Executive Summary

This paper critically examines the recent amendments to Polish asylum law, particularly the legal framework established on 21 February 2025, which restricts the right to apply for international protection at the Polish-Belarusian border. The analysis situates these legal changes within the broader context of geopolitical tensions, notably the instrumentalisation of migration by Belarus, and assesses the implications for human rights and international law. The findings indicate that while Poland’s actions may be framed as necessary for national security, they raise significant concerns regarding compliance with international obligations, particularly the principle of non-refoulement and the protection of vulnerable migrants.

Context & Background

The Polish legal landscape regarding asylum has undergone significant transformation since July 2021, primarily in response to geopolitical tensions exacerbated by the Belarusian government’s actions following the disputed presidential elections of 2020. The Polish government has asserted that Belarusian authorities are actively facilitating illegal border crossings as a means of destabilising Poland, leading to a series of legal and operational responses aimed at fortifying the border. The introduction of a buffer zone in June 2024 and the subsequent amendments to the Act on Granting Protection to Foreigners reflect a shift towards more stringent border control measures, justified by the Polish government as necessary for national security amidst rising threats from both Belarus and Russia. This context is critical for understanding the legal reforms that have emerged, as they are framed within a narrative of crisis and the need for immediate action to protect Polish sovereignty and public order.

The legal amendments, particularly those enacted on 21 February 2025, establish a framework for temporarily restricting the right to asylum under specific conditions of ‘instrumentalisation’ of migration. This term, as defined in the new legislation, encompasses actions by foreign entities that facilitate unlawful crossings, posing a threat to state security. The amendments have been met with widespread criticism from human rights organisations and legal experts, who argue that they contravene Poland’s obligations under international law, including the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the return of individuals to countries where they may face persecution or serious harm. The legal ambiguity surrounding the terms of ‘immediate’ application for asylum further complicates the situation, potentially leading to arbitrary enforcement and violations of migrants’ rights.

Deep Analysis

The legal framework established by the Polish government reflects a broader trend in European migration policy, where national security concerns increasingly overshadow humanitarian obligations. The amendments to the asylum law, particularly the introduction of temporary restrictions on asylum applications, raise critical questions about the balance between state sovereignty and the protection of human rights. The provisions allowing for the dismissal of asylum claims from individuals who have crossed the border unlawfully, unless they can demonstrate immediate need for protection, effectively create barriers for many vulnerable migrants. This legal approach not only undermines the right to seek asylum but also risks violating international treaties to which Poland is a signatory, including the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Moreover, the implementation of these legal changes occurs against a backdrop of documented human rights abuses at the border, including pushback practices that have been condemned by various international bodies. Reports indicate that migrants are often returned to Belarus without proper assessment of their claims for protection, exacerbating the humanitarian crisis at the border. The Polish Border Guard’s practices, which include the use of force and denial of access to asylum procedures, contravene established legal norms and raise ethical concerns about the treatment of individuals seeking refuge. The situation is further complicated by the lack of clarity in the law regarding exceptions for vulnerable groups, leaving many individuals at risk of being denied their rights.

The political implications of these legal reforms are also significant. The Polish government’s narrative framing the situation as a national security crisis has garnered domestic support, yet it simultaneously alienates Poland from its European partners who advocate for a more humane approach to migration. The EU’s response to Poland’s actions has been mixed, with some member states expressing concern over the erosion of fundamental rights, while others support stricter border controls. This divergence highlights the ongoing tension within the EU regarding migration policy and the need for a cohesive approach that balances security with humanitarian obligations. The potential for legal challenges at the European Court of Human Rights further complicates the landscape, as pending cases may set precedents that impact the future of asylum law in Poland and beyond.

In conclusion, the Polish law restricting the right to asylum at borders represents a critical juncture in the intersection of national security and human rights. The legal reforms, while framed as necessary for protecting the state, pose significant risks to the rights of migrants and challenge Poland’s compliance with international obligations. As the situation evolves, it is imperative for policymakers to consider the long-term implications of these legal changes, not only for the individuals affected but also for Poland’s standing within the European Union and the broader international community.

Recommendations

• Reassess the legal framework governing asylum applications to ensure compliance with international human rights obligations.
• Implement training programs for border officials on the rights of migrants and the legal standards for asylum processing.
• Enhance transparency in the asylum process to allow for independent monitoring and accountability.
• Engage with international organizations, such as UNHCR, to develop a coordinated response to migration challenges at the border.
• Establish clear guidelines for the treatment of vulnerable groups, including unaccompanied minors and individuals with health concerns.

Conclusion

The recent amendments to Polish asylum law, while ostensibly aimed at addressing national security concerns, raise profound questions about the protection of human rights and the integrity of Poland’s commitments under international law. As the situation at the Polish-Belarusian border continues to evolve, it is crucial for policymakers to navigate the delicate balance between security and humanitarian obligations, ensuring that the rights of migrants are upheld and that Poland remains a responsible member of the international community.