Anyone entering the European Union has the right to apply for asylum. This right is enshrined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Finnish government has now passed the so-called Conversion Law, which allows asylum seekers to be categorically turned away at the border. If necessary, they can also be forcibly returned. Prime Minister Petteri Orpo described the law as a “difficult law” for all parties involved. He is clearly aware that his government is violating international obligations. Nevertheless, they are proceeding with it.
Why? Orpo argues that Finland is a victim of Russia’s hybrid warfare. Migrants, he claims, are being used as weapons and deliberately sent across the border. The existing laws, he says, were drafted at a time when refugees were not being instrumentalized in this way. In recent years, Russia and Belarus have repeatedly funneled migrants from the Middle East to European borders in an effort to destabilize the European Union. From this perspective, the Conversion Law can be seen as an act of self-defense. Finland’s Minister of the Interior, Mari Rantanen, stated that the government has “the right and duty to protect our borders and our right to self-determination.” Rantanen, who introduced the new law, is a member of the Finns Party, which has always taken a hardline stance on migration. One of the leading figures of the Finns Party, Jussi Halla-aho, began his political career over 20 years ago with a blog titled “Scripta – Writings from a Sinking West,” in which he harshly criticized immigration, multiculturalism, and Islam. Halla-aho was fined for incitement to hatred. Today, he is the President of the Finnish Parliament. So, is Russia’s hybrid warfare merely a convenient opportunity for the Finns Party to finally execute what they’ve always wanted: to completely close the border to migrants?
That may be the case, but the four-party coalition, of which the Finns Party is a member, could not have passed the Conversion Law on its own. A five-sixths majority in parliament was required. After heated debates, 167 members of parliament voted in favor and 31 against; the governing coalition has only 108 votes. The approval for the Conversion Law extends far beyond the government and, according to surveys, reflects a broader sentiment within the Finnish population.
Even though the law is, as the government emphasizes, a temporary exception initially limited to one year, it aligns with an increasingly tough stance on immigration and asylum policy across Europe. Among Scandinavian countries, Denmark has long been a pioneer of restrictive migration policies. Sweden has also followed this path since 2022, influenced by the Sweden Democrats. Furthermore, in April of this year, the EU itself reformed its asylum and migration policy. Under the new rules, asylum procedures may be conducted at the external borders of the European Union in the future. That no other country has gone as far as the Finnish government can be attributed to the direct and real threat posed by Russia. Finland may have set a precedent that could ultimately lead to the de facto abolition of the right to asylum. The European Commission or individual EU member states now have the option to file a lawsuit for treaty violations. However, whether they will do so remains to be seen. In the recent European elections, voters shifted significantly to the right politically, which could be interpreted as a desire to control migration more effectively. A lawsuit against Finland’s Conversion Law would run counter to this widespread desire for more effective border control.
