In 2016, the EU and Turkey implemented an agreement aimed at reducing irregular migration to the EU. This deal, which had its seventh anniversary on 18 March this year, has served as a blueprint for further migration agreements between countries of destination and countries of origin or transit. However, from both an ethical and practical perspective, these agreements remain controversial. In the first in a series of two articles, Friedrich Püttmann sets out the case for migration agreements as a tool for safeguarding the rights of refugees – for the case against, see the second article in the series.

For many people who care about human rights, migration agreements have a bad reputation. They are perceived to undermine the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugees and to be a symptom of the demise of liberal Europe. This is unjustified. The truth is that far from undermining the Geneva Convention, migration agreements are the only way to keep it alive.

This is because if unsuccessful asylum seekers cannot be returned, the Convention effectively loses its meaning and, as a result, its support from the wider public. This, in turn, may eventually cause countries to withdraw from the Convention altogether or to try to obstruct migrants’ ability to make use of it. To ensure the return of unsuccessful asylum seekers, therefore, means to ensure the actual application and longevity of the Geneva Convention.

False comparisons

The Convention’s central idea is to legally oblige signatory states to provide protection for individuals that are persecuted in their home country “for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”. Moreover, many countries grant other statuses of protection to individuals fleeing war. This does not include economic deprivation. As a result, only 34% of applications for protection in the EU were successful in 2021. However, almost 80% of unsuccessful asylum seekers nevertheless remain in the EU, mostly because their home countries refuse to take them back.

Given this reality, many EU member states now prefer to reinforce their border protection to make it more difficult for anyone to enter irregularly and to apply for asylum in the first place. Illegal pushbacks by European border forces have become a common occurrence, and many irregular migrants die during dangerous journeys – whether in dinghies in the Mediterranean Sea or in unstable countries of transit. This dramatically undermines the Geneva Convention, and it means that people need to risk their lives to seek asylum. This is unacceptable.

The liberal reflex is to criticise such EU member states for their repressive border regimes. However, given that a majority of the European public wants less immigration, and that returning rejected asylum seekers is evidently difficult, there is a natural incentive for governments to act in this way.

What is often misunderstood when discussing the EU-Turkey Statement on Migration is that the realistic alternative seven years ago was not the unlimited admission of all asylum seekers, but a severe militarisation of borders, the rise of the far-right across Europe, and no support for Turkey at all. What this would have looked like could be seen in February 2020, when President Erdoğan declared the Statement to be invalid. It is precisely situations like this that lead to border violence, a disinterest in saving drowning migrants at sea, destitute refugee camps that are deliberately used as a deterrence, and hopeless existences for many rejected asylum seekers in the EU

A realistic approach

Migration agreements with acceptable parties in countries of origin and transit (not violent Libyan militias) offer the most realistic opportunity to put an end to this humanitarian disaster. Under such agreements, these countries may be offered more pathways for regular migration and visa-free travel to the EU in return for readmitting all those nationals whose asylum claims were rejected.

In such a scenario, the disincentive for border guards to save migrants at sea is removed and more people can apply for asylum in the EU without risking their lives. Moreover, countries of transit can still send accepted refugees into the EU via the regular and much safer path of refugee resettlement, which should be a central element of such agreements to strive towards fairer global burden sharing.

What is more, EU countries like Germany urgently need more regular skilled migration anyway, and having professional skills that an economy needs is the best way for newcomers to integrate. The EU’s migration agreements with the countries of the Western Balkans offer a clear illustration that this mechanism works well. In contrast, simply increasing the pressure on third countries to take back rejected irregular migrants has proven unsuccessful for the most part and falls short of the humanitarian and economic advantages migration agreements offer.

Finally, many consider migration agreements to be submitting the EU to the arbitrary will of leaders like President Erdoğan and thereby opening the door to ‘blackmail’. But again, the only alternative to co-operation with third countries in the quest for less irregular immigration is to militarise borders, which would be the much less humane option.

Humane solutions

Despite growing anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe, most Europeans still support taking in refugees and admitting high-skilled workers from abroad. Migration agreements can achieve exactly that, and they offer real prospects to immigrants. Moreover, this public support is vital to the survival of the Geneva Convention in the long run. The practical reality of migrants’ right to seek asylum stands and falls with states’ ability to return the rejected.

This is what John Dalhuisen, the former Europe director of Amnesty International, realised when he turned into a vocal supporter of migration agreements after having criticised the EU-Turkey Statement for years, effectively sacrificing his career for his conviction that this was the only sustainable route to upholding refugee rights.

A true defence of the Geneva Convention – not only in words – requires guaranteeing both easy entry for those seeking asylum and actual returns for those being rejected. And the most effective and humane way to do so is through migration agreements.

The way forward

Whether or not migration agreements can live up to what they promise, both in practical and ethical terms, remains a point of contention. However, what is clear is that this debate is much more productive than a debate on whether borders should be fortified or simply abolished altogether.

Neither of these options offers a sustainable solution to marrying the reality of irregular migration with refugees’ human rights and European public opinion. Instead, our current migration and asylum systems need reform, more regular pathways of migration need to be created, and our efforts to preserve the spirit of the Geneva Convention must continue. For now, the jury remains out on what the best approach for achieving this is.

This article is the first in a series of two articles – for the case against migration agreements, see the second article in the series.

Note: This article gives the views of the author, not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy or the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: European Union