including joint visa regimes and a common refugee definition.12 At the
same time, states have continued to undertake unilateral measures aimed
at deterring asylum applications to their country. Such unilateral
deterrence measures have covered the whole range of policy options
available to policy makers in this field such as measures on access, status
determination and those concerning the integration of asylum seekers.
These measures have been based on a number of apparently widely held
assumptions. First, asylum seekers are assumed to be well informed
(either through personal networks or their traffickers) about the relative
openness and attractiveness of different destination countries' asylum
regimes. Second, they are expected to choose to apply to those countries
which have the most attractive asylum policy package, in terms of access,
determination and integration/welfare measures. In other words, 'asylum
shopping' is being regarded as a widespread phenomenon. Finally, there
appears to be a belief that countries with relatively more attractive
asylum policies will come to be regarded as a 'soft touch' and will
consequently have to cope with a disproportionately high number of
asylum applications. Despite the fact that these assumptions are at least
questionable, they have formed the basis for the introduction of unilateral
deterrence measures which have come to be viewed by both policy-makers
(and many academics) as being highly effective. For example, the dramatic
reduction in the number of applications received by Germany between
1992 and 1994 has widely been attributed to the 1993 restrictions that
were introduced to the German Basic Law and the legislation pertaining
to foreigners. The adoption of so called 'safe third country provisions' in
particular has been regarded as being highly effective as it has enabled
German border guards to refuse certain categories of asylum seekers entry
to German territory.13 The 71 percent drop in asylum applications in
12 For a comprehensive discussion see Noll (2000).
13 "Safe third country" provisions mean that asylum seekers are denied access to the
refugee status determination procedure on the grounds that they could or should have
requested and, if qualified, would actually have been granted asylum in another country.
In practice this means that asylum seekers who have travelled through other countries
before reaching their destination will not have their asylum application examined in the