A/80/302 I. Introduction 1. In recent years, externalization has become a defining feature of migration, asylum and border governance. While externalization is not a new phenomenon, it is on the rise. Externalization is often implemented in combination with other measures, such as securitization and criminalization of migration, thereby increasing constraints on civil society actors, in particular non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in protecting the human rights of migrants, and the militarization of borders. 1 While externalization appears to be a global phenomenon, it is most widely practised by high-income destination countries. Although the focus of the present report is the externalization of migration, many of the measures referred to herein also have the potential to affect asylum-seekers and refugees and are inextricably linked with risks of the externalization of asylum and refugee protection obligations. All policies or practices that affect migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees must be in compliance with both international human rights law and international refugee law. 2 2. For the purpose of the present report, “externalization” is understood as “the process of shifting functions that are normally undertaken by a State within its own territory so that they take place, in part or in whole, outside its territory”. 3 It is an umbrella term, referring to cooperation designed to prevent migration, carry out administrative processes beyond national borders and facilitate the return of migrants to third countries. 4 In the present report, Member States that externalize migration processes are referred to as “externalizing States,” and those that cooperate with externalizing States are referred to as “third States.” To elicit agreement to cooperate, externalizing States tend to leverage a mixture of positive and negative incentives. 5 Although externalization measures are labelled as cooperation or partnerships, they should be distinguished from international cooperation, which facilitates migration and access to protection and enhances joint responses to displacement and __________________ 1 2 3 4 5 25-12609 A/72/335, paras. 10–12; and A/HRC/37/50, paras. 7 and 16, A/HRC/44/42, paras. 66–85, and A/HRC/59/49, paras. 4, 30 and 34. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), “Note on the ‘externalization’ of international protection”, 2021. The Office’s definition of externalization can be found in paragraph 5 of the note. See Refugee Law Initiative, “Refugee law initiative declaration on externalisation and asylum”, International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 34, No. 1 (March 2022), pp. 114–119. The understanding of externalization as being premised on collaboration between States is shared by the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (A/HRC/37/50, para. 7). That understanding is also supported by a briefing document on the extraterritorial processing of asylum claims prepared for the European Parliament (available at www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2024/757609/EPRS_BRI(2024)757609_EN.pdf ). Accordingly, unilateral returns or pushbacks in which the other country does not cooperate or acquiesce, although they have extraterritorial reach, are not covered by the understanding of externalization set out in the present report. The Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants has addressed those measures in reports submitted to the Human Rights Council (see A/HRC/38/41 and A/HRC/47/30). For example, see the conclusions of the European Council meeting held on 22 and 23 June 2017 (EUCO 8/17), para. 22. Although externalization cooperation yields benefits, most typically in the form of financial support, visa liberalization, preferential tr ade or diplomatic support, it tends to lead to increased border restrictions and surveillance, and those in turn disrupt daily cross-border movement, trade and local economies (see submission by Brot für die Welt). 3/23