LEGISLATIVE MEANS TO COMBAT INSTRUMENTALISED MIGRATION? – CASE FINLAND

The aim of the study is to analyse, how to properly respond to instrumentalised migration by means of legislation – can the state invoke national security to respond to the phenomenon? Is it possible to deviate from international agreements by referring to “fundamental change of circumstances” (e.g. Article 62 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties)? The article analyses, as an example, how Finland – a state governed by the Rule of Law – has tried to respond to hybrid operations, such as instrumentalised migration, through legislative means. These include, for example, changes to the Border Guard Act, the Emergency Powers Act and lastly, the Act to combat instrumentalised migration (constitutional enactment), which is in conflict with international obligations (the right to apply for asylum). The article represents legal research, combined with military sciences (military and operational law). First, the article problematizes briefly the question of the relationship between international law, EU law and national law, considering the topic. After this, Finland's national legislative measures to respond to hybrid operations will be presented. Lastly, conclusions shall be summarized. The research indicates that states are even more ready to appeal to their national interests, ignoring their international obligations. This poses a challenge to the sustainability of the international treaty system, requiring a new interpretation of the treaty texts – or changes to the treaties.