Forced Migration in the OIC Member Countries:
Policy Framework Adopted by Host Countries
153
depth assessment of each asylum case. For those granted status, the rights and benefits
attached to that status are usually quite high. Sweden has long emphasized permanent status
as a part of its asylum system and historically has afforded those granted protection with
permanent residency and the means to quickly acquire Swedish citizenship.
The asylum crisis of 2015 has, however, called many of these core commitments into question.
Under pressure from the surge in new asylum claims, Swedish authorities have been forced to
temporarily roll back or amend many key aspects of the asylum system. The long-term future
of the unique Swedish asylum regime thus remains in question.
The role of EU, European, and international law
International and regional conventions play a central role in guiding Swedish policies and
legal frameworks on international protection. Sweden is a signatory of both the 1951
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.124 Sweden has also
acceded to a number of other international conventions on human rights that can also afford
protection to forced migrants; these include the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of
Stateless Persons,125 the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness,126 the 1984
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment,127 and the
1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child.128 The norms and standards laid out in these
conventions have broadly informed and guided the development and implementation of
protection legislation and policies in Sweden, although asylum seekers cannot base their
claims directly on international law in asylum proceedings which rely instead on national legal
principles.129
At a regional level, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and its enforcing body
the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), also provides a key basis for protection in
several areas. In particular, the ECHR’s Article 3 regarding the prohibition of torture130 and
124 It has maintained reservations on its accession to the Convention with regard to access to work, pensions, and some
social benefits for refugees (Articles 8, 12(1), 17(2), 24(1b), 24(3), and 25), although these reservations do not appear at
present to have had an impact on the rights and benefits granted to refugees in Sweden in practice. See: United Nations
Treaty Collection, “Convention relating to the Status of Refugees,” updated June 7, 2016,
125 United Nations Treaty Collection, “Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons,” updated June 7, 2016,
126 United Nations Treaty Collection, “Convention relating on the Reduction of Statelessness,” updated June 7, 2016,
127 United Nations Treaty Collection, “Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment,” updated June 7, 2016,
128 United Nations Treaty Collection, “Convention on the Rights of the Child,” updated June 7, 2016,
129 2010 Guy Goodwin-Gill
130 Article 3 reads, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” This
provision has been called upon in Sweden and other ECHR signatory countries to prevent the return of asylum applicants to
countries of origin where they are would be at risk of torture or other mistreatment. See European Court of Human Rights,
“European Convention on Human Rights,” June 1, 2010 Article
3 has also been used to prevent the transfer of asylum applicants from Sweden to other EU countries under EU law where
conditions for asylum seekers in these countries would amount to “degrading treatment.” Most notably, the ECtHR found in
the 2011 case of M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece that return of an asylum applicant from Belgium to Greece under the EU Dublin
Regulation would constitute a violation of Article 3. The M.S.S. decision caused Sweden and most other EU Member States to
halt transfers to Greece until asylum conditions in that country improved. See European Database of Asylum Law, “ECtHR -
M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece [GC], Application No. 30696/09,”accessed June 7, 2016,