Finnish pushback law: “A major deviation for a once internationally renowned country of rule of law”

On Friday 12th July, the Finnish parliament adopted the Act on Temporary Measures to Combat Instrumentalised Migration, also known as the “pushback” law. The bill, valid for one year, allows authorities to turn away migrants attempting to enter Finland at its eastern border with Russia, due to their supposed instrumentalisation by Moscow.

Pargol Miraftabi, lawyer at the Finnish Refugee Advice Centre, highlights the major changes and problems with this new legislation.

What recent events have taken place at Finland’s eastern border with Russia?

During the autumn of 2023, Finland saw more and more exiles arrive at its border with Russia, which is over 1,300 kilometres long.

According to the Finnish authorities, between August 2023 and the end of the year, more than 1,300 migrants from countries such as Somalia, Iraq, Yemen and Syria arrived at the border posts. The number of arrivals has remained relatively low, but has risen significantly over a short period.

The Russian offensive in Ukraine in February 2022 led Finland to become concerned about its security, while relations with Russia had deteriorated as a result of the war. Finland then perceived the arrival of asylum seekers at its border as a crisis orchestrated by Russia, a “hybrid attack” “instrumentalising” migration for destabilisation purposes.

How has Finland reacted to this situation?

Finland progressively closed all its border crossing points with Russia since November, a measure that was supposed to be temporary but has now been extended and expanded by taking the decision to close the border indefinitely. At the same time, the government has adopted a temporary law enabling it to pushback people at the border, without giving them the possibility of applying for asylum, contrary to international law. The decision to allow pushbacks still needs to be separately taken by the government, but since the law has been adopted, we expect the decision to be taken soon.

Changes had already been introduced by the previous government in July 2022, with the amendment to the Border Guard Act, permitting the construction of a fence along the Finnish-Russian border as well as centralising where asylum claims could be submitted. The change of government in the summer of 2023 reinforced this trend. The most drastic reaction has been the previously mentioned temporary law, called the “pushback law”, aiming to stop arrivals of asylum seekers in Finland, allowing them to be pushed back into Russia. Other changes introduced include a law allowing those in the military or the army reserve to be sent to the border and the increased use of technology.

The new legislation states that migrants who have been “instrumentalised” will not be allowed to enter Finland but will be pushed back into Russia. However, the government has not been able give concrete examples of situations of “instrumentalisation”, but simply repeated that Russia poses a security threat, is organising the entry into Finland, and could bring people to the border in a matter of hours. So, it is difficult to understand this concept in practice. Despite all of this, drastic measures are being taken in its name, measures that are not acceptable in any case.

At the moment, the border appears to be calm. Since the beginning of 2024, there have been around 30-40 irregular border crossings, and the question of the proportionality of the Finnish reaction arises. The introduction of these legislative changes, contrary to our international obligations and our constitution, is alarming and all the more difficult to understand.

What are the possible impacts on asylum seekers after the introduction of this law?

The terminology used is related to security policy and not to the right to asylum, but it is the possibility for exiles to apply for asylum that will be undermined. Border guards can use force, and we will see cases of refoulement that are fundamentally contrary to the right to asylum enshrined in the Geneva Convention, which Finland has ratified.

Another question that arises is what will happen to asylum seekers that might be stuck at the Finnish-Russian border. How are their humanitarian needs met and where can they go? The law contains an exception for those in a “particular vulnerable group”, allowing the ones who managed to cross the border to submit an asylum application in Finland. This refers to children, people with disabilities, and other particularly vulnerable groups. The evaluation is conducted by the border guard at the border. In such a context, there are no procedural guarantees, no lawyers, nothing. We don’t think it is possible to identify a person’s vulnerabilities in these circumstances, because even in the current asylum procedures a lot of vulnerabilities are not identified. Despite these exceptions, the legislation cannot be justified since it goes against the right to seek asylum, a right that everyone has, whether or not you are considered part of a vulnerable group. Moreover, these exceptions do not apply if there are large numbers of people entering or if they are entering violently.

The law has received a lot of criticism by human rights groups, how has it been received by members of Parliament?

The criticism has not solely come from human rights groups. The Finnish constitutional committee, which examines whether a law is in line with the constitution and with international legal obligations before it is passed, heard 18 of the top constitutional law experts in Finland. All of them said it cannot be introduced as it is fundamentally against the country’s obligations. Despite this, the constitutional committee allowed it to be passed. This type of practice is rarely seen in Finland to this extent and has fuelled debates about the politicisation of the committee.

The conversations surrounding this topic have been difficult since it seems that security goes before anything else. The government has started to redefine the rule of law, aiming to redefine it around the concept of national security, threatened by Russia, instead of respecting our international obligations.

What problems does this raise in relation to international law and Finland’s international commitments? 

This legislation is against our international commitments, against the right to seek asylum, the principle of non-refoulement, collective expulsion and non-discrimination. It also goes against EU law: the border guards shouldn’t be able to apply it because of the primacy of EU law, but this isn’t properly addressed in the legislation. I think we will be seeing cases in the European courts against Finland. The adoption of this legislation is a major deviation for Finland that was once internationally regarded as a renowned country of rule of law.

Pour lire cet article en français : https://www.vuesdeurope.eu/news/loi-finlandaise-sur-les-pushbacks-une-deviation-majeure-pour-un-pays-jusquici-mondialement-reconnu-pour-respecter-letat-de-droit/