Safe Third Country Agreements: What is Happening to International Refugee Law?
States' responsibilities regarding refugees are shifting. In May 2025, the European Commission made a proposal to eliminate the requirement of a connection between the asylum seeker and the safe third country, as previously dictated by Asylum Procedure Regulation 2024/1348 (APR).[i]
According to Article 33 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, one of states’ main responsibilities towards refugees is the prohibition of expulsion or return, known as “refoulement”[ii] This article prevents States from expelling or returning any refugee to a territory where their life or freedom may be threatened. The relevance of this prohibition determines its absolute nature.[iii] Hence, international law recognizes direct and indirect (chain) refoulement as violations of this principle.
Under the Commission’s proposed legislation, the connection requirement need not exist, and mere transit through that country or a country with a Safe Third Country Agreement with the European Union would suffice for the return of asylum seekers. Hence, asylum seekers can be returned to the first safe country they have transited through, not one where they may have strong ties that could provide them a more secure position. Therefore, Member States will be able to return asylum seekers to a third country which those asylum seekers have already transited through and that is considered safe.[iv]
This removal of the connection requirement presents several questions under international law. Firstly, the risk of chain refoulement. Under Article 45 of the APR, for a third country to be designated as “safe,” solely formal ratification of the Refugee Convention is needed, not demonstrated implementation effectiveness.[v] The international organization Amnesty International has raised its concerns about the increased risk of chain refoulement and the removal of this requirement being against the purpose of the 1951 Refugee Convention and International Human Rights Law as a whole. Moreover, they argue that this proposed legislation will only provoke a shift in states’ responsibility and harm the refugee protection system around the globe.[vi]
When asylum seekers lack familial, linguistic or cultural ties to a territory, their ability to access protection mechanisms may be compromised due to their more vulnerable position.
Furthermore, this proposal will likely reshape the migration flows throughout the globe, making other territories seem more appealing or secure for asylum-approval goals. In addition, this shift in legislation will most likely lead to an increase in the need for legal guidance, information and support services at the earliest stages of the asylum-seeking process.
Secondly, from an International Human Rights Law perspective, the status of the protection of the rights of the asylum seekers could also be compromised. This legislative amendment proposed by the European Commission encourages reflection on how balance between efficiency in the management of asylum petitions and the guarantee of human rights will be achieved. Consideration of the Geneva Refugee Convention and the European Convention of Human Rights[vii] will be paramount. In order to comply with the obligations stated by these legislative bodies, states will need to endeavor to accurately monitor the proceedings and transparency about the “safe” status of Member States of the European Union and those non – Member States who wish to enter into a Safe Third Country Agreement with the European Union. On this note, the UN Refugee Agency stresses that “strong safeguards must be applied when sending asylum-seekers to a safe third country.”[viii]
Regarding the United States, in terms of policy-making, this precedent will likely be taken into account in asylum-related policies, notably to decide whether to allow asylum applications from people who have transited through other countries and possible future adjustments in already existing Safe Third Country Agreements (e.g., Mexico or Canada).
As to other major global powers outside of the European Union, such as the United Kingdom, this proposal by the European Commission may encourage the signing of new bilateral Safe Third Country Agreements and also the modification of domestic law regarding asylum in order to anticipate the reshape of global migration.
In conclusion, the European Commission’s proposal signals a willingness of the European Union to explore more innovative interpretations of the traditional standards established by customary international law. Furthermore, it will significantly contribute to the interpretation of migration within International Law. However, if not devised correctly, it could severely damage the international refugee protection system.
Laura Muñiz Lupiáñez is a staff member of Fordham International Law Journal Volume XLIX.
[i] See Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 establishing a common procedure for international protection (Asylum Procedure Regulation), art. 77, 2024 O.J. (L 134) 1.
[ii] See Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 137. This Convention, also known as the 1951 Geneva Convention or the Geneva Refugee Convention defines the condition of refugee and the states’ responsibilities towards them, including the non – refoulement prohibition. It has only been amended in one occasion by the 1967 Protocol. The United States has not ratified the 1951 Convention, but has accessed to implement the 1967 Protocol, which includes the core obligations of the 1951 Convention.
[iii] See Off. of the High Comm'r for Hum. Rts. (OHCHR), The Principle of Non-Refoulement Under International Human Rights Law, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Migration/GlobalCompactMigration/ThePrincipleNon-RefoulementUnderInternationalHumanRightsLaw.pdf
[iv] See European Commission, Commission welcomes political agreement on new rules to facilitate the application of the safe third country concept (Dec. 18, 2025)
[v] Supra note i, art. 45
[vi] Amnesty Int'l, Joint statement: EU ‘safe country’ and return proposals would seriously undermine protection and human dignity (July 1, 2025),
https://www.amnesty.eu/news/eu-safe-country-and-return-proposals-would-seriously-undermine-protection/
[vii] The European Convention of Human Rights, formally known as the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, establishes a range of rights and freedoms which are enforceable by the European Court of Human Rights. This convention has been ratified by all the parties of the Council of Europe.
[viii] European Asylum Support Office, UNHCR calls for stronger safeguards in EU proposal on asylum transfers to third countries (June 12, 2025) https://www.unhcr.org/europe/news/press-releases/unhcr-calls-stronger-safeguards-eu-proposal-asylum-transfers-third-countries
This is a student blog post and in no way represents the views of the Fordham International Law Journal.