A new Pact on Migration and Asylum is gradually coming into force. As it does so, Evelina Staykova and Ildiko Otova examine its solidarity mechanism, a central — but not new — element of EU migration policy. While the mechanism holds potential for positive change, they warn that it also carries significant risks
The Common European Asylum System has long struggled with inconsistent implementation. The distribution of burdens among member states at the European Union's external borders has also been unfair. That's why solidarity was supposed to be central to the revised policy on migration management and asylum.
Yet despite promising a fresh start, the EU’s new Pact on Migration and Asylum risks entrenching the very inequalities it claims to resolve. It has replaced binding responsibility-sharing with a flexible mechanism that allows states to sidestep meaningful solidarity. The EU’s new Pact offers solidarity in name, but flexibility in practice. This risks continuing unequal burden-sharing, and undermining the credibility of common asylum governance.
Over the past decade, the EU has repeatedly been forced to respond to the events and challenges linked to irregular migration and asylum pressures. 2015's so-called ‘long summer of migration’, the border tensions between Greece and Türkiye in 2020, and the sudden influx of migrants from Belarus to Eastern European countries in 2021 all revealed weaknesses in the EU’s common approach.
With ongoing instability in the Middle East, and persistent crises across parts of Africa, the need for a more resilient migration policy is urgent. In response, the European Commission proposed a new Pact on Migration and Asylum, in 2020. This new pact, however, is already being put to the test.
One of the central problems facing the EU’s migration governance is the persistent lack of fair burden-sharing among member states. Countries at the external borders, including Greece, Italy, and Spain, have long shouldered disproportionate responsibility for registering and processing asylum claims. Meanwhile, several other member states have resisted participation in relocation schemes or have offered only limited forms of support.
A key problem facing the EU’s migration governance is the persistent lack of fair burden-sharing among member states
This imbalance has fuelled political tensions, eroded mutual trust, and hindered the development of a truly common asylum policy. Without a more equitable distribution of responsibilities, the structural asymmetries of the current system are likely to persist, undermining the rights of asylum seekers and the EU’s internal cohesion.
At EU level, various Articles, including Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, outline the principle of solidarity. However, EU law does not provide a clear definition of 'solidarity' or 'fair sharing of responsibilities' for refugees or asylum-seekers. This has led EU institutions, academics, and other stakeholders to suggest different ways to make solidarity more practical.
Ideas include dividing relevant tasks and pooling resources across the EU, or offering financial and other forms of compensation to frontline member states. The migration and asylum pact adopted in the spring of 2024 sets out a new, flexible yet mandatory solidarity system.
Introduced as 'flexible solidarity', the mechanism lets member states choose from a range of options to support countries under migratory pressure. These options include relocating asylum seekers, making financial contributions, and providing operational support. The new Pact proposals are based on various solidarity contributions:
However, the design of this solidarity mechanism raises concerns about how much burden-sharing will actually occur. Although the Pact extends solidarity beyond relocation, it also allows member states to opt for less demanding forms of support. Such flexibility raises worries that some member states may contribute in ways that have little impact on their own asylum systems. And this, in turn, leaves frontline states to continue bearing the brunt of responsibility.
Will the proposed forms of solidarity lead to ‘asymmetric’ rather than truly ‘equitable’ solidarity?
The effectiveness of the solidarity mechanism relies on member states' willingness to participate meaningfully and equitably. But will the proposed forms of solidarity lead to ‘asymmetric’ rather than truly ‘equitable’ solidarity? Will they distribute responsibility fairly — and guarantee asylum seekers' rights?
Supporters claim the new mechanism respects the diversity of national contexts and preferences. Critics, meanwhile, worry it may create conditional and unevenly distributed solidarity. The success of the new Pact relies on member states' willingness to show genuine solidarity. It turns political commitments into concrete actions that ease the burden on frontline states and ensure access to protection for those in need. It is crucial to critically assess the conditions under which member states are likely to offer support — and the potential consequences of failing to do so.
Externalising border controls and limiting access to asylum procedures can lead to policies that undermine migrants' and asylum seekers' rights
According to the law, a migrant who entered a country illegally must be returned to their country of origin. The instrumentalisation of migration management can also lead to policies that undermine migrants' and asylum seekers' rights. These include externalising border controls and limiting access to asylum procedures. The effectiveness and ethical implications of these measures therefore require careful consideration, particularly regarding their potential impact on access to asylum and the principle of non-refoulement.
If solidarity remains flexible in name only, the structural inequalities of the current system may persist. This undermines both the rights of asylum seekers and the credibility of EU migration governance. Whether the new Pact will live up to its promise depends not just on institutional design, but on the political courage of member states to act in common purpose.
This blog post was prepared as part of the project Establishment of Centres of Excellence at Mykolas Romeris University, funded by the State Budget of Lithuania. It is implemented under the Centres of Excellence Initiative initiated by the Ministry of Education, Science and Sports of the Republic of Lithuania
