The European Union’s approach to asylum, anchored in the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and guided by the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, is under unprecedented strain. Designed to provide uniform standards, equitable responsibility-sharing, and protection for those fleeing persecution, these frameworks are increasingly criticized as outdated and inadequate in the face of modern migratory pressures.
From the Mediterranean’s crisis-prone borders to urban integration challenges in Europe’s heartland, the system reveals cracks, raising an uncomfortable question: Should a universal law developed post-WWII still bind states to accept individuals from anywhere in the world, even when these individuals bypass numerous other safe countries along the way?
The governments in Europe are now demanding more control, pointing to the reality that asylum seekers should apply in regions closer to their home countries rather than undertaking long journeys to Europe. This shift in perspective reflects a growing frustration with existing international law, which some see as outdated and out of touch with the current political and security trends. The Geneva Convention, in its current form, is often viewed as a hindrance to national policy control, and sovereignty is fast becoming a core concern for European governments.
This article investigates whether the Geneva Convention is still fit for purpose, and to what extent must it be revised to align with 21st-century realities.
The Geneva Convention: Timeless principles, time-bound framework
Originally designed in the aftermath of World War II, the Geneva Convention was meant to address displacement caused by persecution primarily by state actors, mostly within Europe. Today’s migration flows, however, are far more complex, often involving mixed motives, cross-regional movements, and the influence of non-state threats—making the Convention’s narrow definitions increasingly ill-suited.
In the 21st century, the vast majority of migrants arriving in Europe come from regions with no historical ties to the continent. Asylum seekers from distant parts of the world — some having passed through numerous countries with functioning asylum systems — now claim asylum on the grounds of the Geneva Convention. This exploitation of international law places an additional burden on European asylum systems, which were never designed to accommodate such migratory patterns. This generates tensions between international legal obligations and states’ sovereign rights to control borders and migration policies — raising the question of whether the current interpretation of the Convention has become more of a legal liability than a protective tool.
New threats, old tools: Outdated scope in a changing world
The Geneva Convention, while historically foundational, increasingly appears misaligned with the nature of contemporary displacement. It fails to adequately recognize emerging drivers of forced migration: climate change, environmental disasters, or generalized violence carried out by non-state actors—all significant contributors to global displacement but beyond the Convention’s original scope.
Similarly, the Convention provides insufficient coverage for contemporary vulnerabilities. Protection needs arising from gender-based violence, LGBTQ+ persecution, child trafficking, or the use of digital surveillance by authoritarian regimes are only partially acknowledged—if at all—within the Convention’s legal structure.
In the absence of global consensus on reform, countries have filled these gaps with national solutions. This has led to legal fragmentation and inconsistent protection. Some states have adopted complementary protection mechanisms; others have rejected these broader definitions, resulting in stark disparities. This lack of uniformity fosters legal uncertainty for asylum seekers and exacerbates inconsistencies in refugee treatment across the continent.
Fragmentation and “asylum shopping” in the European Union
Moreover, the Convention’s outdated functionality has led to the emergence of legal grey zones and loopholes—exploited by smugglers, traffickers, and even by individuals who intentionally manipulate the asylum process. Some applicants destroy travel documents, obscure their identities, or fabricate narratives to enhance their chances of success. While some of these actions may be rooted in desperation, they erode public trust and bolster the rhetoric of populist movements that argue, “the system is broken.”
To make the long story short at the heart of the dysfunction lies the absence of a unified, modern vetting framework across the European Union—a gap that has enabled wide divergences in national asylum procedures and legal interpretations. This legal fragmentation has directly fostered the phenomenon of “asylum shopping,” whereby applicants navigate the system in search of Member States with higher recognition rates, more generous welfare provisions, or faster processing times. Such disparities not only undermine the principle of equal treatment but also incentivize irregular secondary movements across the Schengen Zone.
Crucially, the Geneva Convention offers no provisions for managing this type of intra-European movement, having been drafted for a world where asylum was a point-to-point process rather than part of a multilayered international system. Although the CEAS was conceived to harmonize standards and close legal loopholes, it has proven politically fragile and operationally inconsistent—failing to establish a cohesive and credible framework for asylum governance in Europe.
The weaponization of migration
Migration has increasingly become a political tool and, in some instances, a weapon used by state and non-state actors alike. In recent years, political actors have deliberately manipulated migration flows to test the limits of European borders and asylum frameworks. Some critics argue that asylum seekers themselves are occasionally coerced into undertaking dangerous journeys as part of geopolitical gamesmanship. The Geneva Convention is silent on these dynamics, further intensifying debates about its adequacy.
