Despite the entry into force of the new Pact on Migration and Asylum, serious
doubts persist about the present and future of European migration governance:
from its viability to the risks for people on the move, as well as its implications
for the EU’s external action. What is at stake is not only the outcome of the
reform, but the very coherence of the European Union between what it does
and what it claims to be.
Composed of nine regulations and one directive, the Pact establishes a broad normative framework spanning asylum, returns, internal solidarity mechanisms and external relations with third countries. Yet while the system appears well defined on paper, its operational translation remains far less certain - implementation delays among member states are widespread, and only half of countries have made their plans publicly available. The Pact's underlying logic rests on the externalisation of migration governance towards third countries of origin and transit in exchange for resources — an approach that has steadily gained ground over the past two decades and that the Pact now extends into the realm of international protection. This marks a decidedly restrictive turn: detention periods are extended, safe third country criteria are loosened, and budget allocations overwhelmingly favour border security and returns over resettlement and humanitarian channels. Questions of practical viability compound these concerns, as only one in four return orders issued in the EU is actually enforced. Meanwhile, risks to migrants' rights, to partner countries and to the EU's own external action are already tangible, threatening to sacrifice fundamental European values in the name of security and control.