The political exploitation of migration is fueling extremist rhetoric, eroding public trust in democratic institutions and threatening the rule of law across Europe and the United States, according to Michalis Pikramenos, president of Greece’s highest administrative court.
In an assessment of the political and legal challenges surrounding migration, Pikramenos warned that extremist movements were increasingly using public anxiety over immigration to challenge the legitimacy of courts, international treaties and human rights protections. He also acknowledged that democratic governments bore some responsibility for the growing backlash, arguing that failures to manage migration effectively and transparently had created an opening for authoritarian political forces.
His remarks were included in a paper examining the conclusions of an international conference on asylum and immigration held in Paris on Oct. 8 and 9.
Pikramenos heads Greece’s Council of State, the country’s highest court for administrative disputes. He also serves as president of the Association of Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions of the European Union (ACA-Europe) and is a professor of law at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
NEWSLETTER TABLE TALK
Never miss a story.
Subscribe now.
The most important news & topics every week in your inbox.
How Migration Fuels Political Extremism
Migration and refugee movements have become powerful drivers of extremist political rhetoric, Pikramenos argued, not because migration itself is inherently destabilizing, but because of the way it has been exploited for political purposes. He described immigration as a complex social and economic phenomenon whose politicization has contributed to a profound crisis of confidence in democratic government.
According to his analysis, extremist movements increasingly direct their hostility beyond migrants and refugees toward the institutions responsible for managing migration. Governments, parliaments and international organizations are portrayed as unwilling or unable to defend national borders, often amid allegations that they serve a supposed globalist agenda. Fears of cultural change, conspiracy theories and claims linking migration to unemployment, stagnant wages and pressure on public services can reinforce a sense of insecurity and resentment. Extremist political groups, he argued, exploit those anxieties to justify increasingly radical policies.
Pikramenos warned that the consequences extend beyond immigration policy to the institutions responsible for upholding democratic principles. Courts and international human rights agreements face increasing challenges, while protections for minorities are portrayed as obstacles to the will of the majority. Such arguments, he said, can provide political justification for measures that conflict with fundamental democratic principles. He identified similar pressures in Europe and the United States, where the legitimacy of international institutions and judicial oversight has become a subject of political confrontation. The developments are also reflected in European electoral politics, according to his analysis, including the rise of Alternative for Germany (AfD), and the political strength of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France ahead of the 2027 presidential election.
When Democratic Governments Fail
Pikramenos did not place responsibility for the growing appeal of authoritarian politics solely on extremist movements. Democratic institutions, he argued, have contributed to their own loss of credibility when they have failed to respond effectively to migration pressures. In particular, the inability of governments to manage refugee and migrant arrivals transparently can undermine public confidence, leaving voters more receptive to political movements that promise security at the expense of individual freedoms.
The polarization surrounding immigration has also made legislative compromise increasingly difficult, he said. Traditional news organizations are frequently dismissed as establishment mouthpieces or accused of spreading falsehoods even when reporting verifiable facts. Some audiences turn instead to online echo chambers, where conspiracy theories and misleading narratives are repeatedly reinforced. According to Pikramenos, this polarization has increasingly shifted political debates away from the practical challenges of managing migration and toward disputes over the legitimacy of democratic institutions themselves.
Asylum Protections Under Growing Pressure
The political disputes come as the international asylum system faces challenges that Pikramenos said are becoming increasingly difficult to address within existing legal frameworks. He identified three major sources of pressure: prolonged wars and political persecution, climate change and environmental degradation, and widening global economic inequalities.
Armed conflicts continue to force millions from their homes, while extreme weather and environmental damage are creating new forms of displacement that do not fit easily within traditional definitions of refugee protection. Meanwhile, economic inequalities have contributed to mixed migration flows, complicating efforts to distinguish between people fleeing persecution or danger and those seeking better economic opportunities. These developments, he argued, are testing the international protection system established under the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Governments face competing demands to uphold humanitarian obligations, address security concerns and respond to domestic economic and political pressures. Pikramenos said those tensions frequently lead to tighter border controls and additional administrative hurdles, making asylum more difficult to obtain even for people entitled to protection. He called for greater international cooperation and a more equitable distribution of responsibility among countries. He also argued that asylum protections must evolve to recognize emerging causes of displacement without abandoning the fundamental right to seek safety.
An Ancient Greek Lesson on Refugee Protection
To illustrate the tension between humanitarian obligations and political considerations, Pikramenos turned to ancient Greek tragedy. In Aeschylus’ The Suppliants, women fleeing violence seek protection from King Pelasgus, who faces a difficult choice: offer them sanctuary and risk war, or refuse their request and violate a sacred duty to protect the vulnerable. Rather than make the decision alone, Pelasgus submits the question to the citizens, who vote unanimously to grant the women protection.
For Pikramenos, the story illustrates the importance of collective democratic responsibility. The duty to protect people fleeing persecution, he argued, cannot rest solely on the judgment of a ruler but must be understood as a shared commitment. He also drew attention to the play’s depiction of women escaping patriarchal violence, linking it to the modern recognition of gender-based persecution as grounds for asylum. The broader principle, he argued, is that the quality of a democracy is ultimately measured by how it treats its most vulnerable people, including strangers seeking protection.
Why Courts Face New Challenges From Misinformation
Beyond the political consequences of migration, Pikramenos raised concerns about the future of judicial independence in an increasingly fragmented digital information environment. Today’s generation of law students has grown up with social media, algorithm-driven news feeds, conspiracy theories and political polarization. Those influences, he argued, may eventually shape not only political opinions but also the judgment of the people entrusted with interpreting and enforcing the law. “The judges of tomorrow come from precisely this environment,” he observed.
Traditional judicial independence is generally understood in terms of protecting courts from political interference and other external pressures. Pikramenos argued that another dimension must now be considered: epistemic independence, or the ability of judges to resist misinformation, questionable scientific claims and misleading interpretations of evidence. The concept places greater emphasis on the intellectual foundations of judicial decision-making.
Judges must be able to distinguish reliable evidence from misinformation, assess competing claims critically and explain their reasoning rigorously, even in an environment saturated with misleading or contradictory information, he said. Pikramenos described this broader capacity as epistemic resilience, stressing the importance of trustworthy information sources, reliable verification and sound legal reasoning. In his assessment, the quality of democratic governance depends in part on the quality of the information available to those exercising public authority, whether in government, Parliament or the courts.
Artificial Intelligence and the Limits of Human Judgment
Pikramenos concluded by considering the implications of artificial intelligence for the legal profession and society more broadly. As AI systems become increasingly capable of processing information and generating answers, he argued, the challenge is not simply to preserve human knowledge but also to protect human wisdom.
He defined wisdom as the prudent application of knowledge with an understanding of uncertainty and the consequences decisions may have for people. Drawing on philosophical arguments about AI design, he advocated systems that give greater importance to investigation and critical scrutiny rather than merely producing answers as quickly as possible. The objective, he suggested, should be to develop technology capable not only of solving problems but also of recognizing the limitations of its own conclusions. He applied the same principle to human judgment, particularly in the courts, where decisions depend on evidence, legal reasoning and an understanding of uncertainty.
Pikramenos argued that both artificial intelligence and collective human reasoning should be capable of questioning their own conclusions, recognizing the limits of proposed solutions and responding to uncertainty without assuming that every problem has a definitive answer.