The Dublin regime was originally introduced by the Dublin Convention, signed in Dublin (Ireland) on 15 June 1990 and came into force on 1 October 1997 for the first twelve signatories (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom), and on 1 January 1998 for Finland. [2] While the agreement was only open to accession by the Member States of the European Communities, Norway and Iceland, non-member countries, reached an agreement with the EC in 2001 on the application of the provisions of the Convention on their territory. [3] UNHCR welcomes the willingness of States to share statistical information and data on the development of refugees with each other and with UNHCR and appreciates the recognition by States of the need to keep information on certain refugees and asylum seekers confidential. The exchange of this general information can help protection improve the ability to predict refugee trends and problems and help countries achieve their burden-sharing goals. The Convention for the Determination of the State responsible for the examination of asylum applications, which is tabled in one of the Member States of the European Communities and commonly referred to as the Dublin Convention, concerns the country responsible for the examination of an asylum application. The Schengen Convention of 14 June 1985 on the phasing out of common border controls, commonly known as the Schengen Convention, deals more broadly with border controls and refugee and asylum issues, such as drug trafficking. These two instruments (conventions) represent commendable efforts to share and distribute the burden of reviewing refugee and asylum applications and to put in place effective mechanisms to listen to applications. In the absence of harmonization of procedures, differences in procedures and admission standards can exploit the current imbalance in the burden of refugees and asylum in states. In addition, a strict division of responsibilities on the basis of which the state authorized entry could lead to the rejection of individual applications that could have been recognized in another contracting state. It is likely that, in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 3, each State party will be free to consider a claim, including a claim previously rejected by another state. These efforts are in line with the recommendations already made by the Executive Committee, for example in conclusion 15 (Refugees without a Country of Asylum) of 1979. In this conclusion, the Executive Committee called on States to consider the criteria under which States could agree on the state that would be responsible for reviewing an asylum application and arrangements for the repatriation by states of persons who have entered their territory from another state. Such provisions should ensure fee verification, reduce multiple claims and minimize the occurrence of “refugees in orbit,” as has already been mentioned.

In relation to the visa requirement, the documentary control obligations that states actually impose on air carriers are.