Skip to content
ITÄRAJA
← Knowledge hub

The future of border traffic

Alternatives
to closure.

What has the Government tried or assessed? Which restricted-traffic models still need their own public comparison?

Explore the alternativesWhat has already been assessed ↗

Material reviewed 23.10.2026 ·Documents and page references ↗

Models that preserve connections

What still needs investigation?

Select a model to see what the documents already say and what comparison was not found.

No separate assessment found01

A supervised bus connection

Model to be assessed

Limited departures, passengers checked in advance and supervised passage through one crossing point.

What is known

The 2026 memorandum discusses road closure and the workload reopening would create. No separate comparison of a supervised bus service with full road closure was found.

What still needs assessment

Passenger numbers, departure-point checks, operator, border controls, disruptions and costs. A passenger list alone does not establish safety or lawfulness.

Question for the Government

Under what conditions could a pre-checked, supervised bus service preserve essential travel without reopening general road traffic?

Link to this model ↗
Interior Ministry memorandum 2026 · pp. 35–37Interior Ministry memorandum 2026 · p. 45
No separate assessment found02

A restricted passenger train service

Model to be assessed

A separately assessed passenger train with tickets, travellers and checks defined in advance.

What is known

Allegro was suspended on 28.3.2022. The 2026 memorandum discusses freight trains and traffic-control and rolling-stock data risks on Vainikkala–Buslovskaya. Rail has been assessed, but a separate restricted-passenger operating model was not found.

What still needs assessment

Rolling stock and operator, rail technology, border checks, sanctions, agreements, security and economic viability. Freight trains do not themselves prove passenger service feasible.

Question for the Government

What would restricted passenger rail require, and how would its risks compare with continued closure?

Link to this model ↗
VR · Suspension of AllegroInterior Ministry memorandum 2026 · pp. 36–37
No separate assessment found03

A new bilateral arrangement

Model to be assessed

A fixed-term agreement defining crossings, traveller groups and controls separately.

What is known

In 2016 Salla and Raja-Jooseppi were limited to Finnish, Russian and Belarusian citizens and accompanying family members. The arrangement lasted up to 180 days and did not cover the entire border.

What still needs assessment

No separate comparison of the 2016 arrangement’s present applicability was found in the closure reasoning reviewed. A new model would require assessment of nationality limits, EU law, equality and Russian commitments.

Question for the Government

Could a new restricted arrangement build on 2016, and what legal and security conditions would prevent or enable it?

Link to this model ↗
Government · The 2016 arrangementInterior Ministry memorandum 2026 · pp. 17–18
Contacts occurred · broader assessment missing04

A negotiated route to reopening

Model to be assessed

A goal-oriented process covering parties, mandate, conditions, monitoring and phased progress.

What is known

Border authorities have negotiated. Memoranda say these contacts did not normalise the situation. They also recognise that the 2015–2016 situation ended after negotiations and a temporary agreement.

What still needs assessment

No separate public comparison of a new multilevel negotiation roadmap was found. Border-commissioner contacts alone do not explain every possible negotiating model’s aims, conditions or reasons for rejection.

Question for the Government

What concrete proposals to restore restricted traffic have been made since 2023, at what level and with what results?

Link to this model ↗
Interior Ministry memorandum 2025 · p. 3Interior Ministry memorandum 2026 · pp. 17–18
No separate assessment found05

Family and humanitarian connections

Model to be assessed

A clear route for family visits and urgent journeys, including where long detours are not practically possible.

What is known

Family-life impacts are recognised. The memorandum mentions a border-crossing permit under section 13 of the Border Guard Act. This is not an automatic right to family travel. Exceptions for vulnerable asylum seekers are separate.

What still needs assessment

No separate implementation plan for a general family corridor was found: eligibility, evidence, trip limits and decision times. Practical permit availability also needs evidence.

Question for the Government

How can essential family travel be secured directly, and what do permit approval and refusal statistics show?

Link to this model ↗
Interior Ministry memorandum 2026 · p. 41Interior Ministry memorandum 2026 · p. 45
No separate assessment found06

Appointments and pre-checked passengers

Model to be assessed

Travellers register in advance. Documents, travel grounds and capacity are checked before departure.

What is known

The 2024 draft assessed regulating asylum application processing and shorter opening hours. That is not the same as advance booking for ordinary lawful travel.

