Complementary Pathways at the Crossroads Between Migration and Asylum: Enhancing or Diluting the International Refugee Regime?

Abstract

Abstract Complementary pathways present a legally sound case for an interrogation of the distinction between migration and asylum, as they test the foundations of the international refugee regime and its key principles. Are complementary pathways enhancing the protection of refugees or diluting it? This analysis contributes to a discussion on the intersection between migration and asylum (the “migration–asylum nexus”). It takes three examples of pathways to Spain to illustrate this nexus: a labour mobility pathway, a combined resettlement and labour mobility pathway and an education mobility pathway. The cases show that if complementary pathways are designed to target refugees recognised as such in the receiving country, there is no risk of not addressing their protection needs. On the contrary, if the residence status of the beneficiaries of these pathways is not protection based, the result could be that their protection needs may not be taken into account. Ultimately, if beneficiaries of complementary pathways enjoy lower levels of protection than refugees, a serious question about the desirability of complementary pathways is posed. However, depending on their legal and policy design, complementary pathways may avoid some of the pitfalls resulting from the blurring of the refugee/migrant distinction and enhance the international refugee regime.