Between Meeting Refugee Quotas and Following the Duty-Bound Heart: From the Non-Ideal to the Ideal and Back

This article delves into a central dilemma surrounding refugee protection in the EU, shedding light on the tensions associated with an emphasis on admission quotas vs relevant normative considerations. The dilemma is this: if states are given the freedom to choose refugees, it may weaken the commitment to providing robust protection for all refugees in need. On the other hand, prioritising a robust approach might mean sacrificing the opportunity to offer protection to a larger number of refugees. While recognising the importance of numerical targets, the article argues that they may not adequately address the interests of all refugees and could potentially undermine their robust protection. To support this claim, the article departs from our current non-ideal conditions by examining and comparing the cases of Ukrainian and Syrian refugees admitted in the EU; the paper reveals disparities in refugee protection within the EU and the complex nature of addressing these disparities. To tackle these challenges, it advocates for a robust approach to refugee protection that surpasses mere quota fulfilment and prioritises a genuine disposition to protect refugees, regardless of domestic political preferences. Acknowledging the challenges of non-compliance in non-ideal conditions, the paper suggests a time-sensitive approach that seeks to ease the dilemma arising in such conditions between the robust protection of all types of refuges and bigger numbers of refugee admissions while considering relevant factors that matter in policy choices such as the timing of admissions and sanctions as well as competing policy priorities. Ultimately, the article cautions against relying solely on high numbers as a measure of effective refugee protection and calls for a long-term commitment to robust and genuine refuge provision as a means to ease the examined dilemma.