Summary
In 2021, Belarus was accused of orchestrating a migration crisis at its borders to the European Union (EU) for political purposes. In response, the EU Member States bordering Belarus, supported by EU authorities, closed their borders and engaged in forcible returns under the pretext that they were being subjected to ‘instrumentalized’ migration. The situation evolved into a prolonged border stand-off, with migrants subjected to ill-treatment by authorities on both sides. Yet, both Belarus and the EU claimed they were doing nothing wrong. Against this backdrop, and guided by insights from diverse academic literature on how states strategically frame border-crossing events to rationalize policies and practices that come at odds with migrants’ rights, this thesis explores how the 2021 border events were framed and handled by the two main actors involved. Through qualitative analysis of official publications by the EU and Belarus during the 2021 events, the study finds that both actors framed the border situation in a way that implied a narrow view of their own human rights obligations towards migrants and how these should come into play in handling the events. The study argues that the actors’ framing served to rationalize the measures they took in practice, which through legal analysis are shown to have violated several of the fundamental human rights of migrants caught up in the events. The study further finds that the EU has codified aspects of its framing and approach into its legal framework, suggesting potentially broader implications for migrants' rights beyond this specific case. While acknowledging the political challenges and tensions characterizing the 2021 border events, this thesis points to the significant human costs of conflating migrants themselves with the states that seek to exploit them for their own political agendas.
Read the Report
Rationalizing Rights Violations at the Borders
Ellen Vrålstad
January 2026