Negotiations have not yet resulted in a readmission agreement with any of these countries. Extensive literature has been developed on EURA, focusing mainly on the EU and its institutions (Carrera 2016), relations between Member States and EU institutions (Trauner 2017), the effectiveness of agreements for the EU (Carrera 2016; Carrera and Allsopp 2017; Emiliani 2016; Giuffré 2016) and the growing number of informal and non-legally binding agreements (Carrera 2016; Cassarino 2007, 2017; Trauner and Slominsky 2020). However, the serious consequences for people subject to these agreements have been largely overlooked in previous research and are rarely analysed in the context of EURA – with the exception of studies that focus on their legal implications for the human rights of deportees (Carrera 2016, Giuffré 2020). In contrast, studies focusing on the practice of expulsion in the broad sense (i.e. not in the context of EURA) have examined the violent effects on deportees and what happens after expulsion, showing that deportees live in a permanent state of marginalisation and precariousness (De Genova 2017, 2018; De Genova and Peutz 2010; Khosravi 2017, 2018; Majidi, 2017; Schuster and Majidi 2013, 2019). In addition, the EU promotes the domino effect when it calls on its partners bound by EU readmission agreements to conclude the same agreements with other countries of origin, by creating a readmission network that can help broaden the scope of forced return of “illegal immigrants”, including asylum seekers at risk of persecution. Dialogue with the Afghan authorities is difficult and uneven. While President Ghani and part of the Afghan government have publicly pledged to cooperate on readmission, other members of the government do not appear to facilitate the repatriation of irregular migrants as they seek to renegotiate the conditions for restricting the admission of returnees. Implications of this policy for those subject to it, as an example of the EU`s regulatory power in terms of mobility, which subjugates certain populations by exposing them to further displacement through expulsion. Theoretically, we use Gibney`s (2013) conceptualization of deportation as a form of forced migration and related literatures, while empirically we use the 2016 Joint Declaration on the Way Forward (JWF) between the EU and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as a case study. The JWF is particularly revealing, not least because it was signed when the situation in Afghanistan deteriorated: between January and August 2016 alone, nearly 250,000 Afghans were internally displaced, bringing the total number of internally displaced persons to 1.2 million (UNHCR 2016). Member States can develop a more detailed bilateral implementation protocol under EU readmission agreements. Finland only concluded such a protocol with Russia in 2013.

EU cooperation with third countries has not been effective in ensuring that migrants staying illegally on EU territory return to their own country, according to a special report published by the European Court of Auditors (ECA). During the period 2015-2020, the EU made limited progress in concluding readmission agreements with third countries. In addition, EU action has not been streamlined to ensure that third countries comply with their readmission obligations in practice. There are two types of readmission agreements: EU readmission agreements and bilateral readmission agreements. Turkey is a telling example in this regard, having concluded bilateral agreements, similar to its readmission agreement with the EU, with several states such as Syria, Russia, Uzbekistan, Egypt and Nigeria, and negotiating others with China, India, Iran, Iraq, Morocco and Pakistan. Some States on this list are known for their indifference to the human rights of illegal migrants. In accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the European Union may conclude agreements with third countries on the readmission of third-country nationals residing on EU territory in their country of origin or provenance. As these EU readmission agreements cover all Member States, there is no need to conclude separate bilateral agreements. The implementation of readmission agreements has given rise to a debate on their compatibility with international law, in particular the provisions relating to the protection of refugees and asylum-seekers. [3] www.lefigaro.fr/international/2013/12/16/01003-20131216ARTFIG00622-l-union-europeenne-et-ankara-signent-un-accord-sur-l-immigration.php?pagination=2 Faced with this situation, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights has stated that this type of agreement, when “presented as part of a migration management policy”, is a method that “undermines the established principles of international law”. [4] The European Parliament supports this approach, noting that “there is a risk that readmission agreements pose a direct or indirect threat to the human rights of asylum seekers or migrants whose situation is illegal”. [5] In theory, the parties` obligations under readmission agreements and similar arrangements appear to be equal and reciprocal (Cassarino 2007, 182; Giuffré 2016, p. 268; Trauner, 2017, p. 253). However, the authors argued that, although each party has its own programme, the EU often has leverage to provide incentives to third countries, such as development aid, financial packages, visa facilitation and other so-called benefits, in order to persuade third countries to sign readmission agreements (Cassarino 2007, 183; Giuffré 2016, p. 268; Trauner 2017, p. 253; Wolff and Hadj Abdou 2017, p. 387). For example, both the Programme and the Action Plan reaffirm that the EU should use all available levers to return third-country citizens staying illegally in Europe to their country of origin or to the transit countries through which they entered the EU (European Commission, 2015a, 10; 2015b, 13-14; Trauner, 2016, p. 319). Using the JWF statement as a case study alongside research and reports on Afghan deportees, this chapter developed the conceptualization of deportation as a form of forced migration (Gibney 2013) to show that, despite the use of terms such as “return”,” “deportation” and “readmission”, combined with the normalization of deportation practices, the EU subjugates individuals by sending them back to further deportation through deportation. Forces.. .