European ministers are convening in Moldova this week for a high-stakes series of discussions that could fundamentally reshape how the continent handles rejected asylum seekers. At the center of the agenda is a proposal to shift from unilateral deportation schemes to a multilateral system of “third-country hubs,” where individuals whose claims for protection have been denied would be relocated outside of European borders.
Alain Berset, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, confirmed that these discussions will take place “at a multilateral level” during a meeting in Chișinău this Friday. The move signals a strategic pivot for several European governments that have struggled to repatriate migrants to their home countries, often finding themselves blocked by legal challenges centered on human rights protections.
Beyond the logistics of relocation, the meeting is expected to produce a political declaration recognizing the right of sovereign nations to control their borders. This declaration arrives amid growing friction between interior ministers—including the UK’s Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood—and the legal frameworks of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which some officials argue has been interpreted too broadly, impeding the removal of foreign criminals and rejected asylum seekers.
The Shift Toward Multilateral ‘Return Hubs’
For years, the concept of “third-country processing” has been pursued primarily as a national experiment, most notably by the United Kingdom. However, Berset suggested that moving the conversation to a multilateral stage is a form of “progress,” allowing political elements that were previously handled in isolation to be addressed collectively.
The European Union has already signaled a willingness to explore this path, with Denmark, Austria, Greece, Germany, and the Netherlands involved in preliminary talks. The goal is to establish hubs in safe third countries that can accept rejected applicants, thereby reducing the number of people remaining in Europe in legal limbo.
While no final agreements have been signed, reports indicate that discussions have centered on 12 potential partner countries:
- Africa: Rwanda, Ghana, Senegal, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania, Egypt, Uganda, Ethiopia
- Asia/Caucasus: Uzbekistan, Armenia
- Europe: Montenegro
Despite the push for efficiency, Berset emphasized that the Council of Europe remains committed to the principle that any individual removed from “European soil” must still be protected by the ECHR. “We are dealing with human beings,” Berset stated, noting that the conditions in destination countries remain a “decisive” factor in the legality of such transfers.
The Legal Friction: Articles 3 and 8
The primary obstacle to these removals has been the ECHR, specifically Articles 3 and 8. Article 3 prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, while Article 8 protects the right to a private and family life. Human rights organizations argue that these protections are the final line of defense for the most vulnerable, including those fleeing war and persecution.
Critics within several European governments, however, contend that these articles are being used as “loopholes” to block the removal of individuals who pose no threat and have no legal right to remain. The proposed political declaration in Chișinău aims to curb the ways in which these articles are used to resist deportation. While the declaration will not be legally binding, it would serve as a formal signal to courts and lawyers that national border control should be given greater weight.
| Feature | Unilateral Approach (e.g., UK-Rwanda) | Proposed Multilateral Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Basis | National legislation/bilateral deals | Coordinated political declaration |
| Oversight | National courts / ECHR | Multilateral framework / ECHR |
| Implementation | Single-country funding/logistics | Shared EU/Council of Europe resources |
| Primary Goal | Deterrence through removal | Systemic efficiency in returns |
The UK’s Strategic Pivot
For the UK government, the Moldova meeting is a critical juncture. The previous Conservative administration spent approximately £715 million on a plan to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda, a policy that was ultimately scrapped after the Supreme Court ruled Rwanda was not a safe country. The plan failed to relocate a single person before being cancelled.
Under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the government has shifted its focus toward “return hubs.” Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood informed MPs in November that the Home Office is in “active negotiations” with several countries, though no deals have been confirmed. This shift is partly a response to domestic political pressure, with the rise of Reform UK in the polls pushing the government toward more stringent enforcement of removal orders.
The tension is palpable: while the current government seeks a pragmatic, multilateral solution, opposition figures from the Conservatives and Reform UK have suggested that withdrawing from the ECHR entirely may be the only way to achieve full border control.
The Enforcement Gap
The urgency driving these discussions is reflected in the data. According to Eurostat, the EU’s statistical office, between 450,000 and 500,000 third-country nationals were ordered to leave the EU annually over the seven years leading up to 2023. However, fewer than half of those individuals were actually returned.
Supporters of the hub system argue that this “enforcement gap” creates a perverse incentive for irregular migration, as rejected applicants often remain in Europe indefinitely because their home countries refuse to take them back or the destination is deemed unsafe.
Disclaimer: This article discusses ongoing legal interpretations of international treaties and immigration policy. It is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
The outcome of Friday’s meeting in Chișinău will be the first clear indicator of whether European nations can reach a consensus on the legality and morality of third-country hubs. The next confirmed checkpoint will be the publication of the political declaration, if agreed upon, which will outline the new guidelines for border control and ECHR interpretation.
Do you believe multilateral hubs are a viable solution to the migration crisis, or do they undermine fundamental human rights? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Related reading
