Pushbacks are often presented as a routine part of border control, but in reality they raise serious legal concerns under international law. At their core, pushbacks involve the forced return of migrants or asylum seekers across a border without any formal procedure, documentation, or opportunity to request protection. Unlike deportations, which follow a legal process, pushbacks happen quickly and without oversight. This lack of process is exactly why they are widely considered illegal.
The central issue is not simply that people are being turned away—it is that they are being denied fundamental rights. International law recognizes that every individual has the right to seek asylum if they are fleeing persecution, conflict, or serious harm. Pushbacks remove that possibility entirely. People are not given the chance to explain their situation, access legal support, or even understand their rights. In many cases, they are pushed back before they can even set foot in a country or speak to an authority.
One of the most important legal principles violated by pushbacks is the principle of non-refoulement. This rule, which is embedded in the 1951 Refugee Convention and reinforced by the Convention Against Torture, prohibits states from returning individuals to places where they may face persecution, torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment. It is considered a cornerstone of international refugee and human rights law, and it applies regardless of a person’s legal status. Pushbacks directly violate this principle because no assessment is made about the risks individuals may face upon return. Authorities simply assume safety, often incorrectly, and act without investigation.
Also Read: Europe’s Externalized Borders
Closely tied to this is the right to seek asylum, which is recognized in international human rights frameworks such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While this right does not guarantee that asylum will be granted, it does guarantee that individuals must be given access to a fair process where their claims can be heard. Pushbacks bypass this entirely. Migrants are not registered, interviewed, or given interpretation. They are denied access to procedures that are designed to protect them, effectively shutting the door on any possibility of legal protection.
Another major issue is the prohibition of collective expulsion. International and regional legal systems require that each individual’s case be assessed on its own merits. This is especially important because people on the move are not a uniform group—some may be refugees, others victims of trafficking, and many may have specific vulnerabilities such as being minors or survivors of violence. Pushbacks, however, are often carried out in groups. Entire boats or groups at land borders are returned without any individual screening. This blanket approach ignores personal circumstances and violates the legal requirement for individualized assessment.
The way pushbacks are carried out also raises serious human rights concerns. Numerous reports have documented the use of excessive force, confiscation of belongings, and abandonment in dangerous or remote areas. These actions can amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, which is prohibited under international law. Even when states argue that they have the right to control their borders, that authority is not unlimited. It must be exercised within the bounds of human rights obligations, which clearly prohibit abuse and mistreatment.
Pushbacks at sea introduce an additional layer of legal responsibility. Under international maritime law, states have a duty to assist people in distress and ensure they are brought to a place of safety. Intercepting boats and returning people to unsafe conditions, or leaving them stranded, violates these obligations. This has been a particularly urgent issue along migration routes in regions like the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, where dangerous crossings are common and the consequences of being turned back can be fatal.
Despite these clear legal frameworks, pushbacks continue to occur. Governments often justify them as necessary measures for border control, national security, or migration management. In reality, they are frequently used to avoid the administrative and political burden of processing asylum claims. By preventing people from entering the system at all, states reduce the number of formal applications they must handle. However, this does not make the practice lawful. Legal obligations do not disappear simply because they are inconvenient.
The human impact of pushbacks is severe. People can be sent back to countries where they face violence, imprisonment, or persecution. Others are forced to attempt dangerous journeys again, increasing the risk of injury or death. Families can be separated, and individuals often experience significant psychological trauma. What is lost in policy discussions is that these are not abstract cases—they are real people whose lives are directly affected by these decisions.
Efforts to challenge pushbacks are growing, with cases being brought before national courts, regional human rights bodies, and international institutions. Evidence gathered by civil society organizations, journalists, and survivors has played a crucial role in exposing these practices. However, accountability remains difficult. Pushbacks often occur in remote areas, away from public scrutiny, and authorities may deny or obscure what has happened. Victims, meanwhile, have limited access to legal remedies.
Understanding what are illegal pushbacks is essential for anyone working in migration, advocacy, or policy. This is not just a moral issue—it is a legal one. States are bound by international agreements and principles that are designed to protect human life and dignity. When pushbacks occur, those obligations are being violated. Framing the issue in legal terms shifts the conversation from one of political choice to one of accountability. It makes clear that this is not about what states prefer to do, but about what they are required to do under the law.
SIGN THE PETITION TO: Stop Illegal Pushbacks at European Borders