What still needs assessment

A separate assessment of booking, data handling, checkpoints, people arriving without bookings and the Russian side’s effects on the model is needed.

Question for the Government

Have advance booking and passenger pre-checks been assessed as a distinct alternative, and where is that comparison published?

Link to this model ↗
Draft act 15.3.2024 · pp. 49–50
No separate assessment found07

A new limited reopening trial

Model to be assessed

One route, a defined traveller group and monitoring, with starting and suspension conditions specified in advance.

What is known

Two crossings reopened and reclosed in December 2023. The 2026 memorandum says Vaalimaa’s opening arrangements can be accelerated. These are starting points, not a new trial plan.

What still needs assessment

A current trial plan under new procedures and resources: permitted traffic, extra staff, risk indicators, review period and suspension criteria.

Question for the Government

Under what measurable conditions could a new limited trial begin, and when would it be suspended?

Link to this model ↗
Interior Ministry memorandum 2025 · p. 3Interior Ministry memorandum 2026 · p. 35

These are proposals for assessment, not authority-approved services. Feasibility requires case-specific examination of legal obligations, Russian cooperation, security, sanctions and resources.

The core of assessment

Why was an alternative rejected?

The Government says faster processing and extra resources help manage arrivals but do not alone stop pressure by a foreign state. The key question is how restricted lawful traffic’s risks, costs and benefits were compared with continued closure.

The comparison must also include economic consequences of closure and people’s broken connections. Other countries’ solutions offer examples but do not alone establish a model’s suitability for Finland.

Draft act 15.3.2024 · pp. 46–49Interior Ministry memorandum 2026 · pp. 27–29

Decisions and preparation

What has already been assessed?

Government reasoning in brief. Assessed does not mean tested or that every possible implementation has been fully examined.

01
Tested in practice

Reopening Vaalimaa and Niirala

14–15.12.2023: the authorities’ main practical reference.

What was examined
Two crossings opened. In two days 325 asylum seekers arrived despite intermittent traffic regulation.
Authorities’ conclusion
Authorities viewed this as evidence that the phenomenon reactivates at open crossings. They closed again.
What can be concluded
This concerns the model used then, not every restricted bus, train or family model. Monthly and annual figures in the memorandum are forecasts, not observed arrivals.
Interior Ministry memorandum 2025 · p. 3
02
Assessed in documents

An open crossing and faster processing

More resources for Migri, interpretation, legal aid and courts.

What was examined
Keeping crossings open and speeding up applications and appeals was assessed as better for fundamental rights. Border procedures were also examined.
Authorities’ conclusion
The Government considered arrivals could continue at open crossings. Effectiveness also depends on returns. Processing helps handle applications but does not alone prevent state pressure.
What can be concluded
The draft describes procedures in 2024. New EU procedures must be assessed in their own time context.
Draft act 15.3.2024 · pp. 47–49Interior Ministry memorandum 2026 · pp. 15–16
03
Assessed in documents

Shorter hours and regulated processing

Limiting asylum registration and opening hours.

What was examined
The draft considered slower registration matched to resources and limited crossing hours.
Authorities’ conclusion
The model was seen as helping management, but not countering instrumentalised migration. Congestion and diversion to the terrain border posed risks.
What can be concluded
Regulating asylum procedures is not a separate assessment of appointments for ordinary travel.
Draft act 15.3.2024 · pp. 49–50
04
Assessed in documents

Detention and safeguards

Individual measures to manage security risks and onward movement.

What was examined
Broader detention, residence obligations and other safeguards were assessed.
Authorities’ conclusion
Individual grounds are required. Capacity, supervision and court workloads limit use. Not everyone arriving can be automatically detained.
What can be concluded
A management measure does not alone prevent more people being directed to the border.
Draft act 15.3.2024 · pp. 48–49Interior Ministry memorandum 2026 · pp. 14–15
05
Assessed in documents

EU support and exceptional measures

Common procedures and possible derogations.

