Author: Irem Cakmak, LLM
January 22, 2025
What Happened in Syria?
Over 50 years of Baath Party rule, including Bashar al-Assad's 24 years in power, the Syrian government carried out widespread human rights abuses, such as mass arrests, torture, disappearances, chemical attacks, using starvation as a weapon, and targeting civilians. During this period, non-state armed groups also committed war crimes and human rights abuses against civilians. The initially non-violent protests against the authoritarian regime intensified in 2011 due to a combination of factors, including the prolonged drought from 2006 to 2010, deepening economic regression, and the broader Arab Spring movements. In response, the Syrian government deployed its forces extensively, escalating the peaceful demonstrations into a full-scale civil war.
The Assad regime's indiscriminate violence and deliberate attacks on civilians triggered the world’s largest mass displacement, forcing over 12 million Syrians to flee their homes in the subsequent years. Facing what can only be described as persecution in their home country, Syrians sought international protection in neighboring countries and Europe.
The foundation for asylum in the European Union (EU) is the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (Refugee Convention) and other relevant international norms. According to the Refugee Convention, refugee status should be granted to persons who are unable or unwilling to receive protection from or return to their country of origin “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted.” For twelve years, Syria continued to lead in asylum applications in Europe. In October 2024, asylum applications from Syrian people accounted for 17% of all applications.
However, on December 8, 2024, after 13 years of civil war, the opposition forces were able to bring President Bashar al-Assad’s 24-year rule to an end. Following the fall of the Assad regime, debates regarding the cessation of refugee status and the process of return have been raised. This paper aims to examine International and European legal frameworks on the cessation of refugee protection and voluntary return in the context of displaced Syrians after the Assad Regime’s fall. It will also advocate for the continuation of protection granted to Syrians.
Cessation of Refugee Status
One of the circumstances under which refugee status ends is cessation, as outlined in Articles 1C(5) and 1C(6) in the Refugee Convention, and Articles 11 and 16 of the EU Qualification Directive (QD). It is important to note that cessation applies to refugee status. and subsidiary protection. Therefore, Syrian refugees who have different grounds for residency, like citizenship or long-term resident status, will not be included in this debate.
Although the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does not explicitly protect the right of an alien to enter or settle in a particular country, it has been interpreted to safeguard against removal to any country where the individual might be subject to torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Protection of the rights outlined in the ECHR against refoulement applies to every individual without distinction.
Under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the European Union
Cessation clauses apply when the refugee or subsidiary protection becomes unnecessary or justified. The purpose of cessation clauses is rooted in the concept that international protection serves as a substitute, provided only while protection from the individual’s country of origin remains unavailable. Therefore, the application of such clauses may result in the return of refugees to their home countries, potentially severing ties to the social networks and employment they have established in their host countries.
Fundamental change in the refugee’s country of origin is central to the cessation process. The case of Abdulla and others (2010) concerned refugees whose statuses were revoked as a result of the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime. In this case, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) provided the criteria for the assessment of the nature of the changes in the country of origin for cessation of refugee status. These changes must be profound and in an enduring manner, and they must relate directly to the conditions that led to the grant of international protection. It must be proven that the refugee's fear of persecution is no longer well-founded. Therefore, the central question in cessation assessments is: Can the refugee receive effective and real protection from their country of origin after the changes? According to CJEU and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), this should include the existence of a functioning government, a stable legal and administrative framework, adequate infrastructure, and a general human rights situation that permits individuals to exercise their rights. UNHCR emphasized that cessation evaluations should be conducted after sufficient time has passed, especially if the changes occurred violently, such as a regime overthrow. Furthermore, the assessment should include a review of the current functioning status of the country, meaning that circumstances should be evaluated to make sure factors have not emerged to create a new fear of persecution.
Moreover, in the Secretary of State for the Home Department v OA (2021) case, CJEU ruled that the change in circumstances must address the reasons for granting refugee status, with the country of origin’s ability to protect individuals from persecution being a key factor. Therefore, simply offering social or financial support is not sufficient, and the presence of protection against persecution should be a central consideration in evaluating whether the individual still faces a well-founded fear.
For cases involving mass displacement, a general declaration of cessation does not automatically bar individuals from making refugee claims. Moreover, in the case of a general cessation declaration, the refugees might individually argue the existence of “compelling reasons,” fulfilling the exception within Article 11(3) QD.
