EU Currents: The Third Way
A Major Shift
Lawmakers in the European Union Parliament recently approved legislation that will initiate a dramatic change in the EU’s process for approving asylum claims. The new legislation identifies “safe third countries”, non-EU nations that are also not the home nations of an asylum seeker, that will be approved for the transfer of said asylum seekers.
The legislation was approved in the EU Parliament by a vote of 396-226 and marks a shift in EU immigration policy 10 years on from the influx of more than one million refugees and migrants between 2015 and 2016.
This policy of sending asylum seekers to third-party nations has gained notoriety in recent years. Human rights organizations like Amnesty International give a grim evaluation of the practice, stating that the new legislation “...shifts EU responsibility for refugee protection to countries outside of Europe, and is far from a humane migration policy.”
The most notable example of this policy occurred in the United Kingdom where the government under Prime Minister Rishi Sunak sought to enact a scheme to send would-be asylum seekers to Rwanda, however it was deemed as unsafe by the nation’s courts and did not come to pass.
This past summer, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) specifically called on the EU Parliament to ensure proper safeguards would be in place to protect the well-being of asylum seekers.
The UNHCR did not argue for a complete dismantling of the third-nation policy, as they understood the difficulties that nations have during an influx of incoming migration. Regardless, they encouraged receiving nations to ensure that asylum cases are fully vetted and given due process.
Additionally, a list of “safe countries of origin” was updated to include Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco and Tunisia. Nations with candidacy to join the EU are also considered to be safe nations of origin, so long as there are no occurrences of indiscriminate violence or threats to fundamental rights and freedoms.
The list of candidate nations at this time include Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Kosovo, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, and North Macedonia, Türkiye and Ukraine.
People attempting to gain asylum that are from these nations would face an expedited review of their case, as receiving nations would assume that there is no inherent threat to an applicant’s safety. This rule would not only raise the burden of proof for asylum candidates but would also signal a shifting of responsibility to nations that are outside of the EU.
Of those nations, Egypt is in a unique position given recent developments in their established asylum laws. Egypt has been working with the EU in these matters since 2017, signing on to assist the EU in the externalization of migration and asylum.
In 2024, Egypt ratified their own asylum program but failed to refine legal frameworks to match those outlined and advocated by the UNHCR.
Moreover, Egypt continues to struggle with their own issues, as they have been judged to be an unsafe location for both migrants and their own citizens, with rampant imprisonment of dissidents and lack of internal oversight to safeguard the well-being of people who are in custody.
Concerns On Both Sides Of The Aisle
Proponents of the “safe third country” policies and the “safe countries of origin” policies believe that they signal an end to shifting standards and establish relief for social safety nets in EU member states.
Alessandro Ciriani, a member of the EU Parliament from Italy summed up the changes as such: “The list of safe countries of origin is a political turning point in the EU’s management of migration. This legislation brings the period of ambiguity to an end and sets out a clear course: common rules, faster and more effective procedures, protection of the right to asylum for those entitled to it and a firm approach to tackling abuse.”
Further justification for the policy has been grounded in the notion that establishing stronger standards for asylum seekers will also curb concerns of human trafficking and casualties suffered from making the trek to European shores.
Rasmus Stoklund, Denmark’s Minister of Immigration and Integration remarked that “Thousands are drowning in the Mediterranean Sea or are abused along the migratory routes, while human smugglers earn fortunes.”
Detractors believe that the reforms will result in the erosion of human rights standards within the EU along with weakening migration rights globally. Additionally, many believe that sending asylum seekers to random nations may result in nefarious deals being made at the expense of human life.
MEP Cecilia Strada stated that “Any country that wants some money would be willing to accept this kind of agreement or arrangement.” She added that the change in asylum law is “not a good idea, not only for the fundamental rights of the asylum seekers but for our democracies.”
Delegation Without Oversight
Indeed, existing migration agreements have been known to benefit non-EU nations in an unbalanced manner and without oversight from the EU. These nations are free to do as they wish within the agreement, so long as they continue to accept re-directed asylum seekers from EU member states.
Though these reforms are a dramatic departure from the European Union’s recent approach to addressing asylum claims, it is hard to say whether this current position is a temporary result of the current political climate or the symptoms of an unstable Global South.
