27th Parliamentary-Intelligence Security Forum – Weaponized Migration: A Global Challenge

Professor Milos Ivkovic argued that mass migration is increasingly being used as a form of hybrid attack against sovereign nations, amplified by media narratives that frame border enforcement as inhumane. Drawing on his background teaching international criminal and asylum law at Washington University and his humanitarian rescue work in Africa, he stressed that his position is not anti–human rights, but grounded in legal interpretation.

Using a hypothetical scenario, he explained that asylum law protects individuals facing genuine persecution who seek refuge in the first safe country they enter. Under the 1951 Refugee Convention, asylum is limited to specific grounds such as race, religion, or political persecution. If individuals pass through safe jurisdictions before reaching another destination, he argued, they are no longer asylum seekers under international law but immigrants subject to domestic immigration rules.

He emphasized that immigration and asylum are legally distinct concepts. Immigration policy, he said, falls within national sovereignty and can be restricted—even to zero immigration—without violating international law. Asylum, by contrast, is narrowly defined and regulated by international agreements. He warned that conflating the two undermines the rule of law and weakens national security.

He concluded that migration has become weaponized not only through physical movement but through manipulation of public opinion. According to him, foreign adversaries such as Russia, China, and Iran exploit migration flows and information campaigns to pressure Western democracies. He urged lawmakers to reaffirm legal definitions, defend sovereignty, and resist narratives that blur the distinction between human rights protections and immigration control.