SLP 10 (2016)

human rights guarantees for refugees in the respective instruments, it openly enables states to apply an approach which will cause difficulties to other states. The current mass influx of persons to the countries of the European Union is in its extent the first of its kind from the time of the validity of these institutes. And it is a question whether the states are going to label countries as safe 3 or whether the EU will adopt the list of countries which the EU states should see as safe. 4 In the case that all of the states in the European Union were to send away persons from their territory to the (same) other states, the uneven distribution of the burden of the refugee flows would surely occur. That could be possibly the states on the way, ergo the countries on the so called Balkan route, through which the refugees and migrants are arriving. Uneven distribution has also existed before. However, there has never been a situation when so many people would decide to leave for the countries of the European Union. Therefore the European countries have never been in a situation when they would have to take part in making solutions out of need and not only voluntarily, through resettlement for example. Now the question of sending persons to other countries is being much more discussed. It is possible to ask questions about the legitimacy of returning persons to Jordan or Lebanon when for example in Lebanon, according to data of the UNHCR, every fourth person is a refugee (leaving aside that the country has not ratified the Convention). Thus, the states help possibly to destabilize these countries through relocation of the refugees. Of course another legal question is the possibility of returning them to those countries that are not parties to the Convention. That is very connected with the customary based principle of non-refoulement which we designated in this publication only to the extent of prohibition to return someone for reasons of danger or torture. Refugees may cross borders of many states. According to Article 31 of the Convention, they shall not be punished for their illegal entry. However, that only applies if they come directly from danger and if they voluntarily and without hesitation report themselves to appropriate authorities. They do not only lack any assurance of real protection (if the returning will be exercised consistently to places where it is possible, then the neighboring countries will be overloaded), but also any possibility to choose a country where they wish to go (because such country can return them to some other country if there is no danger). In order not to be found guilty of violating the law, the refugees must avoid the legal way of crossing the borders and choose a way away from the border controls. In the current state of international law 3 Compare for example Hungary which has set its own lisr of sae countries of origin by Government Decree (Government Decree 191/2015 (VII.21) on national desigantion of safe coiutnries of origin and safe third countries, available at http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/55ca02c74.pdf [online]. Cited 12. 1. 2016 4 Compare COM(2015) 452 (Proposal for Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council Establishing an EU Common List of Safe Countries of origin for the purposes of the Directive of the European Parliament and the Council 2103/32/EU on Common Procedures for Granting and Withdrawing International Protection and changes the Direective 2013/32/EU from 9. 9. 2015 avaoilable at http://www.ipex.eu/IPEXL-WEB/dossier/document/COM20150452.do [online]. Cited 12. 1. 2016.

71