In the year of 2016 the EU introduced an extraordinary agreement with Turkey. The aim was to jointly manage the increasing migration flows that arose during the migration crisis between 2015-2016. This by introducing new security measures aimed at making it difficult for migrants to cross the sea route via Turkey into the EU. Both with the mission to protect the EU:s external borders but also to decrease the rising death rates among migrants that had been trying to cross the sea route. The agreement with Turkey is still active to this day and poses as the main framework to handle migration in the eastern mediterranean. With rising concerns and critique from human rights groups, that the agreement is causing extensive human suffering it becomes an interesting topic to study. Therefore this thesis aims to explore how EU-politicians from the start have managed to justify the implementation of the EU-Turkey deal and restrictive measures taken against migrants. Which in the thesis has been explored by examining how EU-politicians strategically have used two types of security discourse: the humanitarian and the pure security discourse. Within their political statements regarding the EU-Turkey agreement between the year 2015-2016. The political statements have been analyzed through Norman Fairclough's critical discourse analysis. And together with the theoretical framework of the securitization theory the thesis has concluded that the two security discourses are strategically used to create representations of migrants and the EU that favors the EU-Turkey agreement. In addition the thesis emphasizes how the security discourses within the political statements have securitized the migration issue, which according to the securitization theory makes it easier to justify the implementation of extraordinary measures.

As European governments rapidly turn their attention to the implementation of the EU-Turkey agreement, this thesis raises significant questions regarding refugees’ access to international protection. At its core, the agreement aims to address the flow of irregular migrants and asylum seekers traveling across the Mediterranean from Turkey to Greece, by allowing returns of “all irregular migrants”. The aim of this thesis has been to examine if these actions limit two fundamental refugee rights; the right to seek asylum and the principle of non-refoulement. If so, are these restrictions legitimate according to Seyla Benhabib’s and Joseph Carens’ theory? These two theoreticians have been chosen because they problematize the conflicting view of state sovereignty in relation to refugees’ rights. This is significant when the state maintains border control and is responsible to prevent refugees from entering the state. This thesis shows that the EU-Turkey agreement is not compatible with the practical obligations of states under international law and the European Union asylum policy, simply because Turkey is not a safe third country for refugees to be sent back to. Thus, the actions within the agreement does restrict refugees’ right to seek asylum and the principle of non-refoulement. These restrictions cannot be considered legitimate, based on the thesis’ theoretical approach. To study the EU-Turkey agreement involves addressing one of the most urgent topics in international law and political theory, as well as providing normative grounds for future migration agreements between states.