Rados Djurovic is a lawyer specializing in refugee and asylum law, with over 18 years of experience. He serves as the Board Director of the Asylum Protection Center, a Serbian NGO that provides legal, psychosocial, and integration support to asylum seekers, refugees, and forcibly displaced individuals in Serbia. He is also a researcher and the author of several papers and reports on Serbian reception and asylum laws and policies.
In the first part of the discussion, we spoke with Rados about the complex “puzzle” of various actors—each with different agendas, aspirations, and tools—who played a role in migration management following the massive refugee arrivals of 2015.
Rados begins by outlining the role of the Serbian State, which faced the existential threat of becoming a “buffer zone” or “human dumping ground” at the EU’s gates. He describes how, under this pressure, the state began undermining its existing asylum and reception system. Instead, it shifted its focus to meeting refugees’ immediate humanitarian needs while ensuring the smooth and uninterrupted passage of people across Serbian territory and borders. The European Union also emerged as a key player, aiming to implement policies to halt or slow intercontinental migration at the “soft underbelly” of its borders across the Balkans. Serbia’s EU accession process provided a framework for the EU to introduce new requirements and demands while shaping the responses of Serbian authorities and institutions through political, legal, and financial instruments—funding up to 95% of Serbia’s asylum and migration response. In parallel with the EU, individual EU member states pursued their own policies, attempting to outsource the pressures of migration at their borders onto Serbia and other non-EU countries. International Organizations also played a special role in this complex puzzle of actors, competing to establish themselves as key players in “The Game.” Organizations like UNHCR and IOM fought to secure their influence, positioning themselves strategically—much like vultures circling prey—around available funding. A commercial dynamic emerged, with these organizations maneuvering to maintain their presence, sustain their offices, and ensure high salaries for their personnel while securing the largest share of financial resources. Last, within Serbia, different policies were also evident among various state agencies. The Serbian Migration and Refugee Agency, for instance, worked to expand its jurisdiction and strengthen its capacity. However, instead of fostering long-term solutions, it became a major force in discouraging refugees from staying in Serbia, effectively pushing them to remain on the move.
The discussion also touched upon the role of the Asylum Protection Center, active since 2007, which played a key role in developing Serbia’s asylum and protection system—only to witness its decline after 2015. Rados emphasizes that as UN agencies and INGO’s absorbed the majority of funding, many grassroots organizations either collapsed or became entirely dependent on external support. When the funding stopped, the major players withdrew without a sustainability plan, leaving a significant gap. Only a few local grassroots organizations managed to overcome these challenges and continue providing support to refugees.
In the final part of the discussion key principles that could lead to a different model for receiving refugees were identified. Rados argued that the existing management system was artificially constructed through external funding, failing to incorporate local perspectives. He insists that a strong, independent grassroots civil society—one that is flexible, sustainable, motivated, and human-centered—is crucial. Such a society, he argues, can shift public opinion and foster broader synergies between activists, volunteers, students, and refugees themselves aiming at long term inclusion. Additionally, he highlights the importance of an impartial and efficient asylum procedure, the need for distinct yet complementary jurisdictions among responsible state institutions, and, last but not least, the critical role of media and independent journalism in providing objective information.
Recent Publications
Djurovic, R. (2024). A Normative View from the Periphery: Serbia and the EU Asylum Acquis. European Journal of Migration and Law, 26(2), 197-223. https://brill.com/view/journals/emil/26/2/article-p197_4.xml
Djurovic, O., & Djurovic, R. (2024). EU Cooperation with Serbia for Externalization of Asylum. In Global Asylum Governance and the European Union’s Role: Rights and Responsibility in the Implementation of the United Nations Global Compact on Refugees (pp. 203-218). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
Djurovic, O., Djurovic, R., & Spijkerboer, T. P. (2022). Country report Serbia. ASILE (EU). https://www.asileproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/D5.2_WP5-Serbia-Country-Report-Final.pdf