Executive Summary

This paper critically examines the recent amendments to Polish law that restrict the right to asylum at the borders, particularly in the context of the ongoing migration crisis exacerbated by geopolitical tensions. The analysis highlights the legal, social, and political dimensions of these changes, revealing the potential violations of international human rights obligations and the implications for vulnerable migrants. The findings underscore the urgent need for a balanced approach that safeguards national security while upholding humanitarian principles.

Context & Background

The Polish legal framework regarding asylum has undergone significant changes since July 2021, primarily in response to the geopolitical crisis stemming from Belarus’s actions following the 2020 presidential election. The Polish government has asserted that Belarusian authorities are engaging in a deliberate strategy to destabilize Poland by facilitating mass border crossings and inciting violence against Polish border guards. This situation has been further complicated by the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the introduction of a visa-free travel agreement between Russia and Belarus in January 2025, which has heightened security concerns along the Polish-Belarusian border. In response to these challenges, Poland has implemented a series of legal measures, including the establishment of buffer zones and amendments to the Act on Granting Protection to Foreigners, aimed at curtailing the influx of migrants and enhancing border security.

Deep Analysis

The legal amendments introduced in Poland, particularly the law of 21 February 2025, have raised significant concerns regarding their compatibility with international human rights standards. The new provisions allow for the temporary restriction of the right to apply for international protection under specific circumstances, including the so-called ‘instrumentalisation’ of migration. While the Polish government justifies these measures as necessary for national security, critics argue that they effectively legalize pushback practices that violate the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the return of individuals to countries where they may face persecution or serious harm. This legal framework not only undermines the rights of asylum seekers but also poses a risk of exacerbating the humanitarian crisis at the border, as individuals are often returned without adequate assessment of their claims or vulnerabilities.

Furthermore, the vague language surrounding the term ‘immediately’ in the context of asylum applications raises concerns about the potential for arbitrary enforcement of the law. The requirement for applicants to present themselves ‘immediately’ after crossing the border can lead to situations where individuals, who may have been forced to flee and subsequently spent time in precarious conditions, are denied the opportunity to seek protection. This ambiguity could result in significant disparities in the treatment of asylum seekers, particularly those from vulnerable groups, such as unaccompanied minors or individuals with health issues.

The political implications of these legal changes are also noteworthy. The amendments have been met with widespread criticism from human rights organizations, legal experts, and international bodies, including the UNHCR. The Polish government’s decision to proceed with these reforms despite such opposition reflects a broader trend of prioritizing national security over humanitarian obligations. This approach not only risks alienating Poland from its European partners but also undermines the EU’s collective commitment to upholding human rights and protecting those in need of asylum. The ongoing legal challenges, including cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights, will likely shape the future of asylum law in Poland and potentially set precedents for other EU member states facing similar challenges.

In light of the current geopolitical landscape and the increasing instrumentalisation of migration, it is imperative for Poland to adopt a more balanced approach that addresses security concerns while respecting the rights of asylum seekers. The introduction of legal frameworks that facilitate pushbacks and restrict access to asylum undermines the very principles upon which the European Union was founded, namely the protection of human rights and the rule of law. The situation at the Polish-Belarusian border serves as a critical case study in the tension between national security and humanitarian obligations, highlighting the need for a comprehensive and humane response to migration crises.

Recommendations

• Reassess and amend the legal framework governing asylum applications to ensure compliance with international human rights standards, particularly the principle of non-refoulement.
• Implement clear guidelines regarding the definition of ‘immediate’ in the context of asylum applications to prevent arbitrary enforcement and ensure fair treatment of all applicants.
• Enhance training for border guards and officials on human rights obligations and the proper handling of asylum claims to mitigate instances of pushbacks and ensure due process.
• Engage in dialogue with international organizations and human rights bodies to develop a comprehensive strategy that balances national security with humanitarian responsibilities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the recent amendments to Polish law restricting the right to asylum at borders represent a troubling shift towards prioritizing national security over the protection of vulnerable migrants. The legal, social, and political implications of these changes necessitate urgent attention and action to ensure that Poland remains committed to its international obligations and the fundamental principles of human rights. A more humane approach to migration, grounded in respect for the dignity and rights of all individuals, is essential for addressing the complex challenges posed by instrumentalisation and ensuring the integrity of the asylum system.