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.