Should the EU give up on readmission agreements as a foreign policy tool?

The document argues that EU readmission agreements are often ineffective because they lack incentives aligned with the national interests of partner countries. Using Nigeria as a case study, it highlights how the decoupling of visa facilitation from readmission agreements has hindered negotiations. The authors recommend that the EU shift toward a 'responsibility sharing' framework that includes legal migration channels and reintegration support rather than focusing narrowly on returns.

• The EU has established formal readmission agreements with 18 countries and informal arrangements with six others to streamline the return of irregularised migrants.
• Historically, the EU used visa liberalisation as a primary incentive for readmission agreements, but these two policy goals have since become decoupled.
• Negotiations for a readmission agreement between the EU and Nigeria have been stalled for nearly a decade, with significant interruptions in 2016 and 2020.
• The EU's attempt to use the Generalized Scheme of Preferences (GSP) to remove import tariffs as an incentive for Nigeria has proven inefficient.
• Nigeria's reluctance to sign the agreement is driven by economic concerns, as remittances accounted for 5.3% of its GDP in 2019.
• The proposed EU agreement is viewed as pragmatically flawed because it lacks reintegration assistance, which may lead to higher rates of re-migration.
• Demographic differences, specifically Nigeria's young population versus the EU's ageing population, suggest that youth mobility and the 'Talent Partnership' are key but currently insufficient incentives.
• Informal readmission arrangements, such as the 2016 agreement with Afghanistan, are criticized by legal scholars for bypassing democratic control and judicial accountability.
• The authors recommend that the EU move away from 'burden shifting' and instead establish partnership frameworks based on 'responsibility sharing'.
• Effective incentives for partner countries should include the opening of legal regular migration channels and comprehensive reintegration support.

APA

Ike, N., Lebon-McGregor, E., Jumbert, M. G., & Akal, A. B. (2024). Should the EU give up on readmission agreements as a foreign policy tool? Peace Research Institute Oslo. https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/dc410df9-1827-4e11-a652-1a67f2392205/mpb-d95a-should_the_eu_give_up_on_readmission_agreements-layout-2024-01-31.pdf?inline=true

Chicago

Ike, Niels, Elaine Lebon-McGregor, Maria Gabrielsen Jumbert, and Ayşe Bala Akal. Should the EU give up on readmission agreements as a foreign policy tool? Peace Research Institute Oslo, 2024. https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/dc410df9-1827-4e11-a652-1a67f2392205/mpb-d95a-should_the_eu_give_up_on_readmission_agreements-layout-2024-01-31.pdf?inline=true.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Ike |first1=Niels |last2=Lebon-McGregor |first2=Elaine |last3=Jumbert |first3=Maria Gabrielsen |last4=Akal |first4=Ayşe Bala |title=Should the EU give up on readmission agreements as a foreign policy tool? |publisher=Peace Research Institute Oslo |date=2024 |url=https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/dc410df9-1827-4e11-a652-1a67f2392205/mpb-d95a-should_the_eu_give_up_on_readmission_agreements-layout-2024-01-31.pdf?inline=true |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{ike2024should, author = {Ike, Niels and Lebon-McGregor, Elaine and Jumbert, Maria Gabrielsen and Akal, Ayşe Bala}, title = {{Should the EU give up on readmission agreements as a foreign policy tool?}}, institution = {Peace Research Institute Oslo}, year = {2024}, url = {https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/dc410df9-1827-4e11-a652-1a67f2392205/mpb-d95a-should_the_eu_give_up_on_readmission_agreements-layout-2024-01-31.pdf?inline=true}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }