In a significant shift in migration policy, the European Union has formally requested the involvement of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other UN agencies to support the establishment of “return hubs” outside the bloc’s borders. The initiative mirrors elements of the UK’s Rwanda model and aims to streamline the deportation of asylum seekers whose applications have been definitively rejected.
Plan Overview
Under the proposed framework, individuals who have exhausted all legal avenues for asylum within the EU would be transferred to designated third countries, including Tunisia, Mauritania, Jordan, Egypt, and Uganda. These return centers would operate under bilateral agreements, be funded by the European Union, and be supervised by international agencies to ensure oversight and legitimacy.
EU officials argue that involving UN bodies would provide the legal and humanitarian foundations needed to overcome previous legal obstacles, particularly those that blocked earlier attempts at extraterritorial processing and deportations.
Legal and Political Implications
The plan is being driven by a coalition of member states, notably Denmark, which currently holds a prominent role in shaping EU migration policy. Leaders have emphasized the need to address growing asylum backlogs and public pressure fueled by far-right parties across Europe.
Complementing this move, a new EU Return Directive, introduced in March 2025, proposes that deportation orders issued by one EU country become enforceable across all member states. This directive is designed to reduce delays caused by appeals and minimize the number of migrants evading deportation by moving between countries.
Human Rights Concerns
While the UNHCR has expressed conditional support for the initiative, it has also stressed the need for strict adherence to international refugee law, including the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning individuals to countries where they may face harm. The agency is also advocating for robust monitoring mechanisms within the hubs.
Human rights groups, however, have raised alarms. They warn that the plan could lead to the erosion of asylum protections, citing concerns about prolonged detention periods—potentially up to 24 months—family separations, and reliance on countries with poor human rights track records.
Next Steps
Before implementation, the proposal must secure approval from a majority of EU member states as well as the European Parliament. Negotiations are ongoing, with efforts focused on building consensus across a politically divided bloc.
At the same time, EU officials are stepping up diplomatic engagement with countries of origin, offering economic incentives and cooperation in return for their willingness to accept deported nationals.
Conclusion
The EU’s push to externalize parts of its migration policy represents a strategic attempt to address internal political pressures while maintaining international legal standards. Whether this initiative will succeed depends on balancing the need for effective border control with the obligation to protect human rights and uphold asylum laws.