What was examined
Temporary measures under Article 78(3) TFEU were assessed in 2024. The 2026 proposal also discusses EU migration and asylum pact tools.
Authorities’ conclusion
Measures requiring EU decisions cannot be introduced unilaterally. The Government says they improve management but do not remove a foreign state’s ability to exert pressure.
What can be concluded
Assessment of a possible measure does not show that a particular exception was requested or used.
Draft act 15.3.2024 · p. 48HE 148/2026 · government proposal
06
Assessed in documents

Russia as a safe third country

Potentially declaring an application inadmissible in Finland and returning the applicant.

What was examined
Both individual and national safe-third-country determinations were examined.
Authorities’ conclusion
Safety criteria, individual assessment, legal remedies and Russian readmission limited the model. Migri had not regarded Russia as safe in the cases examined.
What can be concluded
This is an asylum-procedure alternative, not a model for ordinary family visits.
Draft act 15.3.2024 · pp. 49–50
07
Assessed in documents

Immediate decision at the border

Rapid screening, decision and possible removal.

What was examined
A model where Migri decides at the border and immediately removes rejected applicants was examined.
Authorities’ conclusion
Proper hearings, protection assessment and effective appeal would be difficult. The draft identifies EU-law issues and uncertain readmission.
What can be concluded
This differs from the statutory border procedure discussed elsewhere.
Draft act 15.3.2024 · pp. 50–51
08
Assessed in documents

Receiving applications outside Finland

Applicants would stay abroad during processing.

What was examined
Receiving applications in Russia, for example, was examined.
Authorities’ conclusion
The draft found no workable model in the circumstances then. Final proposal HE 53/2024 discusses legal and practical problems more extensively.
What can be concluded
This concerns international protection applications, not pre-checked travel.
Draft act 15.3.2024 · p. 51HE 53/2024 · final proposal
09
Assessed in documents

Border-authority negotiations

Contacts occurred; memoranda report no resolution.

What was examined
Finnish and Russian border authorities have negotiated the situation.
Authorities’ conclusion
Authorities report these talks did not normalise the situation.
What can be concluded
This does not answer whether a new multilevel negotiation roadmap was assessed separately.
Interior Ministry memorandum 2025 · p. 3Interior Ministry memorandum 2026 · pp. 17–18
10
Assessed in documents

Fixed-term or indefinite closure

The 2026 memorandum compares periods of validity.

What was examined
A pre-announced end date was compared with an indefinite decision.
Authorities’ conclusion
The Government says a known end date may draw people to the border. Indefinite closure is assigned a regulatory and preventive effect.
What can be concluded
The memorandum also recognises that continued closure restricts rights more severely. Total duration matters.
Interior Ministry memorandum 2026 · pp. 32–33

External oversight

Assessment must continue.

31.3.2025

In the decision of 31.3.2025 the Chancellor did not find the closure unlawful but emphasised current reassessment, public reasoning and preventing the decision from becoming permanent.

Chancellor of Justice’s decision · summary

Open material

Check the original sources.

Key memoranda are available in full. Model links lead directly to relevant PDF pages.

15.3.2024Draft act 15.3.2024 ↗

Preparatory document, not final law. Alternatives pp. 46–51.

15.4.2025Interior Ministry memorandum 2025 ↗

SM/2025/32. Reopening experience, negotiations and reasoning.

2.6.2026Interior Ministry memorandum 2026 ↗

SM/2026/42. Security, traffic, readiness to reopen and exceptions.

How was this classified?

The comparison draws especially on section 5.1 of the 15.3.2024 draft and Interior Ministry memoranda of 15.4.2025 and 2.6.2026. The research set contains 11 PDFs, partly overlapping. “No separate assessment found” means this particular restricted model’s own implementation, risk and impact comparison was not found in the reviewed material. It is not proof that no preparation occurred.

Other original sources
2024HE 53/2024 · final proposal ↗

Assessment of alternatives, section 5.1.

21.3.2024Chancellor of Justice’s opinion ↗

OKV/727/21/2024. Depth of alternatives assessment, p. 6.

31.3.2025Chancellor of Justice’s decision · summary ↗

Legal grounds, monitoring and publicity of the closure.

8.4.2016Government · The 2016 arrangement ↗

Salla and Raja-Jooseppi, traveller groups and fixed duration.

25.3.2022VR · Suspension of Allegro ↗

Rail service was suspended from 28.3.2022, before the 2023 road closure.

3.9.2026HE 148/2026 · government proposal ↗

New EU tools and alternatives to extending the act. A proposal must not be confused with an enacted law.