Between meeting quotas and following the duty-bound heart: navigating the formidable dilemma of refugee protection in the EU

Abstract The provision of refuge to those fleeing persecution and danger is a complex matter that cannot be reduced to simply meeting admission quotas. While numerical targets for refugee admissions may seem like a straightforward way to ensure states are doing their fair share, an overemphasis on numbers risks obscuring the deeper moral issues at play. A truly robust approach to refugee protection requires that states act from the right kinds of reasons - a genuine commitment to the duty to provide safe haven to all refugees, regardless of their country of origin or the political expediency of admitting them. The worry is that if a state’s willingness to accept refugees fluctuates based on domestic political preferences and perceptions of national interest, rather than an unwavering recognition of the moral claims of the forcibly displaced, then the protection provided to refugees becomes contingent and precarious. A disposition to selectively protect only certain refugees undermines the very concept of refuge. However, in our non-ideal world, a commitment to the principle of robust refugee protection can run up against the hard reality of state non-compliance. If the only way to get some states to fulfil their duties is to allow them leeway in choosing which refugees to admit, we face a serious moral dilemma. Relaxing the demands of robustness may enable larger raw numbers of people to access refuge in the near term. However, it also risks eroding the norm of impartial consideration and creating a two-tier system of refugee protection. Ultimately, I argue, the dilemma between refugee numbers and robustness has no fully satisfying solution - it is an unavoidable product of our current circumstances of injustice and non-compliance. The best we can do is seek arrangements that ease this tension over time. This requires taking a nuanced, context-sensitive approach attuned to real-world constraints and trade-offs while still keeping sight of the moral lodestar of genuinely unconditional refuge for all who need it.