The latest European statistics show that the number of asylum seekers rose from 431,000 in 2013 to 626,000 in 2014; this was the highest number of asylum applicants registered within the EU since the peak in 1992. Together, EU States accounted for 82% of all new asylum claims submitted in Europe, with the top five countries to receive asylum applications being Germany, France, Sweden, Italy and the United Kingdom. What started as the ‘Mediterranean crisis’ has now escalated into chaos, with the European Union appearing lost in its search for adequate solutions.

Currently the EU asylum process application is framed under the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), which is intended to ensure the rights of refugees under the international law are protected across member states. The CEAS framework sets out standards and procedures for assessing asylum application, yet many EU states have yet to properly implement these standards. Under the so-called Dublin System, designed to prevent ‘asylum-shopping’, each asylum claim must be processed in the first EU country reached by the asylum seeker. On arrival in EU countries, refugees face legal and criminal justice checks instituted by the legal system of the country of arrival, which often results in a long and stressful asylum process that can take years of processing.

As introduced in Hélène Lambert’s post yesterday, the 1951 United Nation’s Convention relating to the Status of Refugees is the key legal document providing the definition of a refugee, their rights and the legal obligations of the state.

Under the Convention three primary solutions are offered to refugees: voluntary repatriation to the home country, resettlement to a third country or integration of the refugee in the local host country. Yet recent months have shown that these provisions, adopted in the aftermath of World War II, are inappropriate and ill-equipped to respond to the new security environment of today’s globalised world. Concerns over international terrorism and illegal migration have prompted many Western states to tighten up their borders and migration controls to pre-empt refugees’ flows. Western states will only grant refugee status if applicants can prove that they have a very specific fear of persecution, which means that refugees’ applications need to be supported by reliable and detailed sources of documentation for their case to be seriously considered. Obviously, this can be a considerable challenge for many refugees who have just fled their home in a desperate attempt to safe their lives, most likely after a rushed and fraught departure, likely followed by a perilous journey across land and sea.

Granting refugees the chance to at least have their applications heard is a moral responsibility that sadly remains poorly respected amongst the European democratic community. Tensions over the number of refugees pouring across the Hungarian border are rapidly escalating with Germany being the most welcoming country for refugees in Europe. The latest decisions, however, of Chancellor Angella Merkel to temporary install a border restriction that cuts off rail travel from Austria and institute spot checks on cars sends an alarming signal that even the wealthiest country in Europe is reaching the limit of refugees it is prepared to welcome. Following Germany’s decision, other countries such as the Netherlands, Slovakia and Austria have also reintroduced border controls across routes used by refugees trying to reach Western Europe.

Yet amid this chaos, and against the political backdrop of nationalist and Euro-sceptic movements, one thing is certain: what seems to be Europe’s largest humanitarian crisis in decades cannot be solved without the willingness of all the EU members of states to work together to find solutions. This could be the final test for Europe in its search for unity, integration and its universal democratic ideals.

In tomorrow’s post, Kanad Bagchi continues the discussion of the European Union’s response to the refugee crisis by considering the EU Commission’s proposals presented to the EU Parliament last week.

The issue of sexual assault of men and boys on the current global agenda is not raised nearly enough, and remains largely under-reported. The cultural barriers to recognising and addressing male sexual abuse are currently under-researched, and remain primarily a taboo topic. In addition, the lack of widespread institutional recognition of male rape, combined with feminist movements, defining sexual violence as exclusively a women’s issue, has resulted in the failure to include this section of the population in policy and research agendas of governments, donor agencies and academic institutions. This framework has created a lack of attention to  male victims in sexual abuse scenarios. Most of the international and national institutions barely acknowledge sexual violence against men that occurs in armed conflicts. Because the topic of male rape in our often male- dominated culture remains largely unaddressed, there is little understanding about the issue and hence it is considered for many to be an unmentionable subject. As a result, cases of reporting such abuse remain rarer than those for women, mainly because of shame and fear of stigmatisation.

Research focusing on male sexual violence also reveals that there is a lack of adequate services in place to respond to the victim’s needs. A study carried out in 2002 notes that out of 4076 non-governmental organizations that worked in the area of war rape and other forms of political and sexual violence, only 3% mentioned sexual violence against men and boys ‘in their programs and informational literature’. Similarly, there are reports that many international initiatives, while addressing the issue of war rape, lack clear understanding and consensus around the topic in general, and as such remain poorly designed for addressing war rape abuses against men and boys in particular. In the United Nations (UN) Declaration of Commitment to End Sexual Violence in Conflict (September, 2013), there is only one line mentioning that men and boys are also subject to sexual violence. In many of the UN’s key documents, sexual violence is considered solely as a gender issue involving only women and girls. This reflects the lack of mobilisation and understanding by the UN agencies, governments and NGOs on the topic of sexual violence perpetuated against men and boys in conflict zones.

There is a need to address causes of sexual violence and to create greater emergency responses. For our society to end sexual violence around the world, organisations such as the UN should first recognise that men can be as vulnerable as women. It should not be forgotten that although there is a higher prevalence of sexual violence against women in war zones, ultimately both form part of the gender dimension of conflict. The need to put more emphasis on men and boys as victims of sexual violence in the UN Declaration of Commitment to End Sexual Violence in Conflict can perhaps be the first starting point. It is insufficient simply to state that ‘men and boys are also subject to sexual violence’. There is indeed a need to create awareness not only about women‘s rights, but more generally about human rights. Only then can we start to break down the wall of silence and adopt proper strategies to bring change in this field.