Pushing Boundaries: Externalisation of Asylum and a Broad-based Reform Initiative

By Huub Verbaten, Warner ten Kate, Monika Sie Dhian Ho , + 1

Read report

©Clingendael

In short

The Netherlands and other European countries are seeking ways to reduce irregular migration and have turned to ‘externalisation’: moving (parts of) the asylum procedure outside Europe
Externalisation is possible under international law, but its implementation may conflict with European rights at the individual level
Externalisation performs poorly as a stand-alone measure: it is overly Eurocentric, and partner countries have limited incentives to cooperate
This calls for a broader reform package that involves international partners and places much greater emphasis on reception in the region (proximity protection). More legal migration and better funding for host countries should also form part of this package

Read this report in Dutch here

The report Pushing Boundaries examines the legal, political, and practical conditions under which (parts of) the asylum procedure could take place outside the EU (‘externalisation’). The analysis is set against a backdrop of increasing political pressure to control the number of asylum applications, alongside ongoing debates on reforming the international and European migration system.

The UN Refugee Convention does not in itself constitute a major obstacle; non-refoulement is the most important precondition. However, European rules in particular impose further constraints due to strong rights protections, individual risk assessments, and access to legal remedies. It is therefore essential to continue the discussion on interpreting and adapting EU legislation in Brussels and in national capitals. Recent amendments to EU legislation (the Asylum and Migration Pact, which will enter into force in June 2026) already broaden the possibilities for transferring applicants to ‘safe’ countries outside the EU.

The authors analyse five models: disembarkation platforms, screening along the migration route, an external border procedure in a non-EU country, complete outsourcing via the safe third country model, and return/transit hubs. For each model, the report outlines the design, legal implications, feasibility, risks, and existing case studies (including Italy-Albania, EU-Turkey, the United Kingdom-Rwanda, and the Dutch plans involving Uganda). The conclusion is that while these models may be legally viable, their practical implementation is highly complex and requires intensive cooperation, with significant risks of human rights violations, insufficient capacity in partner countries, and political resistance.

The report concludes that externalisation can only be effective if embedded within a broader reform initiative focused on shared global responsibility. This requires greater international involvement and a stronger commitment to protection closer to home (‘proximity protection’). This could be supported through stronger links between regional reception and migration cooperation, clearer and temporary forms of protection, improved funding for host countries, and selective legal migration pathways, with attention to potential brain-drain effects.

Read Report

In this updated version passages on page 29 (on the UN Human Rights Committee) and page 44 (on the Copenhagen Declaration), as well as three footnotes (30, 99, and 107) have been revised.