Europe’s New Migration Pact: Researchers’ Reflections on the Reform

At its core, the reform reflects a longstanding ambition within the EU: to move away from ad hoc crisis management and toward a permanent migration governance framework built on harmonised procedures, stronger external border management, and increased cooperation between member states. Yet as implementation approaches, significant legal, political, and practical questions remain unresolved.

Researchers Andrea Spehar, political scientist and director of the Centre for European Research (CERGU), and Karin Åberg, legal scholar specialising in migration law and human rights, both based at the University of Gothenburg, argue that the Pact represents not only a policy reform, but also a broader shift in the balance between national sovereignty and supranational governance within the EU. 

the Pact represents not only a policy reform, but also a broader shift in the balance between national sovereignty and supranational governance within the EU. 

A More Centralised European System

One of the Pact’s most significant features is its legal structure. Large parts of EU migration policy that were previously governed through directives will now instead be regulated through directly applicable EU regulations.

“In practice, this means that EU law will become directly applicable within member states to a much greater extent,” Åberg explains. “Significant parts of national migration law, including national terminology and legal interpretations, will become obsolete.” 

The shift is significant because regulations leave less room for national interpretation. Combined with expanded oversight powers for the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA), the Pact introduces a more centralised model of migration governance than previous reforms. The EUAA will now systematically monitor national asylum systems and assess whether member states comply with the new rules. Sweden’s first systemic review is scheduled for 2028. 

This development reflects a growing tendency within the EU to frame migration management as a collective European security issue rather than primarily a national policy area.

This development reflects a growing tendency within the EU to frame migration management as a collective European security issue rather than primarily a national policy area.

The Pact introduces mandatory border screenings, expanded biometric registration through Eurodac, accelerated asylum procedures, and a solidarity mechanism intended to distribute responsibility more evenly between member states. According to the European Commission, the system is designed to deter irregular migration, reduce pressure on frontline states, and prevent future crises similar to those experienced in 2015–2016. 

At the same time, the reforms reveal continuing tensions within the Union regarding solidarity, sovereignty, and responsibility-sharing.

The Question of Solidarity

A central political objective of the Pact is to address one of the EU asylum system’s most criticised features: the unequal burden placed on countries located at the Union’s external borders, particularly Greece and Italy under the Dublin Regulation.

The new solidarity mechanism allows member states to contribute either by relocating asylum seekers or by providing financial and operational support instead. In theory, this creates a more flexible and sustainable system. In practice, however, both researchers question whether the reforms fundamentally resolve the inequalities that have characterised EU migration policy for years.

“There is a real risk that the structural inequalities of the Dublin system are reproduced in a new form,” Spehar argues. 

There is a real risk that the structural inequalities of the Dublin system are reproduced in a new form

Åberg similarly notes that critics have described the system as offering “an easy way out” for wealthier member states that prefer financial contributions over accepting relocated asylum seekers. 

The issue is not only financial but political. The Pact ultimately depends on member states’ willingness to cooperate consistently over time — something previous migration reforms have struggled to achieve. Questions also remain regarding enforcement. Several observers have pointed to earlier conflicts between the EU and member states such as Hungary and Poland over migration policy, raising doubts about whether solidarity obligations will be uniformly implemented in practice. 

For countries such as Sweden, the debate around solidarity is shaped strongly by the experience of 2015, when Sweden received a disproportionately high number of asylum seekers compared to many other member states. According to Spehar, this historical memory continues to influence how Swedish policymakers view collective responsibility within the EU framework. 

Faster Procedures and New Restrictions

While the Pact is presented politically as an effort to create efficiency and harmonisation, much of the criticism surrounding the reform concerns its practical implications for asylum seekers.

One of the most far-reaching changes is the expanded use of border procedures. Individuals considered unlikely to qualify for asylum — including applicants from countries with low recognition rates — may now have their claims processed in accelerated procedures while remaining at designated border facilities.

“The largest change entails that asylum seekers will be held at border centers and most likely have their whole asylum procedure there,” Åberg says. 

