Modern Trends in International Legal Regulation of Forced Migration: “Externalization” of International Protection

INTRODUCTION. Problems related to forced migration continue to be one of the priority and sensitive issues in many countries. The article analyzes various initiatives of individual States related to the transfer of forced migrants to third countries and the consideration of their applications for international protection outside their territory on the basis of international agreements or political arrangements. This practice represents one of the modern trends in the international legal regulation of forced migration. In scientific doctrine and in separate acts published by the UNHCR, it is referred to as the “externalization” of international protection. The relevance of the study is due to the growing number of forced migrants and tightening of migration policies in the host countries.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article examines examples of both bilateral agreements on the “externalization” of international protection and proposals by the Commission of the European Union (hereinafter – EU) to consolidate this practice at the level of EU law. Individual EU member States, primarily Italy, are developing a trend of extraterritorial application of national legislation in the field of legal regulation of certain aspects of forced migration on the territory of another State, which must also comply with EU law. The authors pay special attention to the legal analysis of the “migration agreements” of individual states, in particular the Protocol on the Extraterritorial Management of Migration between the Government of the Italian Republic and the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Albania 2023 and its consequences, as well as the Proposal of the EU Commission on the adoption of a new Return Regulation. The research used historical, formal legal, comparative legal methods, the method of system analysis, etc.
THE RESEARCH RESULTS. It has been revealed that “externalization” takes various forms, including extraterritorial consideration of applications, measures to intercept migrants, transfer of responsibilities to third countries, etc. However, such practices are often accompanied by human rights violations, including restrictions on access to asylum and the risk of forced expulsion. Judicial authorities have repeatedly recognized such measures as illegal.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The study demonstrates that the policy of “externalization” contradicts the principles of global solidarity and fair distribution of responsibilities. Despite attempts to formalize guarantees for migrants, the risks of violations remain high, especially when transferred to countries with underdeveloped asylum systems. The author emphasizes the need to comply with international standards and strengthen the role of judicial control to prevent abuse. In conclusion, it is noted that the further development of this practice requires an integrated approach that takes into account both the security of States and the protection of the rights of forced migrants.

1. Bar-Tuvia Sh. Australian and Israeli Agreements for the Permanent Transfer of Refugees: Stretching Further the (Il)legality and (Im)morality of Western Externalization Policies. – International Journal of Refugee Law. 2018. Vol. 30. Issue 3. P. 474-511.

2. Bill F., Kysel I.M., Podkul J. The impact of externalization of migration controls on the rights of asylum seekers and other migrants. – Journal on Migration and Human Security 4.4. 2016. P. 190-220. URL: https://journals.sage-pub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/233150241600400402 (accessed date: 1.08.2025).

3. Birjukov M.M., Aliev D.M. Dublinskoe regulirovanie: istorija stanovlenija i soderzhanie [Dublin regulation: the history of its formation and content]. – Moskovskij zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava [Moscow Journal of International Law]. 2018. № 2. S. 115-125. URL: https://www.mjil.ru/jour/article/view/261?locale=ru_RU (data obrashhenija: 01.08.2025). (In Russ.)

4. Cantor D., Tan N.F., Gkliati M., Mavropoulou E., Allinson K., Chakrabarty S., Grundler M., Hillary L., McDonnell E., Moodley R., Phillips St., Pijnenburg A., Reyhani A.-N., Soares S., Yacoub N. Externalisation, Access to Territorial Asylum, and International Law. – International Journal of Refugee Law. 2022. Vol. 34. Issue 1. P. 120-156.

5. Dastyari A., Ghezelbash D. Asylum at Sea: The Legality of Shipboard Refugee Status Determination Procedures. – International Journal of Refugee Law. 2020. Vol. 32. Issue 1. P. 1-27. URL: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol29/iss1/7 (accessed date: 1.08.2025).

6. Dinas E, Matakos K, Xefteris D, Hangartner D. Waking Up the Golden Dawn: Does Exposure to the Refugee Crisis Increase Support for Extreme-Right Parties? – Political Analysis. 2019. Vol. 27 (2). P. 244-254. URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-analysis/article/waking-up-the-golden-dawn-does-exposure-to-the-refugee-crisis-increase-support-for-extremeright-par-ties/C50A127CC517968F2D0FA42A2A23FF85 (accessed date: 1.08.2025).

