The ‘safe third country’ concept turns out to be an empty shell

In her recently completed research, Dr. Gaia Romeo exposes the reality behind the EU’s ‘safe third country’ policy. She focuses on the only case in which that policy has already been applied on a large scale: Greece. There, the concept was used to reject asylum applications and return asylum seekers under the return policy resulting from the 2016 EU-Turkey Statement.

In June 2026, the new EU Migration and Asylum Pact came into full effect. Together with the new Return Regulation, this far-reaching reform of asylum legislation paves the way for greater externalization—that is to say, shifting the reception of asylum seekers outside the EU—of asylum policy in the coming years.

One such policy measure is the EU’s policy on safe third countries. This policy restricts access to international protection on the assumption that there is another (non-EU) country with which asylum seekers have a connection and which is considered sufficiently “safe.” They can then apply for protection there. Like other forms of externalization, the EU policy on safe third countries has been criticized for years because it can lead to human rights violations.

Drawing on extensive fieldwork in Athens, the eastern Aegean islands and Brussels, Romeo reconstructs why the implementation of the policy changed over the years between 2016 and 2024. Her research shows that, in practice, the concept of a ‘safe third country’ proved to be an empty shell, the definition of which was constantly being reshaped according to the preferences of policymakers and the ever-changing balance of power between the actors involved.

Consequently, at various points in time, asylum seekers with widely differing profiles, protection needs and ties to Turkey could be either accepted or rejected and returned on the basis of the assertion that Turkey was a safe third country for them.

“Through my research, I demonstrate how easily human rights criteria and procedural safeguards under the ‘safe third country’ policy can be circumvented with the aim of deterring, rejecting and returning asylum seekers,” explains Romeo.

Her research makes clear that a policy presented as a way of sharing responsibility for international protection with Turkey has, in practice, led to high human, financial and organizational costs. It has contributed to an increase in irregular residence and human rights violations and has further fueled social insecurity.

The work is published in the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies.

Who’s behind this story?

Gaby Clark

MA in English, copy editor since 2021 with experience in higher education and health content. Dedicated to trustworthy science news.

Full profile →

Andrew Zinin

Master’s in physics with research experience. Long-time science news enthusiast. Plays key role in Science X’s editorial success.

Full profile →