Humanitarian Standards and Border Security in the EU: Governance Gaps and Policy Imperatives

Abstract

The proposed paper examines how the European Union balances humanitarian standards with the operational demands of border security. The analysis focuses on the structural gaps between EU‑level commitments—such as fundamental rights protections and proportionality requirements—and the practical implementation of border procedures by Member States. Using a three‑part qualitative methodology (comparative policy analysis, EU document review, and expert interviews), the study identifies where exclusionary mechanisms emerge within current governance frameworks and how they affect institutional credibility. The central argument is that the EU’s security environment increasingly requires border management models that integrate humanitarian safeguards as core operational principles, not secondary considerations. The paper recommends strengthening accountability mechanisms, harmonising procedures, and embedding rights‑based standards into operational planning to ensure coherent and legitimate EU border governance.

Introduction

The management of the European Union’s external borders has become one of the most sensitive and politically charged fields in contemporary European governance, where the imperatives of security, humanitarian obligations, and domestic political pressures on Member States intersect and often collide. The increasing instrumentalization of migration by third countries, combined with political polarization within the EU, has produced a structural tension between operational effectiveness and the protection of fundamental rights. Numerous reports underline that despite the EU’s stated commitment to upholding the principle of non‑refoulement and guaranteeing access to asylum procedures, Member States’ Day‑to‑day border practices often diverge from EU standards, especially during periods of heightened migratory pressure (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 2026a). This divergence has become more visible in recent years, revealing not merely isolated instances of misconduct, but structural shortcomings deeply embedded in current governance frameworks. [fra.europa.eu]

The analysis presented here is based on a combination of comparative policy analysis, a review of relevant EU documents, and insights drawn from expert interviews with practitioners engaged in border management. By streamlining the methodological component, the focus is placed firmly on structural gaps that have significant implications for the legitimacy and coherence of EU border governance. This approach allows key shortcomings to be identified while also highlighting the long‑term consequences of the EU’s inability to reconcile security-driven policies with its normative commitments.

Key Structural Gaps

The first and most visible gap is the discrepancy between the obligations imposed by EU law and the national emergency measures introduced by Member States in response to real or perceived security pressures. Over the past years, Poland, Lithuania, and Greece have each implemented border policies that, although justified domestically as necessary security responses, contradict the EU’s humanitarian and legal standards. In Poland, amendments to national legislation have enabled rapid “turnbacks” of individuals without an assessment of their personal circumstances or potential protection needs, thereby undermining the principle of non‑refoulement. In Lithuania, measures introduced during the Belarus‑driven hybrid pressure of 2021–2022 allowed for prolonged detention, limited access to legal assistance, and the establishment of ad‑hoc camps that have been widely criticized by NGOs and European institutions. Greece, meanwhile, has been repeatedly accused of systematic pushbacks at sea, including forcing migrants into life rafts and returning them to Turkish territorial waters without registration or an opportunity to seek international protection. The consistency and scale of these practices have been documented across multiple analyses of pushbacks at EU external borders, highlighting systemic violations involving collective expulsions, the use of violence, and widespread denial of access to the asylum procedure (European Parliamentary Research Service 2025). These actions not only breach individual rights but also erode the credibility of the EU as a normative power committed to human dignity and rule of law. [europarl.europa.eu]

A second major structural issue relates to the persistent gap between formal legal guarantees and operational practice at the border. While national legislation in many Member States nominally complies with EU requirements, the reality experienced by migrants often reflects inconsistent, opaque, or discretionary practices. FRA reports describe numerous instances of inadequate registration of detainees, failure to identify vulnerable persons such as unaccompanied minors or victims of trafficking, and undocumented incidents of ill‑treatment, intimidation, or unlawful expulsions. This situation is made worse by the fragmented architecture of accountability: responsibility for monitoring and addressing violations is dispersed among multiple institutions, including national border guards, Frontex, national human rights bodies, the European Commission, and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). The result is a lack of clarity over who is responsible for ensuring compliance, and who can intervene when violations occur. FRA emphasizes that this diffusion of responsibility means that formal legal guarantees do not necessarily translate into real protection on the ground (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 2026b). Without clear oversight mechanisms and binding enforcement instruments, operational actors retain significant discretion, which can undermine EU standards during crisis‑driven settings. [ohchr.org]

The academic literature supports these findings by highlighting a broader trend across Member States: despite strong legal guarantees of non‑refoulement embedded in EU law, practical border management approaches have shifted in ways that effectively circumvent these obligations. Notably, several analyses have pointed out that this shift is not the result of legislative change but stems from reinterpretations and informal practices that reframe border control as a field where humanitarian safeguards can be suspended for strategic reasons (Goldner Lang & Nagy 2021). The discrepancy between the EU’s constitutional promises and Member State practices has therefore widened significantly in recent years, raising concerns not only about legality but also about the sustainability of a model in which national priorities dictate the level of rights protection. [cambridge.org]

