Refugees and asylum seekers in Europe need a rights-based approach to the issue of return: insights from the case of the Syrian displacement

This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.

Migration and forced displacement are once again dominating political debates in the United States and Europe with widespread implications for the protection of forcibly displaced populations. 1 In 2024, a global shift towards stricter informal/irregular migration and asylum-seeker policies was evident as many countries introduced measures to limit entry or accelerate the return of asylum seekers and migrants. This closely mirrored antimigrant, populist narratives as nationalist and far-right political parties gained traction. For example, Finland, Poland, Iran and Türkiye reinforced their border defenses, while the US administration signalled plans to resume construction of a border wall with Mexico.2 Several countries, including Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Colombia, Panama, Iran and Pakistan, implemented large-scale expulsion and involuntary return programmes in 2024, which are expected to continue into 2025. Alarmingly, the public narrative for these policies and programmes conflated the legal and humanitarian obligations and mandates governing refugees, asylum seekers and migrants, enabling states to justify practices that fall short of their national and international responsibilities to protect the displaced.2 3 Meanwhile, the European Union is prioritising the externalisation of asylum procedures and return policies as part of what has been described as ‘innovative solutions to irregular migration’.2 The increasingly favoured externalisation strategies partially shift responsibility for legal and protection of asylum seekers to third countries despite concerns about human rights violations and negative health consequences. Notable examples include the UK’s controversial plan to offshore asylum seekers to Rwanda, Denmark’s similar strategies and Italy’s agreement with Albania.2 Furthermore, the European Union’s partnerships with Tunisia and Egypt, which involve financial support for migration control, have been associated with incidents of violence and neglect towards migrants.2