EU Migration Policy: Externalisation on the Fast-Track

• by Eleonora Milazzo

The New Pact reforms adopted in spring 2024 lean heavily on the external dimension of migration policy and cooperation with third countries to ease pressure on member states and build a more stable and effective European asylum system. While EU member states have been reluctant to pursue meaningful responsibility-sharing within the Union, the European Commission and national governments have shown a more unified stance in treating ongoing externalisation efforts as politically acceptable and operationally effective solutions.

This trend persists amid serious concerns about the legal, practical, and ethical implications of outsourcing migration management beyond Europe's borders. It is also at odds with the EU's pursuit of strategic autonomy and the imperative to craft mutually beneficial, comprehensive partnerships with third countries. Two recent developments exemplify this prevailing orientation within the EU.

Expansion of 'safe country' concepts

The first development involves the expansion of 'safe country' concepts fast-tracked by the European Commission in the initial phases of the New Pact's implementation. Among the reforms adopted under the New Pact, the Asylum Procedure Regulation (APR) aims to increase returns by expanding the applicability of safe country clauses, including the concepts of 'safe third country' and 'safe country of origin'.

The European Commission has completed in May a review of the 'safe third country' concept, which assign protection responsibilities to a country different from the one asylum seekers have applied to, and proposed amendments to the APR that would likely further shift protection responsibilities outside the EU.

Under the proposed changes, the requirement for a meaningful connection between a person requesting asylum and a third country where this person could be protected would no longer be mandatory. Member states would be free to determine whether to apply the connection requirement or consider transit or the existence of an agreement or arrangement to justify transferring asylum applicants to a third country.

If adopted, these changes would significantly expand the circumstances under which asylum claims can be rejected as inadmissible on the basis that protection is available in a 'safe' non-EU country. Combined with a lower safety threshold for third countries to qualify as safe under the APR, the removal of the connection requirement risks foreclosing access to asylum procedures without sufficient protection guarantees. In addition, the amendments could result in greater fragmentation, with EU member states applying different criteria for transfer.

To speed up the processing of asylum applications by the member states, the European Commission has also proposed the fast-tracked implementation of other provisions contained in the APR regarding the application of accelerated border procedures and safe country clauses, as well as an EU list of safe countries of origin. Among other things, these moves would facilitate Italy's unsuccessful attempts to operationalise its bilateral arrangement with Albania.

Returns and cooperation with third countries

Another significant development concerns the European Commission's proposal to create a common EU return system, addressing long-standing gaps in EU return policy. Following calls from the European Council to speed up returns, in March 2025, the European Commission proposed a new draft legislation on a common system for returns including a common procedure for issuing return decisions and mutual recognition of return decisions across the EU.

The proposed reform would also introduce the possibility of transferring individuals who have received a final return decision to any non-EU country, based on agreements or arrangements concluded bilaterally or at EU level. While the proposal is under negotiation by the Council and Parliament, the creation of so-called 'return hubs' has been strongly criticised as contributing to an expanded deportation regime rather than a coherent and rights-based return system.

In addition, questions remain as to the involvement of third countries in the rollout of the proposed return system. To encourage third-country cooperation, the proposal mentions a mix of obligations, incentives, and negative conditionalities. However, tools such as visa restrictions or trade measures fall outside the remit of the return framework. This raises concerns about the overall coherence of the return system with other EU policies, especially since its effectiveness hinges on sustained third-country cooperation.

Re-balancing externalisation trends

The fast-tracking of reforms with strong external migration management components signals that the tendency to shift responsibilities to third countries will remain central to the EU's approach to migration and asylum. In the current political climate, and with Denmark having just taken over the Council Presidency this month-bringing a government that has long championed transferring asylum seekers to third countries-this trend is likely to persist.

Externalisation risks becoming a default strategy that postpones, rather than solves, the EU's structural migration challenges, prioritising containment over responsibility sharing, deterrence over protection, and piecemeal bilateral solutions over a strategic, unified European approach.

As these reforms move forward, it is important to ensure the full implementation of all aspects of the New Pact, particularly those focused on the internal dimension of migration management and long-standing responsibility-sharing challenges. Promoting balanced cooperation with third countries remains key, while also safeguarding human rights. Finally, parallel efforts to develop legal migration pathways will help strengthen the EU's credibility as a partner, both bilaterally and internationally.