- 'This gives a very bad impression, as the EU is behaving like a post-colonial actor, because clearly, this is as if third countries are ready to accept anything from it,' international legal expert Vincent Chetail tells Anadolu
- Despite the risks of harm and human rights violations, Brussels is looking to outsource responsibility for migrants who are 'difficult to deport,' said migration researcher Arjen Leerkes
ISTANBUL
As part of a broader effort to harden its migration policy, the EU is advancing a controversial plan to establish deportation centers in third countries — an initiative that rights groups and legal experts warn could trigger serious violations of international norms and leave migrants in precarious conditions.
The proposal that the European Commission presented last month aims to provide legal backing for a developing EU strategy to deport rejected asylum seekers to third countries.
Under the plan, migrants who have received final deportation orders but remain within EU borders could be removed to “return hubs” outside the bloc. These facilities would be operated through bilateral agreements between member states and third countries, supported by funds from Brussels but managed independently of the EU.
“We will be stricter where there are security risks,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said as she unveiled the proposal.
The commission argues that the measure is necessary due to the bloc’s chronically low return rates. In 2023 alone, more than 480,000 people were ordered to leave the EU, yet only around 20% actually returned to countries outside the bloc.
To remedy this, the new Common European System for Returns seeks to standardize enforcement of deportation orders across member states, reduce absconding, and streamline the removal process with third countries.
But the proposal has drawn swift backlash from rights advocates and legal scholars, who caution that the strategy risks exporting the EU’s obligations, shirking accountability, and undermining long-standing protections for migrants and asylum seekers.
‘Post-colonial behavior’ and legal pitfalls
For Vincent Chetail, director of the Geneva-based Global Migration Centre and an expert in international law, the EU’s push to formalize deportation hubs abroad is not only legally problematic, but politically revealing.
“This gives a very bad impression, as the EU is behaving like a post-colonial actor, because clearly, this is as if third countries are ready to accept anything from it,” Chetail told Anadolu.
Though the commission claims the new proposal simply establishes a legal foundation for cooperation, Chetail warns that codifying such plans into EU law does not make them inherently lawful. He cited major concerns about the legality of detaining migrants without time limits and the lack of clear oversight or accountability mechanisms.
“In the long run, clearly, the illegality of this process will be contested and acknowledged by the courts,” he said, emphasizing that while states have a sovereign right to manage borders, that cannot come at the expense of fundamental rights.
Chetail also sees the proposal as a way to justify controversial agreements that already exist, such as Italy’s deal with Albania.
Last week, Italy deported 40 rejected asylum seekers to Italian-run detention facilities in Albania, which is located across the Adriatic Sea. This marks the first time an EU nation relocated migrants to a third country that was neither their origin nor a transit point.
However, some of those deported returned to Italy after Albanian courts rejected their detention.
“This new EU proposal is simply a way to save the Italy-Albania agreement,” Chetail said.
Outsourcing responsibility: Lessons from the UK-Rwanda plan
The EU’s plan bears strong resemblance to a previous attempt by the UK, which signed a agreement with Rwanda in 2022 to process irregular migrants offshore. The deal faced extensive legal challenges, public opposition, and budget overruns, eventually being scrapped by the UK’s new government.
“Deals to externalise migration management always carry huge human rights risks … Something that violates human rights can never be an effective solution,” said the advocacy officer of the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), an NGO focused on undocumented migrant rights.
In a written statement to Anadolu, the group criticized the EU’s growing focus on deportation and returns, attributing it to pressure from far-right political forces fueling “fear and anger.”
“The focus on deportation centres is perhaps new, but restrictive policies both at the EU and national levels already leave millions of people in vulnerable situations,” said Silvia Carta, advocacy officer at PICUM.
The group warned that return hubs risk enabling arbitrary detention, a lack of independent monitoring, and a heightened danger of so-called chain deportations — where individuals are sent from one third country to another, without meaningful access to legal recourse or safety guarantees.
Migrants could be left in legal and social limbo
Under current EU rules, rejected asylum seekers can be deported only to their home countries, to a transit country with which the EU has a formal agreement, or — if they consent — to another third country.
The new system would loosen those requirements by enabling member states to strike their own deals with non-EU countries and bypass direct EU accountability for the treatment of migrants held in those facilities.
Arjen Leerkes, a professor of migration and coordinator at FAiR Return — an EU-funded project on return policy — argues that the approach reflects a clear attempt to shift responsibility.
“If they do that, they don’t have to care for groups that are difficult to deport,” Leerkes told Anadolu.
He also suggested that policymakers are hoping the mere existence of third-country hubs will serve as psychological leverage. “By having that option, European policymakers also hope that more people will accept to return to their country of citizenship, because they don’t want to go to a third country.”
Yet, Leerkes warned, the reality could be grim for many migrants, particularly those sent to unfamiliar countries where they have no social ties, no understanding of the language, and few legal protections.
They could be “victimized” due to their vulnerability, he cautioned.
Alternative approaches to return policy
Rather than large-scale detention schemes, Leerkes said his research shows that small, individualized bilateral agreements tend to be more effective at facilitating returns while respecting international standards.
He recommends that the EU shift its focus toward faster and more transparent asylum processes, better information for migrants in their native languages, and more humane, individualized return strategies.
“If they receive information in their own language and believe they can trust it, rather than feeling it’s from a state official trying to convince them to return, it can be more effective,” Leerkes noted.
He also stressed the importance of avoiding asylum processes that are either too rushed or overly delayed. “If you reject people immediately, they will not accept it.”
Political backing amid legal and ethical uncertainty
The new deportation plan plugs a gap in the EU’s broader Pact on Migration and Asylum and has gained support from right-wing factions within the European Council and Parliament.
The Commission claims that the proposed hubs would include some form of monitoring mechanism, but critics note that no details have been provided about how independent oversight would be ensured — or whether those returned to third countries would have access to legal representation.
As EU member states prepare to enter negotiations with potential host countries, rights groups continue to sound the alarm.
“Deportation centres are the latest way in which the EU is trying to externalise and evade its responsibility on human rights frameworks that should guide the response to human mobility,” said Carta from PICUM.