Another factor undermining the coherence of the EU’s border governance system is the fragmentation of oversight and the absence of a strong, unified mechanism capable of enforcing compliance across Member States. While Frontex has expanded its operations and gained a more prominent role in coordinating border activities, its mandate does not allow it to impose sanctions or compel changes in Member State behavior. FRA, for its part, plays a crucial role in monitoring and providing expertise but lacks the authority to enforce binding decisions. The European Commission retains the power to initiate infringement procedures, yet these are often slow and politically sensitive, limiting their effectiveness in addressing urgent violations. This fragmented landscape has historically allowed some violations to go unaddressed; indeed, investigations have shown that deficiencies in Frontex oversight contributed to instances where pushbacks and other violations were ignored or inadequately addressed by the agency (Rijpma 2024). These structural weaknesses allow Member States to act with relative impunity, especially in politically sensitive contexts such as contested border regions or hybrid pressure scenarios. [onlinelibr….wiley.com]

A further structural challenge lies in the insufficient operationalization of humanitarian standards. Although the EU has robust legal frameworks in place, these are often not incorporated into daily operational routines. FRA stresses that risk analyses, training programs for border officers, and procedural documentation must fully integrate fundamental rights obligations, including the prohibition of inhuman treatment and the requirement for individualized assessments (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 2026a; 2026b). However, many Member States do not systematically embed these requirements into operational planning. In high‑pressure situations, humanitarian safeguards tend to be deprioritized, leaving frontline officers without adequate guidance or resources. The absence of mandatory body cameras, independent observers, transparent reporting systems, or standardized documentation protocols means that violations are both more likely to occur and more difficult to verify. This gap between legal commitments and operational practice poses long‑term risks to EU credibility and exposes Member States to potential legal and political repercussions. [fra.europa.eu], [ohchr.org]

Policy Implications and Recommendations

The broader debate on the relationship between security and humanitarianism illustrates that some Member States view strict adherence to human rights standards as an operational constraint, particularly during mass influxes or hybrid operations that challenge state capacities. Yet existing analyses show that transparent, rights‑compliant border procedures actually strengthen security by reducing operational errors, enhancing predictability, preventing arbitrary decision‑making, and limiting exposure to legal disputes or reputational damage (European Parliamentary Research Service 2025). Moreover, consistent standards across Member States reduce opportunities for third countries to exploit governance gaps for political leverage, thereby enhancing the EU’s resilience to external pressure. In this sense, the dichotomy between security and humanitarianism is misleading; sustainable border management models depend on integrating both dimensions. [europarl.europa.eu]

Given these challenges, comprehensive reforms are required. First, accountability mechanisms must be strengthened by expanding FRA’s mandate, enabling it to conduct unannounced inspections, publish mandatory findings, and initiate infringement procedures jointly with the European Commission. This would bridge the gap between monitoring and enforcement and provide real deterrence against systematic violations. Second, border procedures should be harmonized beyond the current Schengen framework. This harmonization should include uniform screening protocols, minimum detention standards, mandatory vulnerability assessments, and unified documentation requirements. Such measures would reduce the disparities between national practices and promote greater convergence. Third, the EU must operationalize humanitarian standards by integrating them into risk analysis methodologies, requiring mandatory training for officers, establishing the presence of independent observers in high‑risk areas, and deploying body‑worn cameras to ensure transparency and accountability.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of the European border protection system depends on the EU’s capacity to reconcile security requirements with its humanitarian obligations. The structural gaps identified—ranging from national emergency measures to weak oversight mechanisms—demonstrate that operational effectiveness cannot be sustainably achieved by sidelining fundamental rights. Only by fully integrating EU values into operational practice can the Union restore coherence, predictability, and credibility to its border management system, ensuring both security and the protection of human dignity.

References

European Parliamentary Research Service (2025) Addressing pushbacks at the EU’s external borders. PE 772.882. 

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2026) Fundamental Rights at Frontex. 26 March 2026. 

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (OHCHR) (2026) Guidance on how to reduce the risk of refoulement in external border management when working in or together with third countries. 

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (OHCHR) (2026) Fundamental rights safeguards under the European Border and Coast Guard Regulation: FRA contribution to the evaluation of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896.  

Goldner Lang, I. & Nagy, B. (2021) ‘External Border Control Techniques in the EU as a Challenge to the Principle of Non-Refoulement’, European Constitutional Law Review, 17(3), ss. 442–470. 

Rijpma, J. J. (2024) ‘Watching the guards: Ensuring compliance with fundamental rights at the external borders’, European Law Journal. DOI: 10.1111/eulj.12500.