Europe's Externalisation of Asylum Procedures: Is a Legal and Ethical Alternative Possible?
Emilia Vassiliades
Published: 08/04/2025
DOI:
Abstract:
This article undertakes a critical interrogation of the externalisation of asylum procedures by European states, with particular emphasis on the EU-Turkey Agreement as a case study, to determine the feasibility of a juridically and ethically defensible model of externalisation. While externalisation is not inherently a violation of international human rights law (IHRL), its implementation often leads to breaches of IHRL and international refugee legislation, including the principle of non-refoulement and the rights to life and protection from torture or inhuman treatment. The article first assesses the legal accountability issues that arise from states engaging in externalisation, demonstrating how current practices frequently contravene international obligations. It then explores legal alternatives, proposing a framework for externalisation that aligns with IHRL, including robust procedural safeguards and good faith commitments. However, it contends that mere legal compliance remains an insufficient condition for the realisation of an ethically defensible approach. The article highlights how dominant migration narratives, rooted in neocolonial and security-driven discourses, perpetuate exclusionary policies that marginalise people on the move. In a modest but novel contribution, this article posits that for any form of ethical externalisation, a fundamental shift towards decolonial and intersectional narratives is necessary. By reframing migration not as a crisis to be managed but as a shared global responsibility, states may move towards legal and policy configurations that transcend reductive narratives and categorisations, embracing a praxis that upholds both legal obligations and moral imperatives.
Key words:
Border externalisation, Extraterritorial obligations, Refugees, Human Rights