European Convention on Human Rights
The legal protection of the ECHR is different compared to the 1951 Refugee Convention and EU law. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) does not assess the asylum application or monitor the State’s compliance with the Refugee Convention. It evaluates whether the State’s decision to reject the asylum application or cessation violates the principle of non-refoulement. However, it is important in two aspects. First, while the principle of non-refoulement does not protect against all human rights violations, it protects against violations that reach a certain level of severity. Its protection against the cessation of refugee status is somewhat broader.
ECtHR emphasizes that States are not obliged to deport individuals only to countries that fully and effectively uphold all the rights and freedoms specified in the ECHR. However, the scope of Article 3 is interpreted in an increasingly broader manner.
One of the case law examples regarding the risk associated with removal to a politically unstable country after a regime collapse is Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom (2011). In this case, the applicants pleaded that their removal to Somalia would put them at risk of ill-treatment after the overthrow of the Siad Barre regime due to the instability following the regime change. ECtHR found the United Kingdom’s decision to revoke the refugee status of the applicants unlawful.
Another example is Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy (2012) in which applicants were returned to Libya after the fall of the Gaddafi regime. The Court rejected the argument that Libya was a safe country and concluded that deportation caused a violation of Article 3.
Therefore, during any attempts at cessation of refugee status, assessment must be done considering the broader context, especially in states undergoing regime change. The instability may heighten the risk of ill-treatment and must consider personal circumstances such as political affiliations, past activities, and potential threats in the country of origin.
Current Situation and Evaluation
Regime change doesn't automatically eliminate risks, in fact, it often necessitates heightened scrutiny in order to address continuing and new sources of persecution. Syria’s current situation exemplifies this complexity. While the civil war and authoritarian governance have been central to the displacement of millions, the roots of persecution extend far beyond. The effects of the violations caused by the former government, non-state armed groups, lawlessness, and systemic abuses continue to compromise the safety and fundamental rights of individuals. Additionally, foreign state militaries have been contributing to the complexity during and after the war. While Russia, Iran, Qatar, and Türkiye’s allegiances during the war increased human rights violations, it is also reported that Israeli airstrikes intensified the killing and injuring of civilians since the fall of the regime. Therefore, despite a regime change, Syria lacks the conditions outlined by the UNHCR and CJEU standards: a functioning government, a stable legal and administrative framework, adequate infrastructure, and a general respect for human rights.
The aftermath of the newly-ended 13-year-long civil war reveals deep scars in Syria’s infrastructure such as extreme poverty, food insecurity, inadequate medical and educational facilities, destruction from the 2023 earthquake, and ongoing instability. The current situation highlights that the removal of an authoritarian regime cannot guarantee safety or justice, particularly when new authorities' policies remain uncertain. Therefore, the application of cessation clauses in the hosting countries violates international standards under UNHCR, CJEU, and the broader protections enshrined in Article 3 of the ECHR. Forced returns or pressure to repatriate refugees at this time would exacerbate the humanitarian crisis, violating the principle of non-refoulement by exposing individuals to torture, inhuman treatment, or other serious abuses.
Due to the prolonged violence and the change of regime through a civil war, cessation assessments must not be done immediately but with a long-term approach. Moreover, host countries must ensure their information networks are accurate, impartial, and comprehensive. Otherwise, the evidentiary standards required for safe returns cannot be met. Therefore, as UNHCR urged the States in their latest position, return decisions on Syrian refugees should be suspended until reliable information becomes available about the security and human rights conditions, allowing for a thorough assessment of individual applicants' need for refugee status.
Ultimately, host countries, especially European Union member states must acknowledge that Syria remains unsafe for returns and immediately suspend any forced or facilitated general cessation plans.
Glossary:
Asylum Seeker: Someone who is seeking international protection whose application has not been decided yet.
Refugee: A person who has been granted asylum or international protection due to a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country based on factors such as race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion
Subsidiary Protection: A form of international protection granted to individuals who do not meet the criteria for refugee status but face a real risk of serious harm in their home country, such as torture or inhuman treatment.
Qualification Directive (2011/95/EU): European Union legislation that sets the minimum standards for the qualification of individuals seeking asylum and the procedures for granting or withdrawing international protection within EU member states.
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): A regional human rights treaty, ensuring the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. It is signed by member states of the Council of Europe. The alleged violations of the Convention are heard by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU): The judicial branch of the European Union, responsible for interpreting European Union law and ensuring its uniform application across member states. It is a different court than ECtHR.