In July, Greece temporarily suspended processing asylum requests. This created an uproar among various humanitarian organizations, including the United Nations, which criticized the way Greece was handling the rapid influx of asylum seekers. The tension between international laws and the political will of nations continues as the number of asylum seekers and refugees increases.
Even so, this temporary suspension is a position many nations are forced into as refugees and asylum seekers are fleeing from nations which fail to take accountability for humanitarian crises. As a result, the European Union reformed their asylum system to reduce the strain on member countries. However, there has to be a line drawn between accountability and responsibility for each nation.
Binding legal obligations
Any person in danger would do almost anything to escape a destructive environment. But who should be held accountable for the millions of asylum seekers and refugees? The establishment of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in 1951, highlighted the difference between refugees and asylum seekers resides in their legal status. Refugees have already been recognized by their hosting country, while asylum seekers have to go through the process of being granted asylum. However, the hosting nation is not required to grant them asylum.
Despite this, many neighboring nations have to deal with these legal obligations due to the fact primary nations fail to use their power to protect and serve their citizens. To combat the responsibilities within hosting nations, the European Union created the Dublin Convention in 1990 and, since then, the Dublin regulations in 2003 and 2013. This is an EU law determining which country is responsible for an asylum claim. In practice, this causes legal strains for on-boarding countries like Greece, Italy and Spain. For instance, an asylum seeker arriving in Germany, but having to first enter the EU through Greece, would have to get their claim processed in Greece, not Germany. This was meant to lift certain burdens, yet countries like Greece lack sufficient support from other European Union member states.
In 2015, the EU had a temporary plan to relocate and distribute 160,000 asylum seekers from Greece and Italy to other member states in order to share responsibility during the peak of the European migrant crisis. However the relocation scheme failed to achieve that goal due to uncooperative countries such as Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland. In return, overwhelmed nations have to make do with limited housing, legal aid and health checks.
If there were more funds and workers such as translators to judges, the asylum process could be smoother. As well as having the ability to create more spaces to house such large masses. It is clear that while international laws are clear and impose binding legal obligations on hosting asylum seekers or refugees, it does not extend to the duties of non-hosting nations to step forward and give a hand.
This overburdened system could explain the reason why the Greek government responded to northern Africans seeking asylum by freezing asylum applications for a period and detaining asylum seekers in camps for up to 18 months. Even so, the situation still draws criticism from human rights groups and opposition parties, who argue the move is illegal and violates rights. It can be easy to critique when you aren’t the one taking on the burden of such responsibility while having limited resources and funds to facilitate these asylum seekers.
Other nations like Italy have created several laws and policies to stop or restrict asylum seekers from entering, such as the Security Decree law (2018) and Cutro Decree law (2023), which reduced reception centers and limited humanitarian protection.
This highlights the disconnect between international laws and the nations involved because the reality of taking in and handling hundreds of thousands to millions of asylum seekers and refugees is not a simple task. Laws put into place for asylum seekers do nothing to lift the burden off of frontline countries, so they do what they can with what they have which has caused criticisms and questioning of their actions.
The role of EU pact on migration and asylum seekers
The EU pact on migration and asylum seekers was first proposed in September 2020 and adopted in 2024, but is only expected to be fully applied by mid-2026. It is set to create a more unified and efficient system by securing external borders, setting clear rules for member states to share responsibility for asylum claims and enhancing cooperation with countries of origin and transit.
Though critics argue it will make it harder to seek protection and risks human rights violations, the point of the pact is to lessen the strain on European countries and allow them to give better assistance and protection without fretting about resources, funds and being overwhelmed with irregular arrivals. This pact is meant to support hosting nations while also abiding by international laws.
In addition, the pact signifies the importance of taking responsibility for not just members of the states but primary nations. In 2024, during the U.N. Security Council meeting on the Syrian regime, a French delegate noted, “the tyranny of the Syrian regime has led to the displacement of more than 13 million people. The UNHCR is not the problem — those responsible are in the Syrian regime.”
Instead of a refugees’ homeland providing them a safe place to live, stability and basic needs that should be met, other hosting nations have to provide these amenities. In other words, political leaders of some third-world countries continue in their destructive actions, such as proliferating wars and perpetuating authoritarian regimes and economic instability, without facing repercussions.
Moreover, this pact would manage another major issue — the number of displaced refugees and asylum seekers — by working together with the primary nation to return them to their country of origin. Independent Humanitarian Organization Concern Worldwide explained the increase in refugee displacement affects hosting communities that are left supporting refugee populations for years, even decades rather than mere months.
The future of Europe regarding asylum seekers
If the EU sticks to the pact once it’s enforced, the strain on host countries may lessen. It is easy to feel a strong moral impulse when it comes to vulnerable situations like this, because it is not hard to empathize with the impoverished conditions many asylum seekers and refugees come from. However, it is important to draw the line between the responsibilities that the hosting and the primary nations have to their citizens and refugees.
The measures taken by nations like Greece and Italy are a symptom of a dysfunctional system, where the principle of non-refoulement creates an immense burden, while countries of origin face zero accountability for generating the crisis. The EU Pact on Migration and Asylum represents a crucial policy step: by introducing mandatory solidarity and shared responsibility, it attempts to finally align moral obligations with practical realities.
Featured image: Photo by Julie Ricard on Unsplash
Edited by James Sutton & Abbigail Earl
