What is the AfD's motion about?
At the heart of the motion is the call to amend the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees to include a provision for “geographical prioritization.” This means that, in the future, those seeking protection should, whenever possible, be admitted to countries neighboring their countries of origin. The AfD bases its motion on three arguments.
First, dangerous escape routes across the sea or through deserts should be avoided, as they repeatedly result in many deaths.
Second, providing aid near the countries of origin is more efficient and cost-effective. According to the AfD, investing in neighboring regions could improve support for refugees while also reducing costs.
Third, the AfD argues that resettlement in neighboring countries facilitates a later return. According to the motion, if those seeking protection remain culturally and geographically closer to their home countries, they can return more easily once a conflict has ended.
Specifically, the AfD proposes amending Article 1A, paragraph 2, of the Convention. According to the party, this provision could stipulate that protection should be provided “first and foremost, and as permanently as possible,” in neighboring regions.
In the motion, the AfD calls on the federal government to advocate for such a reform at the international level—particularly at the United Nations (UN) and the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR).
What does the Geneva Convention on Refugees cover?
The Geneva Convention on Refugees is one of the most important international agreements on the protection of refugees. It was adopted after World War II and defines who qualifies as a refugee and what rights these individuals have.
Under the Convention, a refugee is defined as a person who is outside their country of origin and cannot or will not return due to a well-founded fear of persecution. This persecution must be based on specific grounds, such as religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
An important principle of the Convention is the principle of “non-refoulement.” It states that no one may be deported to a country where they face persecution or serious danger.
It is important to note that the convention does not currently specify in which country a refugee must be granted protection. This is precisely what the AfD wants to change.
What specific changes the AfD is calling for
The AfD wants to amend the existing rules. Protection against persecution is to remain in place. At the same time, however, a new priority is to be introduced: refugees are to be resettled primarily in regions that are geographically and culturally close—provided that adequate protection is guaranteed there.
In addition, the AfD calls for
- more financial support for countries of first reception, for example for education, health care, and labor market integration
- the expansion of reception capacities in countries neighboring crisis regions
- greater international cooperation, particularly at the EU and UN levels
According to the AfD, such a system would better manage migration and ease the burden on European countries.
Criticism from the CDU/CSU, SPD, Greens, and The Left
The motion has met with widespread opposition from the other parties in the Bundestag. During the debate last Friday, representatives from all other parliamentary groups voiced strong criticism.
From the Union’s perspective, the Geneva Convention on Refugees stands for international solidarity. Elisabeth Winkelmeier-Becker (CDU) emphasized that it stands for “humanity and solidarity across borders.” In her view, the AfD is only interested in shifting responsibility onto other countries.
The Greens also clearly reject the proposal. Member of the Bundestag Luise Amtsberg described it as an attack on a key principle of international refugee protection. She said the AfD’s proposal amounts to keeping those seeking protection as far away as possible: “People fleeing their homes should stay where it’s convenient for us—in other words, anywhere but here.”
The SPD also warned of the consequences of such a reform. Gabriela Heinrich described the Geneva Convention on Refugees as a major postwar achievement and stated: “Anyone who seeks to weaken or abolish it is creating a dangerous gap for people fleeing their homes.”
The Left Party also views the motion critically. Clara Bünger emphasized that refugees’ fundamental rights must not be restricted. “Refugees should not have to rely on the generosity of a host country; rather, they have a right to protection from persecution.”
Can Germany amend the Geneva Convention on Refugees?
The 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees is part of international law. It applies not only to Germany, but to all 149 countries worldwide that have signed it.
Germany is therefore just one of many contracting parties. This means that Germany:
- may not unilaterally amend the conventions
- is not allowed to set new rules on its own
- cannot require other countries to adopt changes
In order for the Geneva Convention on Refugees to be amended or revised, an international process would have to take place.
To do that, you would need to:
- A country (e.g., Germany) officially proposes a change
- The United Nations (UN) has convened a conference on this topic
- The participating countries are negotiating the amendment
- The states agree to the amendment (typically by signing it and subsequently ratifying it domestically)
Any change would apply only to the countries that agree to it. Therefore, there is no automatic obligation for everyone.
What happens next
The AfD's motion was first debated in the Bundestag. In the coming weeks, it will be further considered by the relevant committees before the parliament votes on it.
Since the other political groups have already clearly spoken out against the proposal, it is considered rather unlikely that the motion will receive a majority vote.
If the motion were nevertheless to receive a majority vote, the federal government would be called upon to advocate internationally for a reform of the Geneva Convention on Refugees. However, any actual change would only be possible with the consent of many other countries and would take a considerable amount of time.
