Blog by Berfin Nur Osso, Çağla Ekin Güner, Ana Margheritis
Migration crises tend to have significant effects on the governance mechanisms that regulate migrant access to rights. As sudden, overwhelming processes that call for extraordinary measures, migration crises tend to be linked with the on-and-off switching of the exercise of rights to free movement across borders, legal residence, access to protection and services, integration opportunities, etc. This is particularly the case when specific junctures, or even specific migrant populations, are portrayed as a threat that overwhelms expectations and response capacities. We indeed witness today the backsliding of migrant rights and the proliferation of dehumanising discourses and practices in local, national, and regional contexts. But this outcome is not inevitable; it is rather the result of political/policy choices. Crises open a window of opportunity to innovate in said governance mechanisms, too, and the direction of change is not pre-determined. Even if contexts of crises are challenging, crisis management creates the conditions for a new reconfiguration of rights regulation as it facilitates innovation, requires collaboration, and encourages a redefinition of strategies.
In this contribution, we focus on two examples of such challenges and opportunities in reference to a specific category of migrants: refugees. Drawing on two articles from our recent Special Issue, we highlight the ambiguous changes that migration crises may prompt in the legal frameworks and (formal and informal) institutional practices that regulate refugee rights. In particular, the Syrian “refugee crisis” offers insights into the institutional practices and policy choices adopted amidst a dramatic migration crisis in terms of the magnitude of displacements and the length of the process.[1] We summarise below two alternative paths to crisis management at the regional and local level in the most affected contexts: the European Union (EU) and Türkiye.
The EU’s Migration “Management” Crisis and its Impact on Refugee Rights
The summer of 2015 was a specific juncture in the context of EU’s regional migration management regime. The “irregular” arrival of 1.8 million people to seek protection from countries like Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan both exposed the longstanding shortcomings in the EU’s Common European Asylum System and signalled a continuous battle against irregular migration at official circles. However, this approach disregarded a significant reality that irregular migration is produced by the very measures that purport to address it. This impossible bind has created what we term as “migration management crisis” in the EU. An article published in our Special Issue examines this crisis and illustrates how the increasingly stringent “extraordinary” measures adopted after 2015 became normalised and replicated across the EU, gradually eroding the spaces for refugee rights and integration efforts.
To understand the EU’s evolving migration management crisis and its repercussions on refugee rights, we employ a three-level framework where we systematically analyse official responses. In particular, the article compares the 2015 European Agenda on Migration (Agenda) and the 2020 New Pact on Migration and Asylum (Pact). This framework shows that migration policy tools such as the Agenda and the Pact are connected parts of a multi-level bordering process, affecting refugees’ access to state territory, protection, and integration into society. In the first place, states may block refugees’ access to their territory at immediate, physical (land or maritime) borders, although doing so may violate their international legal obligations, such as the non-refoulement principle. Even if refugees enter another state’s territory, legal borders may prevent their access to protection, which entitles them to asylum and other rights under the Refugee Convention and international human rights law. Finally, social borders, describing dehumanising attitudes and discourses, hinder refugee integration efforts and often justify the production of physical and legal borders.
Despite an initial open-door policy and the suspension of the Dublin system, the EU’s evolving response since 2015 reveals a creeping crisis characterised by persistent and reinforced bordering. While the summer of migration in 2015 was initially framed as a humanitarian challenge, the EU’s approach has progressively shifted towards a more securitised and managerial stance. The simultaneous internalisation and externalisation of migration management (or “inter-/externalisation”) to address “irregular migration” have brought restrictive measures that impede refugee access. The approval of the Pact by the EU’s three law-making institutions (EU Council, Parliament, and Commission) as a Union-wide agreement in 2024 proves the point. Anti-immigrant discourses and attitudes expressed by politicians and decision makers since 2015 found their way to the Pact, contributing to the erosion of refugee rights and creating barriers to their inclusion in European society.
The EU’s “home-made” migration management crisis and increasing emphasis on externalisation found a tangible articulation in the 2016 EU–Türkiye Statement, directly impacting the situation of refugees in Türkiye, as well. As a result, Türkiye faced a distinct set of challenges and opportunities in governing refugees as a major host country.
