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 externalisation – 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 externalisation, the EU policy on safe third countries has been criticised for years because it can lead to human rights violations.

Drawing on extensive fieldwork in Athens, the Eastern Aegean islands and Brussels, Dr 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 Dr Romeo.

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