Navigating uncertainty: EU responses to migrant smuggling and instrumentalisation after Ceuta
In the days preceding the arrival of around 72,000 people from Morocco into Ceuta between 30 and 31 July 2026, information and misinformation circulated widely through social media and messaging platforms, including content encouraging people to travel to Ceuta and suggesting that the border could be crossed. The scale and speed of the movement showed how difficult it can be to establish what role digital platforms play in large-scale irregular cross-border movements. While the available evidence indicates that digital communication contributed to the movement, it does not establish who initiated or coordinated it, who amplified particular messages, or with what intention. Similar patterns of online activity can reflect peer-to-peer information-sharing, commercial smuggling, coordinated mobilisation or, potentially, deliberate instrumentalisation by state actors. These are not interchangeable explanations: they involve different actors and different degrees of responsibility and therefore require different policy responses.
This Discussion Paper examines how the EU can respond to unprecedented cross-border movements or external shocks when the role of different actors and the evidence of responsibility remain uncertain. It distinguishes between different forms of involvement and considers what the available evidence can establish about facilitation, coordination, intent and possible state involvement. These distinctions are decisive for the policy response. Evidence that an actor facilitated irregular movement, for example, does not necessarily establish responsibility for initiating or coordinating it. Similarly, evidence of coordination does not in itself demonstrate an intention to ‘instrumentalise’ migration. The paper therefore argues that the level of evidence required for EU action should depend on the nature and consequences of the response. Investigation, information-sharing and international cooperation can begin even while attribution remains uncertain. Sanctions and measures based on deliberate instrumentalisation require stronger evidence of responsibility and intent.
The question is particularly relevant as the EU is expanding its response to migrant smuggling and developing new tools to address hybrid threats and the instrumentalisation of migration. The paper considers the roles of Europol and the European Centre Against Migrant Smuggling, the proposed EU sanctions regime targeting migrant smugglers and traffickers, the Global Alliance to Counter Migrant Smuggling and the EU framework for responding to the instrumentalisation of migration, including the proposed European Emergency Response Framework announced in the 2026 State of the Union speech. These instruments serve different purposes and can have very different consequences for the actors concerned. They should therefore not depend on the same level or type of evidence. The EU needs to be able to investigate and respond while events are still unfolding, but without treating uncertainty as evidence of responsibility. Ultimately, the more coercive or politically consequential the response, the stronger the evidence supporting attribution should be.
Download the full Discussion Paper here.
Anna Paus is a criminologist and economic sociologist specialising in migrant smuggling, organised crime and human-rights-centred crime prevention. She holds a PhD from the University of Milan and has worked across academic research, international cooperation and policy analysis, focusing on European responses to transnational crime.
The support the European Policy Centre receives for its ongoing operations, or specifically for its publications, does not constitute an endorsement of their contents, which reflect the views of the authors only. Supporters and partners cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
