The European Union's push to establish offshore return hubs for migrants risks creating "human rights black holes," warns Michael O'Flaherty, the Council of Europe commissioner for human rights. In a stark opinion piece, O'Flaherty cautions that without iron-clad legal safeguards, these centres will repeat the worst mistakes of past externalisation policies.
EU Moves Toward Outsourced Migration Management
After a European parliament vote, the EU's return regulation is nearing adoption, promising more efficient returns and swifter deportations. This gives member states legal cover to set up return hubs—offshore facilities to process people deemed to have no right to stay in the EU. Despite opposition from Spain and France, and outcry from rights groups, 19 EU member states signed an open letter urging "full use of the new possibilities," indicating implementation may be imminent. Frontrunners like Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, and the Netherlands are poised to establish joint hubs.
Politicisation and Human Rights Concerns
O'Flaherty notes that positions once dismissed as fringe and legally untenable have been rebranded as mainstream. The deep politicisation was evident when some MEPs chanted "Send them back" during the vote, celebrating the removal of human beings with campaign-like fervour. He argues that human rights protections are increasingly treated as disposable in the pursuit of stricter migration policies.
Historical Failures of Offshore Processing
O'Flaherty points to Australia's offshore processing on Nauru and Papua New Guinea, where thousands, including children, were subjected to years of arbitrary detention in inhumane conditions, resulting in severe trauma and at least 12 deaths. Israel's attempts in the 2010s to press Sudanese and Eritrean asylum seekers into "voluntary" relocation to Rwanda and Uganda resulted in abuse and legal limbo. In the US, holding Haitian refugees in Guantánamo Bay evolved into agreements leading to arbitrary detention, torture, and refoulement. The recent collaboration between US ICE and El Salvador's Cecot mega jail raises questions about importing such punitive models to Europe.
European Externalisation Failures
Europe's own history confirms the pattern. Longstanding violations in Libya and Tunisia demonstrate that migration cooperation aimed at preventing arrivals likely results in serious human rights violations. Italy's agreement with Albania has been beset by questions over EU law compatibility, severely restricting access to lawyers, interpreters, and judges. The UK's cooperation with Rwanda fell foul of the UK Supreme Court due to systemic weaknesses in Rwanda's asylum system, failing to guarantee safety from refoulement.
Four Essential Commitments
O'Flaherty insists that before any flights or funds are allocated, governments should make four commitments: fully assess human rights risks before any agreement, with clear avenues for complaints; allow rigorous independent real-time monitoring with an off switch if violations emerge; form legally binding agreements with judicially enforceable human rights clauses; and make all assessments, agreements, and reports public to guarantee scrutiny from courts, parliaments, media, and the public.
Demanding this rigour is the minimum required to mitigate risks. If European governments forge ahead, they must accept guardrails to prevent setting up human rights black holes, O'Flaherty concludes.
