CYIL vol. 10 (2019)

CYIL 10 ȍ2019Ȏ THE TERM “INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION” IN REGARD TO THE ADMISSION … opinions are on rise. As Betts and Türk already mentioned, it will be particularly important how the Compact will be implemented in practice. 82 Because it is not the end of the issue of finding a solution for responsibility-sharing, it’s the beginning. In terms of terminology, the differences between cooperation, solidarity, and other terms are not explained. In my view, it would be appropriate to define these terms at least very generally because the clarification can assure states of their potential obligations arising from them. If the term “international cooperation” was perceived as a reciprocity measure, I assume that such discourse would positively influence the states’ decision-making regarding the adoption of necessary tools. This can be the case in the European region as well, where international cooperation and solidarity have a different basis 83 , but it is also very difficult to achieve within the Common European Asylum System. I will conclude this article with a question for reflection: Would it not be more appropriate to reconfigure the current discourse regarding European legislation so that it corresponds more to the term “international cooperation”, i.e. reciprocal commitments, instead of solidarity? 4. Conclusion International refugee law often use the terms of international cooperation, solidarity, burden- and responsibility-sharing. However, their exact content is not explained and the question is whether states are able and willing to agree on it. In addition, the use of these terms has been changing over time, as in certain historical situations states will be more reluctant to use, for example, the concept of solidarity, which rather expresses the assistance to the state without the prospect of a certain reciprocity, as opposed to the term “cooperation”. The term international cooperation has already been used in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, namely in its Preamble. However, as it is obvious from the travaux pr é paratoires , states did not intend to establish certain legal obligations by reference to international cooperation in the Preamble. Rather, states wanted to point out the fact that certain countries may be more affected by the mass influx of refugees than others because of their geographic location. In such cases, states have at least a moral obligation to help the host state to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Even though the states still recognize the need to help the host countries and share the responsibility for refugee more fairly, the Global Compact on Refugees shows that states do not want to change their legal obligations. The Global Compact is not legally binding and its content is not sufficiently specific to have any normative impact. Its wording shows that it focuses on measures that should strengthen the national capacities of the affected states. Although it also mentions resettlement as a traditional solution of refugee situations, it does not lay down any specific legal obligations in this respect. International cooperation is to be strengthened through fora where legal commitments will then be pledged. Whether or not states will actually do so is another question. In addition, the Compact does not clarify the meaning and specific content of the used terms of international cooperation, solidarity, burden- and responsibility- sharing. But the clarification of these terms could at least assure states of any obligations that might arise from them. In conclusion, the term “international cooperation” used in refugee law has not significantly changed since the adoption of the Convention. However, it

82 BETTS, ibid, p. 626.; TÜRK, ibid, p. 9. 83 See Article 80 Treaty on the Function of the European Union.

227