The EU’s Pact on Migration and Asylum: Progress or Setback?
Abbas Ismail, PhD Candidate, Centre for International Studies; Institute for Migration Studies
Introduction
In April 2024, the European Parliament narrowly approved the Pact on Migration and Asylum, marking an effort to reform the EU´s fragmented asylum system. Rooted in the 2015 Refugee Crisis, the Pact aims to address the ongoing dispute among member states over migration policies and burden sharing. Despite four years of development, the Pact has faced widespread criticism from NGOs, left-wing Social Democrats, and some traditional right-wing parties, who all argue that it falls short of their expectations.
What Is the Pact About?
According to the the International Rescue Committee, the pact consists of ten legislative proposals aimed at reforming the EU’s migration and asylum system and creating a single ‘European solution’ to the challenges of migration. The main objectives of the pact include strengthening Europe’s borders, simplifying asylum and return procedures and promoting greater solidarity between member states, particularly at the EU’s external borders. The Pact focuses specifically on irregular migrants seeking asylum, leaving broader issues such as labor shortages and integration policy largely untouched. Although migration policy remains under the control of individual member states, coordination is necessary due to the free movement within Schengen. The Pact also introduces five regulations relating to Schengen border management rules.
Progress: Structured Burden Sharing and Improved Border Controls
One of the most important features of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum is the attempt to create a more structured system of burden-sharing between Member States. The new Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management in the Pact introduces a flexible solidarity mechanism that allows Member States to decide for themselves how they contribute to the reception of asylum seekers. They can either take in a certain number of asylum seekers, provide financial support by paying €20,000 for each non-admitted asylum seeker, or offer alternative assistance, such as operational support in border areas. This flexibility is intended to ease long-standing tensions between member states over unequal migratory pressure, particularly for countries on the border such as Greece and Italy.
Another important element of the pact is the focus on improved border controls. The regulations aim to standardize border controls and improve the EU’s tracking system through an upgraded EURODAC database. This biometric system will allow for more efficient tracking of asylum seekers across the EU and reduce the risk of irregular movements between member states. By centralizing this data, the EU hopes to create a more coordinated approach to processing asylum applications and ensure that people do not ‘disappear’ within the system.
Finally, a noteworthy feature of the pact is its emphasis on maintaining high asylum recognition rates, for groups fleeing war zones, such as Syrians, Ukrainians and Eritreans. These groups have consistently higher recognition rates due to the clear humanitarian crises in their home countries. In contrast, the pact introduces a 20% threshold for asylum seekers from countries with low recognition rates. Those below this threshold, such as Sudan and Yemen, will be subject to stricter and faster screening procedures to expedite their return. This distinction emphasizes that the pact gives priority to those who have a legitimate claim to protection while tightening controls for people from countries with low recognition rates.
Setback: Humanitarian and Legal Concerns
The Screening Regulation, which is part of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, stipulates that asylum seekers, including those with well-founded applications, such as Syrians, must stay in border centers for up to 12 weeks. Although this approach is intended to speed up processing and prevent irregular migration, it raises considerable humanitarian concerns. If asylum seekers are detained for a longer period of time, there is a risk that border centers will become overcrowded, often in poor conditions, which exacerbates physical and psychological problems. According to a report by the World Health Organisation, for vulnerable groups such as families and children fleeing conflict, these prolonged stays can lead to further trauma and delays in accessing protection.
Further, the Pact extends the concept of a “safe third country,” allowing asylum seekers from countries like Tunisia, Egypt, or Turkey can have their applications rejected without a full examination, even if they are at risk of persecution. The pact also promotes cooperation with third countries on migration management, with a focus on repatriation, combating smugglers and creating legal migration channels. This externalization of EU migration policy includes readmission agreements and development aid in return for stricter border controls, as demonstrated by the EU-Turkey deal and the partnerships with Jordan and Lebanon. However, this approach is questionable from a human rights perspective, as it harbors the risk of strengthening authoritarian practices in third countries and undermining Europe’s normative influence. Furthermore, these short-term solutions do not address the root causes of migration, increase pressure on transit countries and make the EU vulnerable to manipulation by partner countries, as the examples of Turkey, Belarus, and Morocco show.
Conclusion: A Complex Balance of Progress and Setbacks
The EU Pact on Migration and Asylum represents a significant attempt to address the long-standing challenges of migration management within the Union. By introducing mechanisms for structured burden-sharing and improving border control systems, the Pact aims to achieve a better coordinated and more efficient asylum procedure. The flexible solidarity system offers Member States a wider choice of how they can contribute to migration management, while the improved EURODAC system aims to improve tracking and reduce irregular movements. In addition, the focus on maintaining high asylum recognition rates for refugees from conflict zones such as Syria underlines the EU’s continued commitment to protecting people in genuine need.
Despite this progress, however, the pact has been criticized for its humanitarian and legal shortcomings. Prolonged detention in border facilities raises serious concerns about overcrowding, psychological trauma and the general treatment of vulnerable asylum seekers. The extension of the concept of ‘safe third countries’ risks denying protection to those at risk of persecution and the focus on outsourcing migration management to countries with questionable human rights records undermines the normative power of the EU.
Ultimately, the pact presents an ambivalent picture: While it addresses important operational challenges, it does so at the expense of human rights and long-term migration solutions. The EU must now find the delicate balance between managing migration flows and upholding its commitment to international protection and humanitarian values, especially in a world where political pressure and migration crises are unlikely to abate any time soon.