Legislating the Crisis: An Evolution of Migration Frameworks in the Czech Republic and Poland (2022–2026)

Migration, driven by political, economic, and military instability, has intensified in Europe throughout the twentieth century, necessitating the establishment of legal protection standards such as the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Common European Asylum System. The migration landscape shifted continuously, culminating in mass movements triggered by the Syrian Civil War in 2011 and the subsequent crisis in 2015. These events demonstrated that temporary displacement often evolves into long-term migration, as return becomes impossible even after conflicts subside. The full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 triggered the largest displacement of people in Europe since World War II. Poland and the Czech Republic emerged as the primary destination countries, hosting the highest numbers of refugees per capita. This unprecedented influx presented a huge shock for two states that historically maintained rigid, restrictive migration policies and strongly opposed refugee quotas during the 2015 migration crisis. Prior to 2022, neither country possessed a comprehensive migration strategy or legislative infrastructure capable of absorbing millions of refugees. Consequently, the response relied on the quick adoption of special legal frameworks, publicly known as “Lex Ukraine” in both Czech Republic and Poland. Methodologically, this study is grounded in a systematic analysis of primary legal documents adopted by the Polish Sejm and the Czech Parliament, as well as parliamentary debates. The research traces the legislative trajectory from the initial consensus in early 2022 to the increasingly fragmented political discourse in subsequent years. At the same time, it also covers the shift from the initial urge for quick action to efforts to find long-term solutions for migrants who stay in their new country permanently. The research focuses on three main objectives. First, it compares the evolution of these legal frameworks, mapping the shift from emergency humanitarian aid (e.g., unconditional housing and benefits) to more restrictive measures, such as the introduction of time limits on state-provided accommodation and health insurance. Second, it examines the implementation gap, analysing whether the ambitious legislative changes, such as labour market access and education integration, were successfully translated into practice or if they faced administrative bottlenecks at the municipal level. Finally, we analyse whether both countries continued to address the crisis in similar ways or if domestic politics caused them to adopt different measures. Theoretically, the paper utilises the framework of new institutionalism to understand how rigid institutional settings adapt to external shocks. While the "Lex Ukraine" frameworks initially emerged as temporary deviations from restrictive norms, the struggle to implement them effectively has sparked a broader debate about the permanent transformation of the migration model in Central Europe.