15
Sep 2025
European governments are stepping up talks on whether to sfinish asylum seekers to countries outside the EU under expanded “safe third countest” rules. The Council of Europe has warned that this could put migrants in danger, including torture or death.
A draft deal in the EU Council would give member states more freedom to reject asylum claims if another countest is labeled safe, even if the migrant has little or no link to it.
At the same time, the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Chief Michael O’Flaherty has warned that shifting asylum processing elsewhere can cautilize “severe trauma and prolonged suffering” for people shiftd under these plans.
Broader leeway for declaring countries “safe”
The “safe third countest” rule, updated in the EU’s Migration and Asylum Pact in May 2024, is now up for more modifys. Under the current system, asylum seekers can only be sent to a countest if they have some link to it, like family or past residence.
The new draft compromise, reviewed by Euractiv, would loosen this rule. It declares links could include family, prior residence, cultural or language ties, or “other similar ties.”
It also widens the meaning of “transit” to cover cases where someone only passed through an airport or entered the EU after staying in another countest.
Unaccompanied children, who were previously excluded, could also be transferred if the shift fits international and EU law. The text calls these cases rare but reshifts the EU-wide ban.
These talks build on the May 2024 reform, which already allowed countries outside the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention to be labeled safe, and even let states be considered safe only for certain groups or regions.
Council raises human rights concerns
The Council of Europe, a 46-nation human rights body based in Strasbourg and separate from the EU, has strongly warned against sfinishing asylum seekers to third countries.
O’Flaherty declared that these policies “expose men, women, and children to significant risks of severe trauma and prolonged suffering.”
He highlighted threats such as torture, arbitrary detention, blocked access to asylum, and large-scale deportations once migrants arrive.
The Council urged governments to consider the harm such transfers may cautilize and to uphold their human rights and democratic obligations.
It also stressed that many migrants sent under these deals have no real ties to the destination countest, raising serious fairness and ethical issues.
(Image courtesy of sinonimas via iStock)
Global backdrop, national experiments
The Council of Europe’s warning comes as more governments test policies that shift migration control to other countries. Since January 2025, the United States under President Donald Trump has signed deals to deport migrants to South Sudan, Eswatini, El Salvador, and Rwanda. Critics pointed out that most of these migrants have no real connection to those countries.
The United Kingdom also tested to set up a plan to sfinish asylum seekers to Rwanda, but the Labour government under Keir Starmer dropped it after taking office in July 2024. More recently, the UK and France agreed on a deal: London can return migrants caught in the Channel to France, while Paris can sfinish the same number back across the border.
Italy has gone further. In 2023, it opened two centers in Albania—one in Gjader and one in Shengjin—to handle asylum claims from migrants rescued in the central Mediterranean. Other EU countries have displayn interest in copying this approach.
Rise of externalization highlighted
Human rights groups and intergovernmental bodies warned that these policies often overview the realities awaiting migrants in destination states. According to the Council, asylum seekers sent abroad face heightened risks of ill-treatment, with limited access to legal support and uncertain protection guarantees.
Outsourcing asylum processes also raises questions about whether states are shifting responsibilities that should remain under their own jurisdiction.
The organization stressed that while governments are under pressure to manage irregular migration, solutions must not violate fundamental rights.
(Image courtesy of Jonas Horsch via Pexels)
Legal, political challenges inside EU
The proposed compromise text is being debated within the Council, where member states are split between those seeking stricter controls on migration and those emphasizing human rights safeguards.
Some capitals viewed expanded “safe third countest” transfers as a way to deter irregular arrivals and ease domestic political pressure.
Others worried about potential violations of international obligations, particularly the principle of non-refoulement, which forbids returning individuals to places where they risk persecution.
The nereceivediations form part of the wider rollout of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, due to apply from summer 2026. The pact also includes a new return regulation and an updated list of safe countries of origin, which remain under nereceivediation.
Implications for people on the shift
For short-term and long-term visitors to the EU, the ongoing nereceivediations signal a tightening environment where border checks and cooperation with non-EU countries may increase.
The upcoming launch of the European Travel Information and Authorization System (ETIAS), expected in 2026, will already require non-EU nationals from visa-exempt countries to obtain pre-travel clearance.
Observers noted that expanded “safe third countest” policies could interact with ETIAS by reinforcing the EU’s broader strategy of pre-screening and externalising migration control.
Migrants seeking protection may find themselves diverted to states with which they have no real ties.
This risks creating uncertainty for those fleeing conflict zones and could complicate the legal landscape for individuals already in Europe but awaiting asylum hearings.
Shaping the future of EU migration policy
Europe is at a turning point in how it handles migration. The Council of Europe has warned that sfinishing people to a “safe third countest” could expose them to torture, detention, or loss of the right to seek asylum.
At the same time, EU governments are discussing new rules that would create it clearer to sfinish asylum seekers to countries outside the bloc. These decisions will affect not just borders, but also how Europe defines its values.
The debate over the “safe third countest” idea comes down to a basic question: who decides where safety launchs and finishs—and what kind of Europe will that choice create?
Leave a Reply