Ireland is among 46 Council of Europe member states that have agreed a political declaration supporting wider use of third-country arrangements in migration policy, including “return hubs” for people refused permission to remain.
The declaration was adopted at a meeting of Council of Europe foreign ministers in Chișinău, Moldova. It states that countries have an “undeniable sovereign right” to control their borders and says states should be able to adopt new approaches to address and potentially deter irregular migration. Those approaches include processing protection requests in a third country, third-country return hubs, and cooperation with countries of transit.
The agreement is politically significant because the Council of Europe is the body linked to the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. The declaration does not amend the Convention itself, but it is intended to guide national authorities, domestic courts and the Council of Europe’s own work in migration-related cases.
Ireland, the UK and 44 other European countries signed the agreement, which explicitly refers to third-country hubs for unwanted asylum seekers. The declaration also addresses how states should apply human rights obligations when seeking to remove people from their territory.
A central issue is Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. The declaration says the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment remains absolute. However, it also says caution should be exercised when assessing whether expulsion or extradition to a state outside the Convention system would breach Article 3.
Reuters reported that the declaration states the assessment of the minimum level of severity for inhuman or degrading treatment is relative and depends on the circumstances of the case. Critics say that language could weaken long-established protections while supporters argue that states need clearer scope to manage migration and removals.
The declaration also addresses Article 8 of the Convention, which protects private and family life. According to Reuters, the declaration says states may expel foreign nationals where this is balanced with a legitimate aim, such as national security, and that the European Court of Human Rights would need strong reasons to override a state’s decision.
The Council of Europe Secretary General, Alain Berset, welcomed the agreement. He said it had brought together countries with different views and experiences to agree a common position on how the Convention system should work in the context of migration.
The European Commission also welcomed the declaration. Migration Commissioner Magnus Brunner described it as an important step toward a fair and firm European migration policy, saying migration is a shared challenge requiring shared solutions.
The agreement comes amid increasing pressure across Europe for tougher migration controls and faster deportations. Several governments have argued that existing legal interpretations make it difficult to remove people whose asylum claims have failed or foreign nationals convicted of crimes.
Third-country hubs are already part of the wider European migration debate. Italy has pursued arrangements with Albania, while EU-level discussions have examined return hubs outside the bloc. The talks have reportedly centred on countries including Armenia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Libya, Mauritania, Rwanda, Senegal, Tunisia, Uganda and Uzbekistan, although some countries have denied involvement in such plans.
Human rights organisations and legal academics have raised concerns about the declaration. The Associated Press reported that groups including PICUM and Amnesty International warned it could weaken protections for migrants and create a two-tier human rights system based on migration status.
Before the declaration was adopted, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights called on states to preserve the integrity of the European Convention system. That warning reflected concern that political pressure on migration should not undermine the independence of the European Court of Human Rights or the core protections of the Convention.
Legal experts have also questioned the practical effect of the declaration. Because it is a political declaration, it does not by itself change the text of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, it may be cited by governments in future litigation, policy debates and legislative reforms connected to asylum, deportation and return arrangements.
For Ireland, the agreement may become relevant as the State continues to manage pressures on the international protection system, including accommodation capacity, processing timelines and returns. The declaration does not itself create an Irish return hub policy, but Ireland’s support places it within a wider European effort to reshape the legal and political framework for migration management.
The policy debate is likely to turn on two questions. The first is whether third-country arrangements can be made legally workable, practically effective and consistent with human rights standards. The second is whether attempts to give states more flexibility on removals can be reconciled with the absolute nature of protections against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.
Supporters of the declaration will argue that European states need practical tools to manage irregular migration, remove people without permission to remain and maintain public confidence in asylum systems. Critics will argue that the language risks weakening protections that were designed to apply to everyone, regardless of immigration status.
The declaration is therefore not only about migration procedure. It is also about the future balance between state control of borders, judicial oversight, and universal human rights protections in Europe. Ireland’s endorsement means that it is now part of that wider European discussion.