Moreover, public perception plays a critical role. Asylum seekers are often portrayed in European discourse as “unauthorized arrivals” or even “infiltrators,” not as people fleeing genuine persecution. Such narratives, coupled with perceived systemic abuse, erode the Convention’s moral authority and delegitimize international protection in the eyes of citizens.
Incentives for irregular and dangerous journeys
The current interpretation of the Geneva Convention indirectly encourages irregular and dangerous migration to Europe. Many asylum seekers, particularly from conflict-ridden regions, undertake perilous journeys through multiple countries, hoping to reach Europe and claim asylum. This not only fuels smuggling networks and trafficking rings but also results in countless deaths along migratory routes.
By incentivizing long-distance travel through unstable regions, the current system creates humanitarian crises at borders and overwhelms reception facilities. The lack of comprehensive migration agreements that balance asylum rights with effective border control deepens these crises.
Critics argue that the Geneva Convention, in its current form, fails to address such dynamics. It permits individuals to exploit legal and logistical gaps between states, thereby placing undue pressure on frontline countries like Italy, Greece, and Spain—states with no specific ties to the applicants they receive.
The Convention’s silence on return mechanisms
Another glaring deficiency is the Geneva Convention’s silence on return mechanisms. While it outlines the rights of individuals to seek protection, it offers no framework for managing those whose claims are rejected.
In today’s reality—where a significant portion of asylum applications are denied—this imbalance leads to political backlash. Many failed asylum seekers remain in legal limbo, often unable to be returned due to a lack of bilateral agreements or unwillingness by countries of origin to cooperate.
Domestic frustration grows as taxpayers fund individuals who, under national law, have no legal basis to stay. Without a credible return mechanism embedded in international law, states are left politically exposed.
Furthermore, the Convention was never intended to be a migration management tool. Yet, in today’s world, asylum and migration are inextricably linked. Its post-WWII architecture—noble in spirit—has become ill-suited to today’s prolonged, mixed-motive, and globalized migratory landscape.
The strain of 21st-century realities
The Geneva Convention, once a landmark of post-war humanitarianism, now stands strained under the weight of 21st-century geopolitical realities. While its principles remain morally resonant, its structure is increasingly disconnected from the complex nature of modern displacement and the political demands facing European states. The Convention’s silence on return mechanisms, its inability to account for non-traditional drivers of forced migration, and its rigid legal scope have created space for divergent national interpretations and procedural inconsistencies. These gaps have not only encouraged “asylum abuse” and irregular movement but also eroded public trust in the legitimacy of international protection.
Meanwhile, Europe’s asylum framework—fractured by a patchwork of national standards and hampered by the political fragility of the CEAS—has become fertile ground for exploitation, both by opportunistic actors and by hostile states weaponizing migration flows. In the absence of coherent enforcement tools or equitable burden-sharing mechanisms, frontline states are left overexposed, while others disengage. This fragmented system fuels domestic political resentment, particularly when failed asylum applicants remain in legal limbo due to weak return mechanisms or diplomatic inertia.
Reimagining protection: Toward a unified asylum framework
The convergence of humanitarian obligations and security concerns in today’s asylum politics demands a new legal-political synthesis—one that upholds the spirit of protection without allowing its loopholes to undermine state sovereignty or democratic legitimacy. As Kofi Annan once stated, “The Geneva Conventions are not a luxury; they are an imperative, without which humanity cannot be sustained.” This means reassessing the Geneva Convention not as a relic to be dismantled, but as a foundational text in need of intelligent revision and contextualization.
Europe must advocate for an updated international framework that distinguishes genuine claims from systemic abuse, balances solidarity with responsibility, and embeds both protection and return within a single, credible architecture. Without such recalibration, international protection risks becoming not only politically unsustainable but morally compromised—a noble ideal rendered obsolete by its own rigidity.
References
● UNHCR (2023). Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2022. Geneva.
● European Commission (2020). New Pact on Migration and Asylum.
● Guild, E., Costello, C., & Garlick, M. (2021). The 1951 Convention: A Commentary. Oxford University Press.
● Chetail, V. (2019). International Migration Law. Oxford.
● Peers, S. (2023). EU Asylum Reform: A Critical Overview. EU Law Analysis Blog.
* Marios Kaleas is General Director of the Greek Asylum Service and Deputy Chair of the Management Board of the European Agency for Asylum (EUAA).