The Right to Asylum and its Implementation: A Comparative Legal Analysis of Greece and the USA

This thesis examines the implementation of the right to asylum through a comparative legal analysis of Greece and the United States, two countries that occupy distinct geopolitical positions and operate within fundamentally different legal and institutional frameworks. While Greece functions as a frontline Member State of the European Union and is bound by the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and supranational oversight mechanisms, the United States represents a federal system in which asylum policy is shaped primarily by domestic law and political dynamics. Despite these differences, both countries are parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol and are formally committed to the protection of individuals fleeing persecution. Focusing on the period from 2015 onwards, this study analyzes how international asylum norms, particularly the principle of non-refoulement is translated into national law and practice. Using a qualitative comparative methodology, the research examines legislative frameworks, institutional and administrative procedures and the influence of external political and geopolitical factors, such as EU migration governance in the Greek case and federal– tate dynamics in the U.S. case. The analysis is informed by key theoretical approaches, including securitization, post-sovereign border governance, and norm translation. The findings reveal that despite differing institutional structures, both Greece and the United States of America exhibit convergent patterns of restrictive asylum governance, including procedural barriers, deterrence-oriented policies, and externalization of responsibility. These practices often undermine effective access to protection and weaken compliance with international obligations. The thesis concludes that asylum has increasingly shifted from a rights-based protection mechanism toward a tool of migration management, shaped by political priorities rather than humanitarian commitments. By highlighting similarities and divergences between the two systems, this study contributes to comparative asylum scholarship and offers recommendations aimed at strengthening legal compliance and human rights protection in national asylum policies.