7. Goodwin-Gill G. After the Cold War: asylum and the refugee concept move on. – Forced Migration Review. 2001. Vol. 10. URL: https://www.fmreview.org/goodwingill-2/ (accessed date: 1.08.2025).

8. Goodwin-Gill G. The Right to Seek Asylum: Interception at Sea and the Principle of Non-Refoulement. – International Journal of Refugee Law. 2011. Vol. 23. Issue 3. P. 455-457.

9. Holly G. Transnational Tort and Access to Remedy under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Kamasaee v. Commonwealth. – Melbourne Journal of International Law. 2018. Vol. 19. No. 1.

10. Ivanov D.V., Pchelinceva V.V. Migracionnaja politika Velikobritanii posle Breksita: mezhdunarodno-pravovye aspekty [UK migration policy after Brexit: International legal aspects]. – Pravo i upravlenie XXI vek [Law and Governance. XXI century]. 2022. T. 18. № 4 (65). S. 34-46. URL: https://mgimopravo.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/366?locale=ru_RU (data obrashhenija: 01.08.2025). (In Russ.)

11. Jerzhon M., Giola K. «Jeksternalizacija» migracionnoj politiki i politiki predostavlenija ubezhishha Evropejskogo sojuza: kejs soglashenija mezhdu Italiej i Albaniej [“Externalization” of migration and asylum policy of the European Union: a case study of the agreement between Italy and Albania]. – Vestnik mezhdunarodnyh organizacij: obrazovanie, nauka, novaja jekonomika. [Bulletin of International Organizations: education, Science, New Economy]. 2024. № 4. S. 40-60. URL: https://cyber-leninka.ru/article/n/eksternalizatsiya-migratsionnoy-politiki-i-politiki-predostavleniya-ubezhischa-evrope-yskogo-soyuza-keys-soglasheniya-mezhdu-italiey (data obrashhenija: 09.08.2025). (In Russ.)

12. Koh H. America’s Offshore Refugee Camps. – 29 Richmond Law Review. 1995. Vol. 139. Р. 139-173.

13. Magner T. A Less than ‘Pacific’ Solution for Asylum Seekers in Australia. – International Journal of Refugee Law. 2004. Vol. 16. Issue 1. P. 79-81.

14. McAdam J. Australia and Asylum Seekers. – International Journal of Refugee Law. 2013. Vol. 25. Issue 3. P. 439.

15. Osso B.N. Unpacking the Safe Third Country Concept in the European Union: B/orders, Legal Spaces, and Asylum in the Shadow of Externalization. – International Journal of Refugee Law. 2023. Vol. 35. Issue 3. P. 278-279. URL: https://academic.oup.com/ijrl/article/35/3/272/7477630?searchresult=1#438928376 (accessed date: 1.08.2025).

16. Perez C.S. The Securitization of Asylum: A Review of UK Asylum Laws Post-Brexit. – International Journal of Refugee Law. 2023. Vol. 35. Issue 3. P. 304-321. URL: https:// academic.oup.com/ijrl/article/35/3/304/7468515?searchresult=1 (accessed date: 23.08.2025).

17. Pijnenburg A. Migration Deals Seen through the Lens of the ICESCR. – International Journal of Refugee Law. 2023. Vol. 35. Issue 2. P. 151-170. URL: https://academ-ic.oup.com/ijrl/article/35/2/151/7222888?searchresult=1#426896082 (accessed date: 1.08.2025).

18. Potemkina O.Ju. Perspektivy realizacii Pakta o migracii i ubezhishhe [Prospects for the implementation of the Migration and Asylum Pact]. – Evropejskij Sojuz: fakty i kommentarii [The European Union: facts and comments]. 2025. № 119. S. 43-47. (In Russ.)

19. Taylor S. Australia’s Funded Care and Maintenance of Asylum Seekers in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea: All Care but No Responsibility? – University of New South Wales Law Journal. 2010. Vol. 33. Issue 2. P. 337-359. URL: https://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/33-2-12.pdf (accessed date: 23.08.2025).

20. Zaharov I.A., Agafoshin M.M. Jeksternalizacija politiki ubezhishha Britanii posle brekzita [The externalization of Britain’s asylum policy after Brexit]. – Sovremennaja Evropa [Modern Europe]. 2024. № 2 (123). URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/eksternalizatsiya-poli-tiki-ubezhischa-britanii-posle-brekzita (data obrash-henija: 05.08.2025). (In Russ.)