Constructing Equality in EU Asylum Law

Abstract

Abstract The view that subsidiary protection status is a lesser form of protection than refugee status is widespread among European Union (EU) Member States’ asylum authorities and courts. This view is based on the assumption that the protection needs of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are of shorter duration than those of refugees. Based on this assumption, several EU Member States have curtailed the rights of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and national courts have upheld these restrictions. This article argues that the assumption of a shorter duration of subsidiary protection, and therefore lesser protection needs, is empirically unfounded and normatively untenable. The assumption is based on the premise that the principal circumstances justifying subsidiary protection – poor security situations or armed conflicts – are temporary in nature. Contrary to tendencies in EU Member States, it is argued that the development of EU asylum law points towards the creation of a uniform status of protection that entails the same rights for refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. Why, then, does the assumption of the temporary nature of subsidiary protection persist? This article posits that the persistence of the assumption of the temporary nature of subsidiary protection derives from a more profound perception in international legal thought of wartime as exceptional and of short duration.