Comparative Study of the EU’s Approach to the Syrian Refugee Crisis (2015) and the Ukrainian Refugee Crisis (2022)

Guest blog post by Jamie McDiarmid, University of Stirling. 

This post is part of a series of guest blog posts written by PhD researchers and SHRC’s LLM Human Rights Dissertation Placement Student who took part in our Human Rights Research Knowledge Exchange Showcase last year. 

Introduction and overview of the research

This PhD research project investigates the European Union’s responses to the 2015 Syrian and 2022 Ukrainian refugee crises, exploring the bloc’s different approach to both events while asking the question “Why does the EU and its member states apply the UN Refugee Convention inconsistently?”. In Scotland, where refugee arrivals have grown and the 2026 Parliament election looms, these issues increasingly shape public and policy debates. Drawing on interdisciplinary perspectives from international relations, sociology, and law, the study examines factors such as race, ethnicity, religion, culture, and rising far-right nationalism. Still in its early stages, the project aims to uncover how these dynamics shape EU decision-making and challenge norms within the international refugee regime. Its objectives include analysing the EU’s interpretation of the UN Refugee Convention, assessing socio-cultural influences on policy, integrating sociological insights into crisis responses, and evaluating the Convention’s effectiveness in addressing modern challenges.

The EU’s Contention with the rights of refugees?

The European Union (EU) often operates in a state of polycrisis, managing multiple challenges simultaneously. Jean Monnet, a founding father of the EU, famously stated, “Europe will be forged in crisis” and defined by its responses to them. Post-World War II, Monnet envisioned a united Europe resolving crises collaboratively, not through conflict. Migration has long shaped the continent, from wars and state successions to the EU’s hallmark of labour migration via freedom of movement.  We are however, seeing refugee numbers surge, which is increasingly pressuring EU asylum systems, causing tensions amongst EU member states on how to respond appropriately.  This here, is another test of the EU’s ability to collaborate on such politically hot issues.

The 2015 Syrian and 2022 Ukrainian refugee crises tested European unity, revealing starkly different responses from non-EU member states Syria and Ukraine, near EU borders, with Ukraine subsequently applying for membership four days after the Russian invasion, making this a serious issue for the bloc. In response to the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine, the EU activated the Temporary Protection Directive (unprecedented at the time) granting Ukrainians immediate protection, residence, and work rights across member states. EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen emphasised swift action over bureaucratic delays, reflecting the Temporary Protection Directives rapid implementation. In contrast, Syrian refugees, fleeing the escalating Syrian Civil War in 2015, faced significant barriers to support, raising questions about why the Directive was not triggered then, despite similar circumstances.

Discourse around these crises further highlights disparities, even among anti-immigration states like Hungary and Poland. In 2015, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán fiercely opposed Syrian refugees, labelling them a “public security and terror risk” and migration itself a “poison” to be rejected (Kroet, 2016).

Yet, in 2022, he pledged swift support for Ukrainians, promising to “rise to the challenge quickly and efficiently” (Marrinan, 2016). This shift from securitization and fearmongering about Syrians to solidarity with Ukrainians underscores a troubling inconsistency in framing refugees versus migrants. 

These contrasting responses and narratives reveal a selective approach to migration crises, challenging the EU’s commitment to unified, human rights-based solutions. This selective approach to refugee rights in the EU sets the stage for examining Scotland’s response, where similar disparities emerge despite its distinct human rights framework.

Scotland’s New Scots Strategy: Tackling Institutional Discrimination?

This research examines how institutions create and implement policies, focusing on how race, ethnicity, nationality, and culture influence these processes. This section analyses the Scottish Government’s actions during the Ukraine Refugee Crisis (2022) compared to the Syrian Refugee Crisis, within the broader refugee and human rights framework. Like the EU’s selective activation of the Temporary Protection Directive, Scotland’s policies reveal disparities that question consistent adherence to the UN Refugee Convention’s principles. Although migration and refugee policies are reserved to the UK Government, the Scottish Government manages significant responsibilities, particularly in healthcare and housing. Despite being a sub-state actor, Scotland has positioned itself as a global leader in human rights, engaging with international progression towards human rights realisation (Mills and Birdsall, 2024). Its New Scots Strategy, praised by the UN Special Rapporteur on Elimination of Discrimination, diverges from the UK’s Hostile Environment Policy, reinforcing Scotland’s identity as a ‘good global citizen’ (UN General Assembly Report, 2019, p. 16).

During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Scottish Government swiftly supported displaced Ukrainians through the Homes for Ukraine Scheme. This program streamlined resettlement, providing rapid access to housing, healthcare, and social security. The response set a high standard, marked by two key actions: 1) appointing a Minister for Ukrainian Refugees, and 2) implementing a streamlined resettlement process.

The dedicated minister signalled strong support for Ukrainians but raised concerns about a potential two-tiered refugee system based on nationality or ethnicity. This could imply preferential treatment, undermining equity for other displaced groups. In 2022, the UK saw ~223,000 Ukrainian arrivals under visa schemes, compared to ~20,000 Syrians resettled from 2014-2020, reflecting significant differences in scale and response (UK House of Commons Library, 2025). The Homes for Ukraine Scheme allowed local authorities to act as sponsors, expediting housing for Ukrainians, who gained immediate access to services on arrival to the U.K. In contrast, Syrian refugees faced longer, more complex processes, with significant barriers to accessing healthcare and housing. Unlike Ukrainians, Syrians lacked an equivalent program, resulting in extended waits for basic needs.

The New Scots Strategy should apply equally to all displaced people. Instead, a two-tiered refugee system is emerging in Scotland and the UK, where access to healthcare and housing depends on nationality. The Scottish Government must urgently review how displaced people’s rights are upheld. To be a true “good global citizen,” Scotland must ensure its human rights framework does not disadvantage anyone based on nationality, reinforcing the universality of human rights.

Conclusion

This PhD research highlights the European Union’s inconsistent responses to the 2015 Syrian and 2022 Ukrainian refugee crises, revealing how factors like race, ethnicity, and nationalism shape asylum policies. The EU’s selective application of the UN Refugee Convention, exemplified by the swift activation of the Temporary Protection Directive for Ukrainians but not Syrians, raises critical questions about the universal application of the rights of displaced people. Similarly, in Scotland, the New Scots Strategy’s promise of universal human rights is undermined by the appearance of a two-tiered system favouring Ukrainians over Syrians in access to housing and healthcare. Ongoing research will further explore how race, ethnicity, and nationality influence Scotland’s refugee policy, particularly through the New Scots Strategy’s application, to address institutional biases. These findings challenge both the EU and Scotland to align their practices with universal human rights principles. As this project progresses, it will further explore socio-cultural influences and assess the Refugee Convention’s contemporary challenges. By addressing these disparities, the research aims to contribute to a fairer international refugee regime.

Reference List

Achiume, &. and Tendayi (2019) Visit to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism,
racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. UN.

EU Commission (2022) Temporary Protection Directive. 

Kroet, C. (2016) 'Viktor Orbán: Migrants are ‘a poison’', Politico, .

Marrinan, C. (2022) 'The Hypocrisy of Hungary’s Refugee Crisis Response', Global Research and Consulting Group.

Mills, K. and Birdsall, A. (2024) 'Human Rights in Scottish Foreign Policy: Constructing Scotland as Good Global Citizen', Journal of human rights practice, 16(3), pp. 915–933.

Scottish Government, Scottish Refugee Council and COSLA (2018) New Scots Refugee Integration Strategy 2018 - 2022. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

UK House of Commons Library (2025) Asylum Statistics. London: UK Parliament.