Forced Migration in the OIC Member Countries:
Policy Framework Adopted by Host Countries
181
3. Protection in practice depends as much on institutional capacity to implement
asylum policies as on legal frameworks themselves.
Even where comprehensive asylum legislation exists, the experiences of refugees and other
forced migrants in practice will depend very much on the ability of asylum countries to carry
out their commitments on the ground. Assessing refugee claims, providing documentation of
status, and educating service providers about the rights of refugees and other forced migrants
requires a certain level of capacity in terms of human resources, training, and physical
infrastructure. In many countries, such as Morocco and Turkey, asylum regimes are still a
“work in progress,” and full capacity to adjudicate claims and care for protection beneficiaries
has yet to be realized. In all of the case study countries except Sweden, UNHCR continues to
play a role in at least part, if not all, of the asylum adjudication and documentation process.
Beyond simply granting refugee status, providing access to other benefits and rights, like
employment, generally requires accompanying regulation and legislation, which may not exist
or may not be tailored to the unique circumstances of refugees and asylum seekers. In Turkey,
a new regulation was required in order to provide work permits for Syrians, and in Jordan,
although a regulation already exists that grants asylum seekers the ability to receive
permission to work, the costs associated with the application are prohibitive for most asylum
seekers and refugees.
Finally, beyond technical capacity to adjudicate protection claims, the scale and pace at which
forced migration flows occur may overwhelm even the most developed governance system.
The highly individualized asylum determinations usually demanded by a high-quality
protection system are extremely time and resource intensive and may not be possible in an
emergency situation. Even Sweden, with one of the most highly developed and well-resourced
asylum systems in the world, found itself overwhelmed in the face of large-scale and rapidly
increasing asylum flows in the fall of 2015.
4. Political shifts and internal dynamics can cause a country’s approach to
protection to evolve over time.
Protection regimes, at both the national and international levels, are not static and can shift
either gradually or abruptly based on the internal politics or other dynamics of the asylum
country. Changes in public opinion driven by growing refugee numbers or political shifts may
cause policies to move in a more restrictive direction, as has happened most recently in
Sweden. In other cases, evolution in a country’s national identity—and a greater willingness to
see itself as a “migration country”—can actually lead to more open protection policies. As a
result, populations that arrived at different times may be subject to different legal standards
and have access to different benefits and rights.
The perceived costs or “burdens” of forced migration have, for example, encouraged states to
narrow or limit their grants of protection and associated benefits over time. Jordan has slowly
withdrawn free or subsidized access to services for many refugee groups in the country out of
concern over costs and potential competition between refugee and native-born populations
for scarce public resources. In Sweden, the government has recently proposed large-scale
reforms to the asylum system limiting the legal status and rights afforded to beneficiaries of
protection due to public concerns that high standards were creating a “pull factor” drawing
more asylum seekers to the country—a noticeable departure from the country’s stance just
one year ago. Policies may also change as refugee situations become protracted. Kenya’s
announcement in spring 2016 that it would be closing Dadaab camp—the largest refugee
camp in the world—and repatriating Somali refugees is a prime example.