Hostile Instrumentalized Migration and the Right to Seek Asylum

Abstract Current world politics is witnessing simultaneously the growth and decline of interconnectedness in the field of human rights. This development can be seen also in the context of instrumentalized migration: on the one hand, states desire to follow universal human rights standards at the borders; on the other hand, states are willing to put their sovereignty and particular security interests before migrants’ and asylum seekers’ rights. This article concerns the right to seek asylum in the context of hostile instrumentalized migration. On the one hand, the right to seek asylum is a human right that should be respected in every context. On the other hand, states have the rights to control migration and protect their sovereignty and their people’s security. I ask whether there could be democratically defined exceptions to this right. Do states need to accept asylum applications if the purpose is to create harm or to destabilise the country that should receive the application? Is the right to seek asylum always absolute, unpolitical and non-negotiable, or should states also have a right to take into account other matters as well, such as sovereignty, security and the context?