The largest change entails that asylum seekers will be held at border centers and most likely have their whole asylum procedure there

The procedures are intended to reduce processing times and facilitate faster returns. However, critics argue that speed may come at the expense of legal certainty and individual assessment.

Human rights organisations, NGOs, and legal scholars have warned that accelerated procedures increase the risk of flawed decisions, particularly when combined with shorter appeal deadlines and reduced access to legal representation. Concerns have also been raised about the possibility of asylum seekers being returned before appeals are fully examined, due to limitations on the automatic suspensive effect of appeals under certain procedures. 

In Sweden, several of these concerns have become particularly pronounced because the government has chosen to implement parts of the Pact at the strictest end of what EU law allows.

“Sweden has chosen to apply the border procedure in more cases than the Pact strictly requires,” Spehar explains, “and reducing the right to legal counsel during asylum hearings to the minimum allowed under EU law.” 

Sweden has chosen to apply the border procedure in more cases than the Pact strictly requires

The reforms will also significantly restrict freedom of movement during the asylum process. Under Sweden’s proposed Reception Act, asylum seekers will generally be required to remain within the Swedish administrative region where they are accommodated. Meanwhile, the possibility of obtaining permanent residence permits on asylum grounds is being phased out, making citizenship the primary route toward long-term legal security. 

Another controversial element concerns the expansion of the Eurodac database. The system will collect biometric data on asylum seekers to a greater extent than before, including data from children as young as six years old. Opponents argue that this raises questions regarding privacy rights and proportionality. 

Sweden’s Implementation Challenges

Beyond the content of the reforms themselves, both researchers point to concerns regarding the implementation process in Sweden.

The government’s legislative preparations have been criticised as unusually rushed given the scale and legal complexity of the changes. The main implementation memorandum — exceeding 1,500 pages — was reportedly circulated with very limited consultation time only months before the new rules were due to take effect. Several bodies, including the Swedish Bar Association, the Discrimination Ombudsman, and the Swedish Council on Legislation (Lagrådet), criticised both the process and the legal uncertainty surrounding the reforms. 

Åberg notes that uncertainty remains widespread among migration authorities, courts, and legal practitioners regarding how parts of the new legislation should be interpreted in practice. 

uncertainty remains widespread among migration authorities, courts, and legal practitioners regarding how parts of the new legislation should be interpreted in practice. 

At the same time, Sweden faces a particularly difficult transitional period. Cases submitted before 12 June 2026 will continue under the old legal framework, while new applications will fall under the Pact. This effectively creates two parallel asylum systems operating simultaneously.

“This places enormous administrative pressure on the Migration Authority and creates real risks of inconsistency and error,” Spehar says. 

A further complication concerns a gap between EU obligations and Swedish national legislation. Parts of Sweden’s new Reception Act will not enter into force until October 2026, despite the Pact applying from June. As a result, Sweden may temporarily lack the domestic legal basis required to fully implement certain EU obligations concerning geographical restrictions on asylum seekers. 

An Uncertain Transition

For the EU, the Pact represents both a legal reform and a political compromise intended to demonstrate that the Union can still reach agreement on one of its most divisive policy areas.

Yet despite the significance of the reforms, it remains to be seen just how the system will function once fully operational. Åberg points out that the EU has declined to conduct a comprehensive impact assessment examining how the Pact is expected to work in practice, despite repeated criticism from researchers and civil society organisations. 

 the EU has declined to conduct a comprehensive impact assessment examining how the Pact is expected to work in practice, despite repeated criticism from researchers and civil society organisations. 

As implementation begins, much will depend on how consistently member states apply the new rules, how effectively solidarity mechanisms operate, and whether the balance between efficiency and legal protection can be maintained.

The Pact may ultimately become the foundation of a more coordinated European asylum system. But it may also reveal the difficulty of reconciling national political interests, humanitarian obligations, and collective European governance within a single migration framework.

Text: Angelica Sohlberg and Alice Johansson