When states use deterrence—such as pushbacks, detention, or closing borders—as a primary management tool, they often clash with established legal obligations. International law, specifically the principle of non-refoulement, prohibits returning individuals to places where they face torture or death. Harsh policies frequently bypass this rule, creating a gap between written treaties and actual border practice.
This gap erodes legal integrity. When governments ignore these norms to stop migration flows, the rules start to look like suggestions rather than binding commitments. It sets a precedent where sovereignty is used as a shield to avoid human rights responsibilities. Instead of upholding universal standards, states prioritize political messaging over legal consistency.
Morally, these strategies shift the focus from individual dignity to border security. Critics argue that treating vulnerable people as security threats undermines the core idea that certain rights belong to everyone, regardless of status. This approach turns human rights from an absolute standard into a flexible tool that can be ignored when political pressure builds. Consequently, the framework loses its power to protect anyone if the strongest nations decide not to follow it.