Protracted Governance Crisis and Syrian Refugees in Izmir, Türkiye
Similar to the previous contribution, another article in our Special Issue critically engages with the coupling of migration and crisis and explores “governance crisis” as a process facilitating the redefinition of norms and institutional change. In Türkiye, the protracted governance crisis that followed the arrival of Syrians has exposed a deep tension between the temporary protection regime and the need for long-term integration policies. While Syrians were granted legal stay under a temporary framework, this precarious status effectively confined them to a condition of “guesthood”. Meanwhile, local authorities were increasingly confronted with addressing the practical realities of integration, yet without clearly defined mandates, sufficient funding, or administrative autonomy. The article builds on this context and argues that, first, local level holds potential to negotiate and challenge restrictive national integration frameworks; second, establishing institutional foundations for urban citizenship is critical, particularly for vulnerable migrant groups; and third, mayoral leadership can play a critical role in driving such institutional transformations. These arguments are illustrated through the case of Izmir.
As Türkiye’s third-largest city with a longstanding history of migration due to being an important port, Izmir has become a key settlement and transit hub for Syrian refugees. It offers fertile ground for examining how local governments can respond to crises through inclusive urban governance strategies. The municipality’s establishment of the Directorate of Urban Justice and Equality (DUJE) in 2020 marks a significant example of how urban actors can negotiate refugee rights beyond formal national frameworks. Framed in the language of human rights and guided by an intersectional lens, DUJE aimed to reconfigure access to rights and services for all residents regardless of legal status, thereby focusing on inclusivity and social cohesion. By illustrating how this process was triggered by an intra-party mayoral change, the paper presents local leadership as not only shaping policy but also creating opportunities for broader municipal responses to integration challenges.
Therefore, DUJE’s approach embodies a growing emphasis on urban citizenship, conceived not as a legal category but as participation, access, and recognition within the city. This vision was further consolidated through a partnership with the UNHCR, which helped establish a dedicated refugee branch within DUJE. This collaboration brought both capacity support and symbolic legitimacy, allowing for a more inclusive agenda in a politically contested and volatile national climate.
However, the article also acknowledges that the sustainability of such local initiatives remains deeply affected by broader political developments. Following the 2024 local elections, a further mayoral change and internal restructuring placed DUJE’s future in question; demonstrating how local governance innovations remain vulnerable to political shifts. The case of Izmir thus shows both the opportunity and fragility of urban integration governance: while crises may prompt local institutional adaptations for refugees’ access to rights and services, these remain contingent on political will and institutional continuity.
Conclusion
As these two papers illustrate, migration crises, which we understand as socio-politically constructed processes, present significant challenges to the protection and integration of refugees. The examples of the EU and Türkiye illustrate how politically charged crisis narratives and institutional responses can create or reinforce various borders, limiting refugee access to rights and opportunities. These also make evident that dramatic migration crises may translate into instances of mismanagement or crisis of migration management. However, critical conjunctures also offer opportunities for innovative and collaborative strategies and a reassessment of migration governance. It is crucial to recognise that the impact of migration crises is not predetermined; it is rather shaped by the policy choices and discourses that follow. The scope, content, and implications of such choices may vary considerably across local, national, and regional contexts. We cordially invite you to dive deeper into our Special Issue for more examples and further analysis of institutional responses to migration crises across world regions.
About the Authors
Berfin Nur Osso is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki. She holds a Doctor of Laws degree (with distinction) in international and EU refugee law and migration and border studies from the same university. Her current research involves migration governance in the EU, EU migration and asylum law and policy, migrant workers in the context of green transition, and visual research methods. Contact: personal portfolio, Bluesky, LinkedIn.
Çağla Ekin Güner is a final year PhD candidate in Political Science within the Political Economy track at the Central European University (CEU), Vienna. Her academic interests broadly include migration, (urban) integration governance, intersectional vulnerabilities of migrant women and urban citizenship. Her PhD research focuses on a comparison of refugees’ integration paths and experiences of belonging in Germany and Turkey within the framework of urban politics and governance. Contact details: Personal profile, LinkedIn
Ana Margheritis (PhD, Political Science, University of Toronto) is Research Professor at the National Scientific and Technical Research Council of Argentina and Universidad Torcuato Di Tella. Her expertise is in transnational migration, international political economy, and foreign policy. Her most recent work focuses on migration policy and governance, diaspora engagement policies, and migrant political rights. For a short bio and link to her publications, see here.
[1] UNHCR estimated that due to the civil war ongoing in the Syrian Arab Republic since 2011, 7.2 million Syrians continue to be internally displaced, and another 6.2 million people live as refugees, mostly in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Türkiye. Although returns started after the Assad regime fell in December 2024, international organisations warned against large-scale returns due to uncertainties in the country.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author/s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Refugee Law Initiative. We welcome comments and contributions to this blog – please comment below and see here for contribution guidelines.