The Safe Third Country Concept in International Agreements on Refugee Protection Assessing State Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the expressions of international cooperation among States in the field of refugee protection is the adoption of international agreements that implement the “safe third country” and the “country of first asylum” concepts. This paper examines the legal background to these concepts and State practice by considering three selected case studies (Spain, South Africa and the US). The paper analyses the legal implications and significance of issues arising and provides a critique of the system and its premises. In particular, the paper considers whether a multilateral arrangement – such as the Dublin III Regulation or the Canada-US Agreement – has the potential to become a model for the development of an inter-State agreement whereby one of the State Parties effectively delivers all relevant international obligations (including the right to asylum) on behalf of all States bound by such system. The dual nature of the system is analysed, as an operational instrument creating obligations between States while at the same time allowing for the delivery of States' international obligations towards refugees.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".