal to solve one of the main problems affecting thousands of migrants, was presented to UN Secretary-General António Guterres.
GLOBAL SAFETY PASSPORT
A WAY TO MAKE RIGHT TO PROTECTION POSSIBLE
A WAY TO MAKE THE RIGHT TO ASYLUM EFFECTIVE
A WAY TO PROVIDE SAFE PASSAGE TO ASYLUM SEEKERS
The current system of international protection is dependent on the entry of asylum seekers in the countries where they want to be protected. Countries are not legally responsible for providing protection to those who are located outside the territory. Therefore, with the exception of resettlement schemes, Asylum seekers must enter the safe territories in order to be protected therein.
This scheme entails two serious negative consequences for Human Rights Protection:
If every State agrees that Refugees must be protected, at the same time it seems that all of them are concerned in preventing asylum seekers to effectively benefit from such right...
A right to Safe Passage has been already advocated by several ONGs and by the UNCHR. States, on the other hand, have committed to expanding opportunities for safe pathways at the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. However, these advocacy discourses have failed to provide practical responses on how to implement such right.
A Global Safety Passport (GSP) could be answer. Such passport could be enacted to asylum seekers, and would correspond to a legal document which would allow them to travel legally and to enter in the territories of the signatory States in order to ask for protection.
Such document would not guarantee a right to legally reside in a certain country or to obtain any form of protection therein. Such rights would continue to be decided by the Nation-States. However, such document would allow asylum-seekers to enter, safely and legally in the countries, in order to ask for protection.
Such document could respond to the two negative consequences that we mentioned:
GSP would allow for safe journeys, and, therefore, contributing to saving lives. GSP would allow for legal journeys, and, therefore, contributing to protecting Human Dignity. Finally, GSP would allow for a right to enter, and, therefore, ensuring the effectiveness of the right to asylum.
GSP could be issued by the UNHCR after a request made by asylum seekers. Since such passport is only issued for protection purposes, a preliminary analysis made by the UNCHR could be demanded. This analysis should be urgent, and the GSP could be issued and delivered online.
The GSP would only bound States for passage purposes. This means that transit States should not prevent asylum seekers from passing through their territories, and that destination countries should not prevent them from entering. However, after entering the destination, asylum seekers would have a deadline to make an asylum application. The State would decide according to its legal norms, and respecting International Human Rights Law.
Therefore, GSP would respect the sovereignty of States in what concerns immigration decisions.
GSP may be answer to enforce a right to safe passage.
Because a right to safe passage is urgent and necessary to make the right to asylum possible, respecting human life and human dignity.