Lara Kajs
Dispatches from the Field — The Genocide Report
Washington, DC — 23 March 2016
The March 2016 agreement between the European Union and Turkey marked a pivotal moment in the governance of migration and refugee protection in Europe. Designed to curb irregular migration flows, the deal introduced a returns mechanism that raised immediate legal and ethical concerns. By prioritizing migration control objectives over established protection frameworks, the agreement highlighted the growing tension between political expediency and compliance with international refugee law.
Policy Design and Strategic Objectives
The EU–Turkey deal, which came into effect on 20 March 2016, established a mechanism whereby migrants and asylum seekers arriving in Greece without authorization could be returned to Turkey. Central to the agreement was a “one-for-one” arrangement: for each Syrian returned to Turkey, another Syrian refugee would be resettled in the European Union.
In exchange, Turkey was offered financial assistance totaling €3.3 billion, the prospect of visa liberalization within the Schengen Area, and renewed momentum in its European Union accession process. The stated objective of the agreement was to reduce irregular crossings and restore control over Europe’s external borders following the arrival of more than one million displaced individuals in 2015.
Supporters of the policy, including key European leaders, framed the agreement as a necessary measure to stabilize migration flows and reestablish orderly asylum procedures.
Legal Concerns and the Principle of Non-Refoulement
The agreement was met with immediate criticism from humanitarian organizations and legal experts, who argued that its implementation risked violating core principles of international refugee law. Chief among these concerns is the prohibition against collective expulsion, enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and reinforced by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The principle of non-refoulement, a cornerstone of the 1951 Refugee Convention, prohibits the return of individuals to countries where they may face persecution, violence, or other serious harm. Critics contend that the blanket return of asylum seekers to Turkey, without individualized assessment, undermines this principle.
Statements from United Nations officials further underscored these concerns, emphasizing that any return mechanism must include robust procedural safeguards to ensure that individuals’ rights are protected.
When migration control policies override legal protections, the right to seek asylum risks becoming conditional rather than guaranteed.”
Implementation Challenges and Humanitarian Risks
The operationalization of the EU–Turkey deal presents significant logistical and humanitarian challenges. Questions remain regarding the capacity of both Greece and Turkey to process asylum claims efficiently while ensuring compliance with international legal standards.
The policy also raises concerns about the treatment of vulnerable populations, including unaccompanied minors and individuals with specific protection needs. The prospect of forced returns and detention has led several humanitarian organizations to reassess their involvement in the response.
In practice, the agreement seeks to deter migration by signaling that irregular entry into Europe will not result in resettlement. However, for many individuals fleeing armed conflict, persecution, and human rights violations, deterrence measures are unlikely to outweigh the imperative of seeking safety.
Externalization of Protection Responsibilities
A central feature of the EU–Turkey deal is the effective externalization of asylum processing and refugee protection. By designating Turkey as a primary country for returns, the European Union has shifted a significant portion of its protection responsibilities beyond its borders.
This approach raises broader questions about the sustainability and legality of outsourcing asylum obligations to third countries, particularly where human rights protections may be inconsistent. Reports indicating that Turkey has, at times, returned refugees to conflict zones further complicate its designation as a “safe third country.”
The agreement reflects a broader trend in migration governance, in which states seek to limit arrivals through external partnerships rather than expanding protection mechanisms.
Atrocity Prevention Lens
The EU–Turkey deal intersects with atrocity prevention concerns by restricting access to asylum for populations fleeing conflict, persecution, and mass violence. Limiting safe and legal pathways to protection may increase reliance on dangerous migration routes and expose displaced individuals to exploitation, trafficking, and further harm.
Policies that externalize protection responsibilities and prioritize deterrence can also contribute to the normalization of restrictive practices that undermine international norms. Over time, such approaches risk weakening the global refugee protection regime, particularly in contexts where large populations are fleeing atrocity crimes.
Effective prevention strategies require maintaining access to asylum, ensuring compliance with non-refoulement obligations, and supporting equitable burden-sharing among states.
Legal Framework
951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol
The Refugee Convention establishes the right to seek asylum and prohibits refoulement. Any policy involving the return of asylum seekers must ensure individualized assessment and protection against return to unsafe conditions.
European Convention on Human Rights
The Convention prohibits collective expulsion and requires that individuals have access to due process in removal proceedings. The EU–Turkey deal raises concerns regarding compliance with these obligations, particularly in cases of expedited returns.
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
Article 19 of the Charter explicitly forbids collective expulsions and reinforces the principle of non-refoulement. The implementation of the agreement must be evaluated against these legal standards to ensure adherence to EU law.
Suggested Citation
Kajs, Lara. “Realpolitik and International Refugee Law: The EU–Turkey Deal and the Erosion of Asylum Protections.” Dispatches from the Field. The Genocide Report, Washington, DC, 23 March 2016.
Photo Credit
Syrian refugees arrive in Lesbos Greece. Freedom House – Licensed under CC 2.0 license.
About TGR
The Genocide Report (TGR) publishes analysis and educational resources on conflict, international law, and atrocity prevention. Its work seeks to bridge academic research, field realities, and public understanding of mass violence and civilian protection.
About the Author
Lara Kajs is the founder and executive director of The Genocide Report, a Washington, DC-based educational nonprofit focused on atrocity prevention and international law. She is the author of several field-based books on conflict, displacement, humanitarian crises, and international humanitarian law, drawing on extensive research and field experience in Yemen, Syria, and Afghanistan. Her writing and public speaking focus on atrocity crimes, forced displacement, the protection of civilians, and the legal frameworks governing armed conflict.