In a letter dated June 25, 2024, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen claimed: “Many Member States are looking at innovative strategies to prevent irregular migration by tackling asylum applications further from the EU’s external borders.” However, a closer examination shows that very few countries are actively pursuing such plans and concrete results are rare. The letter frames the recently adopted Pact on Migration and Asylum as a historic achievement and turning point in EU migration policy. While she emphasizes solidarity and coordination, the letter reveals a clear shift toward stricter border controls, accelerated procedures, and external partnerships with third countries.
The key term “looking” is so vague that it can refer to anything from general discussions and exploratory talks to formal legislation or actual implementation. This broad phrasing creates the impression of unified EU momentum, but in reality, the political landscape is deeply divided.
The context of this statement is the debate on externalization, the idea of processing asylum applications in third countries rather than within EU territory. The goal is to reduce irregular arrivals and discourage dangerous migration routes. However, this policy remains one of the most controversial in EU asylum reform, with ethical and legal objections looming large.
What is externalization?
It refers to intercepting asylum seekers before they reach the EU and transferring them to a third country for processing. Supporters argue it saves lives and undermines smuggling networks. Critics warn it risks violating the Geneva Refugee Convention and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Pilot Projects
- Italy is the only EU country with a concrete initiative: a bilateral agreement with Albania to host asylum centers for up to 3,000 people in Shengjin and Gjader. However, the project is stalled due to legal disputes over whether Albania can be considered a “safe third country”.
- Denmark, alongside 14 other countries, called on the European Commission in May 2024 to push for externalization and tougher border controls. Its plans to outsource asylum processing to Rwanda remain limited to a declaration of intent no concrete implementation has occurred.
- Germany has no plans for external processing. Instead, it relies on deterrence through stricter border controls and rapid returns from entry points.
- Bulgaria, with EU co-financing, is reinforcing its border with Turkey, focusing on surveillance rather than third-country procedures.
- The Netherlands and Hungary demand an “opt-out” from EU asylum policy. Hungary, meanwhile, blocks any common EU strategy and makes it nearly impossible to claim asylum domestically.
- Austria and Greece advocate for physical border fences rather than processing centers abroad. Germany and Luxembourg oppose such barriers. EU Asylum Reform: Border Procedures Instead of Offshore Processing
The latest reform of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) does focus on third-country processing and on mandatory border procedures. New rules foresee “screening centers” at external EU borders, including biometric checks and fast-track asylum decisions for applicants with low protection prospects. Financial penalties (€20,000 per non-admitted refugee) aim to enforce intra-EU solidarity.
While the EU Commission refers to innovative solutions, four Member States have prioritized different strategies and some even oppose externalization outright. The notion that “many” countries are developing offshore solutions is misleading. Migration expert Gerald Knaus, a critic of the CEAS reform, warns: “I fear neither irregular migration, nor secondary migration, nor the number of deportations will decrease. These mandatory border procedures won’t achieve that.” According to Knaus, not only political resistance but also practical and legal barriers hinder externalization. Even where political will exists, real implementation is rare.
Conclusion
The EU Commission statement suggests broad EU engagement with external asylum processing, yet actual practice tells another story. Only a handful of states have proposed such models, and none are operational. The idea remains more aspiration than reality. As Gerald Knaus sums it up: “Innovative ideas are important, but unrealistic ones don’t help.” Externalization is not yet a European solution, but rather a highly contested vision.
RESEARCH | ARTICLE © Saskia Moritz | Hochschule der Medien, Stuttgart, Germany
Leave your comments, thoughts and suggestions in the box below. Take note: your response is moderated.
