عنوان مقاله [English]
Seeking asylum and migration, and their consequent effects and consequences, are among the facts and problems in the contemporary world. In this regard, "humanitarian borders" is a novel concept in the international system that monitors some attempts at alleviating the pain and suffering of migrants on borders, especially those of the European Union. In practice, these attempts have failed to secure the rights of migrants and have been overshadowed by the security interests of the EU. This paper aims to determine to what extent arranging humanitarian borders by the EU has provided migrants and refugees with their basic rights. According to the research hypothesis, humanitarian policies and actions on the EU borders, which should logically mitigate the pain and suffering of migrants and refugees, are overshadowed by political considerations rather than compliance with human right requirements. In fact, these policies and actions have become a part of the tool to justify various acts of violence on the EU borders. Using a normative-descriptive framework, this paper employs a qualitative method based on the literature on humanitarian borders to analyze the abovementioned process. It also aims to indicate that emphasizing the procedures and components of human security rather than those of national security and governmental security can provide a favorable framework for the implementation of humanitarian borders. This security concerns human life and dignity and its ultimate goal is to protect the principal foundations of human life from pervasive threats in addition to providing refugees and migrants with long-term interests.