Relations between Somalia and the European Union (EU) have recently encountered an unexpected diplomatic hurdle. The EU has imposed temporary visa restrictions on Somali nationals, arguing that Mogadishu has not cooperated sufficiently in accepting the return of Somali citizens who have been denied asylum or are residing irregularly in Europe. Somalia, however, has challenged this assessment, insisting that it cannot receive individuals whose Somali nationality has not been conclusively established.
At the centre of the disagreement lies a fundamental question: can a state be compelled to accept deportees whose identity remains uncertain, and to what extent are international legal obligations being observed?
The EU’s position is largely driven by concerns over irregular migration. European governments have experienced increasing migratory pressures in recent years and have sought stronger cooperation from countries of origin to facilitate the return of rejected asylum seekers. The visa restrictions are intended as leverage to encourage Somalia to accelerate readmission procedures.
Somalia’s response has been markedly different. Somali officials have argued that many individuals identified by European authorities as Somali nationals are, in fact, citizens of neighbouring countries who have claimed Somali identity during asylum applications. The government maintains that accepting persons without proper verification would create serious legal, security and administrative complications.
From a legal perspective, Somalia’s concerns are not without foundation. International law recognises the sovereign right of states to determine who their nationals are and to verify citizenship claims before granting admission.
Moreover, the controversy raises questions about several international legal principles governing refugees and migrants.
The cornerstone of international refugee protection is the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. Article 33 of the Convention establishes the principle of non-refoulement, prohibiting states from returning refugees to territories where they may face persecution, threats to life or serious harm. The principle has become one of the most important norms of international refugee law and is widely regarded as part of customary international law.
Similarly, the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly Article 3, prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights has consistently held that individuals cannot be removed to countries where they face a real risk of such treatment. European states are therefore legally required to conduct careful individual assessments before carrying out deportations.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) also imposes obligations upon states to respect fundamental human rights and due process protections. Deportation procedures that do not provide adequate opportunities to challenge removal decisions or establish identity may raise questions under these international standards.
Furthermore, the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, endorsed by the United Nations in 2018, encourages states to ensure that returns are safe, dignified and based upon cooperation and accurate identification procedures. Although the Compact is not legally binding, it represents an important international framework that emphasises human rights and shared responsibility.
It would be legally inaccurate to suggest that the European Union is automatically breaching international law merely by seeking the return of rejected asylum seekers. International law recognises the right of states to remove individuals who have exhausted legal remedies and have no lawful basis to remain. However, international law equally requires that deportations be carried out with full respect for human rights obligations, proper nationality verification and the principle of non-refoulement.
Likewise, Somalia has obligations under international law to receive its own nationals. Yet no country can reasonably be expected to accept individuals whose citizenship remains disputed or inadequately established. Nationality verification is not an act of obstruction; it is a sovereign and legal responsibility.
The current dispute therefore reflects a broader challenge facing the international community. Migration management cannot be reduced to administrative efficiency or political pressure. It requires cooperation, trust and strict adherence to international legal principles.
The European Union and Somalia have long maintained a strategic partnership encompassing peacebuilding, governance, security and development assistance. Both sides share an interest in preserving this relationship. Turning a migration disagreement into a prolonged diplomatic confrontation would serve neither party.
A constructive solution lies in strengthening joint identity-verification mechanisms, improving information sharing and ensuring that every return decision complies with international refugee and human rights law. The issue is ultimately not whether migration controls should exist, but whether they can be implemented in a manner that respects human dignity, state sovereignty and the rule of law.
In an era of increasing global displacement, the Somalia-EU disagreement serves as a reminder that migration policy must remain anchored in legal principles rather than expediency. International conventions were designed precisely for such difficult circumstances: to protect human beings while balancing the legitimate interests of states.
Mohamed Mohamoud Adde is an academic and a geopolitical analyst