As an aftermath of the war in Ukraine, Finland’s security policies adjusted to the changing security environment in Europe. Since Finland shares the longest EU external border with Russia, its eastern external border policies needed to be adjusted according to the new neighbouring threat. The contentious Border Security Act is already acting as a precedent for Poland and potentially for other member states as well, stirring up human rights debates. Interestingly, we can observe that the shift towards stricter border policies within the EU is more or less aligned with the broader EU framework. As a result, human rights organisations are demanding accountability from the Commission in protecting fundamental rights.

Finland’s Eastern Border Policies as an Aftermath of the War in Ukraine

As an aftermath of the war in Ukraine in 2022, Finland adjusted its security policies as the security environment changed radically in Europe. Finland has a unique geopolitical position since it shares the longest EU external border with Russia which makes its chanced policies crucial for the whole EU. Finland started focusing more on its national security by increasing its defence budget and strengthening its security cooperation with other Western states. Consequently, the most notable change was Finland’s shift of military non-alignment to its NATO membership. Another important measure was the construction of the eastern border barrier fence to strengthen Finland’s border security for example by possibly preventing instrumentalised migration which was seen in other EU member states in earlier years. 

The EU witnessed a crisis in its eastern external border in 2021 when Poland, Latvia and Lithuania received an increased influx of refugees. Compared to the previous year, the amount of asylum applications increased rapidly,  pressuring the national asylum systems. Poland and Latvia received more or less three times more asylum-related migration applications than in the previous year and Lithuania’s increase was twelvefold. Finland also started to witness a flow of thousands of third-country nationals from Russia without visas in August 2023, resulting in the closing of the crossing points on the land border. It became clear that this instrumentalised migration was coming from foreign authorities, posing a threat to Finland’s national security. The contentious Border Security Act entered into force on 22 July 2024 remaining in force for one year for possible enforcement. It was a result of the Finnish government’s proposal to control the situation which was passed with an overwhelming majority in the Parliament. The legislation permits denying asylum seekers entry from Russia temporarily as a precaution under special circumstances which has been a controversial issue in the EU’s external border policies.

Controversies Surrounding the Border Security Act

The Border Security Act has raised a lot of national and international debate on whether it is an appropriate measure. It is preparing Finland for the worsening situation in its eastern border as public authorities suspect that the threat of instrumentalised migration from Russia remains high. Whether to apply this Act, a highly pressing situation is required by a foreign state threatening Finland’s national security and sovereignty with no other options to act. The Act can be activated for one month at a time, preventing migrants from entering the country from Russia with some exceptions for the most vulnerable people. A migrant who has already crossed the border should be deported immediately while instructed to travel to a country where it is possible to get international protection.

The Act has openly raised awareness of the law’s conflict with international human rights and Finland’s constitution, leading to protests against the law. There are differing domestic responses to the Act; some emphasise the importance of protecting human rights, while the majority emphasise the importance of protecting national security. The Finnish government justifies the Act by the lack of sufficient national and international law when preventing instrumentalised migration, seeking to find an EU-level solution to this issue. According to Finland’s President Alexander Stubb, there was broad support and understanding for the legislation in Europe when exchanging views during the European Political Community’s (EPC) meeting in the UK on 18 July 2024. Stubb highlighted that the European countries share similar views on the different circumstances of instrumentalised migration and that the current asylum rules can’t properly respond to this situation.

The main critique towards the Act is that it breaks many laws and conflicts with Finland’s human rights obligations. A joint statement from UNHCR Nordic and Baltic Countries, the Finnish Red Cross, the Finnish Refugee Council, and the UN Association of Finland accused Finland of violation of international agreements if the rights of the people in need of protection are restricted, possibly leading to a humanitarian crisis. Other organisations such as Amnesty International and the Council of Europe as well have strongly opposed the Act and raised concerns about the potential human rights violations in Finland’s eastern border. If enforced, so-called pushbacks are likely the most controversial outcome of this Act in responding to instrumentalised migration. “Pushback practices put people in danger, too often resulting in severe injuries, split of families or even deaths,” according to UNHCR’s Regional Director for Europe, Philippe Leclerc.

The EU’s Response to the Border Security Act and Criticism

The instrumentalised migration is not only affecting Finland but also the EU and its external border. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has concluded earlier that the pushbacks at border control points conflict with EU law, violating the human rights of the affected people. However, it is good to recognise that before the Border Security Act is applied, it does not concretely violate asylum seekers’ human rights, which is why the European Court of Human Rights can’t act on the case yet. The European Commission has received many complaints concerning this issue and Amnesty International as an example demanded the Commission act due to this conflict. 

The Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in a letter to the member states hinted that due to these hybrid attacks on the EU’s external borders, the EU’s legal framework will be reflected. This will be done regarding security and migration policies in line with the Treaties. This way the member states can respond more effectively to these attacks and protect the security of the whole Union. The letter concerned the EU’s new Migration Pact (entering into force in 2026) which allows the member states to introduce pushback policies to their external borders in the case of instrumentalised migration more easily. 

A more official communication from the Commission’s side was released recently. A total of EUR 170 million was allocated to the affected member states as a concrete action and Finland received an additional amount of EUR 50 million totalling around EUR 83 million in the current funding period.  The communication, in line with the European Council’s position, supported its member states in countering instrumentalised migration giving a rather vague picture of the legal side. The Commission supports countering the hybrid threats from Russia and Belarus to strengthen the EU’s external border security taking into account the exceptional context of the situation. The member states can use measures in line with the EU legislation and they “may invoke Treaty provisions to exceptionally and under stringent conditions go further than what is provided for by EU secondary legislation under the control of the Court of Justice”. The European Commission spokesperson highlighted the need to protect the security and the territorial integrity of the Union from these hybrid attacks but also in respect of fundamental human rights. 

As a result, it has been argued that the EU’s right-wing shift has shaped its policies on migration and asylum, especially in giving the green light for the member states in their controversial external border policies such as Poland and Finland. The Commission has been especially criticised for its unwillingness to challenge the measures to be in line with international and EU law.

The Commission’s Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen commented on the communication and clarified further the distinction between the security and migration policies: “We are not speaking about migration policies here. This is about security. It’s a security issue”. Because of this security perspective, it is worth considering that since 23 out of 27 EU member states are also NATO members, the EU-NATO strategic partnership is a relevant factor in the EU’s position. We are not talking only about the EU’s external border policies but NATO’s as well which also might contribute to the EU’s hardening security position. 

Finland’s Border Security Act as Part of a Bigger Change in the EU’s Migration and Asylum Policies

The ongoing instrumentalised migration crisis started in 2021 when migrant influx began at the Polish, Lithuanian and Latvian borders and in Finland during 2023. We can observe that Finland’s Border Security Act is another controversial EU external border measure introduced after similar policies in Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Before the law was introduced in Finland, its fence-building process already followed the footsteps of Poland and the Baltic States to prevent Belarus’s and Russia’s efforts to push migrants to these countries to cause a crisis in their borders. 

We might witness Finland’s Border Security Act as a precedent for other EU member states in turn as a more radical border measure according to the Council of Europe. It could happen especially now when the global asylum system is under pressure. Finnish President Alexander Stubb mentioned earlier that especially the Baltic countries supported the Act and might introduce similar laws themselves. The Finnish law has already affected Poland’s new policies when Prime Minister Donald Tusk mentioned Finland as an example when introducing Poland’s new migration strategy, including the temporary suspension of the rights to seek asylum like the Finnish Act. However, Finnish measures have been seen as less severe than the Polish ones. For example, the Human Rights Watch commented on Poland’s current border measures resulting in pushbacks as illegal and violent after conducting interviews with asylum seekers. Amnesty International also recognised this more ‘humane’ approach of the Finnish law, even though it doesn’t approve the Act. One major issue is that many people’s vulnerabilities such as people with trauma or survivors of torture and gender-based violence are not directly visible and might not be noticed. 

As a result of these measures, the Commission’s vague support and emphasis on the security aspect of the issue gives a sense of acceptance. Consequently, we can observe a shift in the direction of the EU-level migration and asylum policies more or less aligning with the member states’ stricter policies. 

Concluding Remarks

Despite the support at the EU-level, many human rights organisations have questioned the state of the rule of law in Finland, potentially changing its international image. Finland has been brought up in the rule of law discussions by Amnesty International, the Finnish Refugee Advice Center, and the UN Refugee Agency among others regarding the country’s human rights obligations. This critique builds upon the state of the rule of law discussions in other member states for example in Hungary, Poland, Latvia and Lithuania in similar issues.

It is evident that Finland’s case could act as a precedent for more member states as well. We can already observe a shift in the EU-level migration and asylum policies, while security aspects are gaining more momentum over human rights issues. Due to the complicated nature of the issue, it might not even be possible to introduce an efficient response which is on the same level as international laws. The future proceedings of the Commission and member states remain to be seen, causing uncertainty and mistrust in the human rights debates.