Abstract
One of the expressions of international cooperation among States in the field of refugee protection is the adoption of international agreements that implement the “safe third country” and the “country of first asylum” concepts. This paper examines the legal background to these concepts and State practice by considering three selected case studies (Spain, South Africa and the US). The paper analyses the legal implications and significance of issues arising and provides a critique of the system and its premises. In particular, the paper considers whether a multilateral arrangement – such as the Dublin III Regulation or the Canada-US Agreement – has the potential to become a model for the development of an inter-State agreement whereby one of the State Parties effectively delivers all relevant international obligations (including the right to asylum) on behalf of all States bound by such system. The dual nature of the system is analysed, as an operational instrument creating obligations between States while at the same time allowing for the delivery of States' international obligations towards refugees.