f-
Asy"Iqs-il
'['lie conception of aSylum in
intemational law involves two elements:
1) shetrrer, w'hich is more than merely temporary refuge
2) a de'gree of active protection on the part of the authorities in control of ttie territory of
asylwi.
The Institute of International Law defined the term 'asylum' as-('Asylum is the
protection which a State grants on its tenitory or in some other place under the control of
certain of its organs to a person who comes to seek".
Asylum may be territorial, i.e. granted by a State on its territory; or it may be
extra-tt-rritorial; is granted for and in respect of legations, consular premise, intemational
headquarters and warships to refugees from the authorities of the territorial state.
The distinction between the two was explained by the Intemational Court of
Justice in Columbian-Peruvian Asylum Case:
In the case of territorial asylum, the refugee is within the territory of the State
refuge. A decision rvith regard to territorial asylum implies only the nonnal exercise of
the territorial sovereignfy, the refugee is outside the territory of the state where the
offencs rvas committed and a decision to grant him asylum in no way derogates from the
sovereignty of the state.
hr the case of diplomatic asylum, the refugee is within the territory of the state
where tire ol'-fence vvas comrllitted. A decision to grant diplomatic asylum involves a
derogation from the sovereignty of that state. it rvithdraws the offefider from the
jurisdiction of the ten"itorial state and constitutes an intervention in matters which are
exclusively rvith the competence of that state. Such a derogation from territorial
sovereignty cannot be recognized unless its legal basis is established in each particular
case.
But both types of asylum have this in common, that they involve an adjustment
between the legal claims of the state sovereignty and the demands of humanity.
In the [ight of recent events it has been claimed that territorial asylum can be classified
into-
a) political asylum, e.g. for so-called defectors
b) rofugee asylum, for refugees with a well-founded fear of persecution in their own
COUntry'*
c) generat asylum, i.e. for persons who have fled flom thelr country to seek gconornlc
bettemrsnt, but do not havo the stafus of lmmlgrants,
I
Intern xtici:a! provisions on asylurn
Article l4 of the Universal Declatation of HBman Rights
fl g*i":1"* H"r th. rtghl t" seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from
persecu'ion.
Z; firir right rnay not be invoked in the case of prosecution genuinely arising from
non-
potiticat Jri*., or from acts contrary to the purposes ancl principles of the United
Nations.
Article-1 of the Convention on Territorial Asylum. 1954
f*ry rtut. fr* tt. .igirf in ttr. exercise of its sovereignty, to admit into its territory such
p.rronu, as it deems advisable without, through the exercise of this right, giving rise to
complaint by anY other state,"
a4icle i
Arytr,"., gr-rttd Uy u state, in the exercise of its sovereignty, to persons entitled to
invoke arti.l. 14 of the Universai Declaration of Human fughts including persons
strugglilrg against colonialism, shall be respected by all other States"
,,Thl"ri ght to seek and to enjoy asylum may not be invoked by any person with respect to
whom there are serious ,.*orrr ior considering that he has committed a crime against
peace, .* war crime or crime against humanity."
i,lt ,hu}l rest with the state granting asylum to evaluate the grounds for the grant of
asyluni".
&rticie, 2 of the Declaraiiorr on Territorial Asylum. 1957
"Wh*,,- e frnding difliculty in granting or continuing to grant asylum, states
indiviilually or joint[y or through the United Nations shall consider, in a spirit of
intema,tional solidarity, appropriate measures to lighten the burden on the state."
