Reform of the EU Sugar Regime: Impacts on Sugar Production in Ireland

absolute numbers of asylum applications, over which they have only
limited influence given a volatile international system and their
international obligations. They are also concerned about the relative
distribution of asylum applications among states, in particular when they
feel that the policy measures adopted in neighbouring states are at least
in part responsible for their own asylum burden. When analysing the
development of asylum applications across OECD countries, it soon
becomes clear that the distribution of asylum applications has been highly
unbalanced. Public attention was drawn to this in when in 1992 Germany
received over 438.000 asylum applications, which constituted 66 percent of
all applications registered in the territory which now make up European
Union.⁶

However, a focus on absolute figures might well be misleading. When
using the more meaningful measure of relative burdens, i.e. one which
takes account of differences in reception capacity,⁷ the unevenness in
distribution becomes even clearer (see Table 1). It can be shown that since
the mid 1980s some European countries, most notably Switzerland
Sweden and Germany, have borne a much higher relative (per capita)
burden than the EU average. This inequitable balance of burdens has
constituted a considerable domestic challenge in some countries. It has
also led to tensions between some OECD countries, particularly within the
EU, as there was a feeling in some quarters that certain countries were
introducing unilateral deterrence measures to deflect asylum applications
towards other countries.

⁶ UNHCR data.

7 There are several possible criteria to measure reception capacity, the most common one
being relative population size (per capita).

<<   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >>

More intriguing information