The Constitution and human rights - The border question is a Pandora's box!

Last Friday was a day of big headlines: the eastern border emergency legislation is still dominating the news.

The situation reminds me of the myth of Pandora from Hesiod's Works and Days. As Wikipedia puts it: "Hesiod related that curiosity led Pandora to open a container left in the care of her husband, thus releasing curses upon mankind."

Let’s start by making one thing absolutely clear: no one condones Russia’s hybrid warfare or the instrumentalisation of migration. Russia's actions violate both human rights and Finland’s sovereignty. Cynical influence by hostile states shouldn't be tolerated anywhere.

But let’s turn our focus back to Finland. On Friday, Prime Minister Petteri Orpo (NCP) and Interior Minister Mari Rantanen (Finns) proudly presented a proposal of emergency legislation. According to Rantanen, the law would “temporarily and regionally restrict applications for international protection.” The proposal represents a clear departure from the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and all conventional EU asylum regulations.

It feels strange to state the obvious, but today, in the year 2024, Finland is a state of law. Our social order is based on legislation and international agreements.

Our Constitution and the officials upholding it cannot contradict with Finland’s global commitments.

In this border issue, however, these agreements are being struck down almost systematically. I believe this is wrong—the government is barking up the wrong tree.

The government’s emergency legislation is a radical choice. The right to seek asylum is fundamental and protecting it is a key human rights issue. How has this been addressed? Well, according to Sanna Palo, a department head at the Ministry of the Interior, even under emergency legislation, “border officials would still discuss with asylum seekers to ensure they could express any potential threats.”

This blog post alone proves that the ability to engage in dialogue does not require bypassing the Constitution or international law.

Yes, there are blind spots in the refugee agreements, but fixing them is a separate issue. The government has not adequately addressed this matter. With this emergency law, the government is answering the issue completely ass-backwards.

Instrumentalised migration flows are a problem, and the practice also harms those genuinely in need of asylum. Yet the plight of people fleeing war and persecution is absent from the government’s rhetoric. I must ask: does the government truly believe their chosen path is the right one? Stretching our Constitution and disregarding international law is not a sensible solution. Greater attention, international pressure, and compassion could be achieved by finding effective ways to counter hybrid warfare through updated international agreements and tighter EU regulations.

If we throw our values to the bin, Vladimir Putin—the Russian president who just won a sham election—will get exactly what he wants: a West where each country acts alone rather than together. A West where refugees are reduced to political pawns. A West suffering from a moral decay, acting on emotion instead of reason.

The emergency law is a Pandora’s box.

I don’t want the constitutional amendment process to be used as a last resort at the wrong time—that’s how you lose the game easily.

The government’s credibility on this issue is shaky at best, but given the track record of its key leaders, I’m not surprised. Let’s not forget that Jani Mäkelä, a Finns Party MP, once tweeted about his “contempt” for the rule of law in support for Hungary. In this border law issue, that contempt is truly materializing.

It all raises a troubling question: if we give the government a green light on this matter, what other obligations is Orpo’s xenophobe-dominated cabinet willing to bypass using the "emergency law card"? Does the line stop with the Refugee Convention, or could other disliked agreements be chucked out next —what about the future of climate treaties, for instance?

If you undermine one international agreement, you undermine them all, and Finland’s credibility as a reliable actor is damaged. Our nation’s trustworthiness will be called into question. All agreements are built on mutual trust, and Finland cannot afford to lose it.

Otherwise we’re going down the path of Russia.

Lauri Kaunisaho

Student, municipal councillor for Keitele, second vice chairperson of the council (Greens)

Keitele/Joensuu