Italy’s Externalization of Migrants to Albania: A Controversial Policy Shift

By Sofia Carolina Diaz, Student Life Editor at the Graduate Press

Italy has long been a focal point in Europe’s migration crisis, due to its geographical position as a gateway for migrants crossing the Central Mediterranean Sea. In 2023, the Italian government, led by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama, adopted a contentious new approach to managing migration: Externalizing asylum processing to Albania. This policy has sparked intense debate, highlighting the complexities of migration governance, international law, and human rights.

The Italy-Albania migration pact, formalized in 2023, is a Protocol that allows Italy to transfer asylum seekers to facilities in Albania for processing. The first transfer occurred on October 14, 2024, sources say, marking the beginning of an experimental phase agreed upon for an initial five years. Italian officials framed the deal as a way to alleviate pressure on Italy’s overcrowded migrant reception system and to discourage irregular migration, specifically from the African to European coasts of the Mediterranean Sea. Albania, which is not part of the European Union, agreed to host migrants in exchange for financial support and increased collaboration with Italy on economic and security issues. The policy acts as a pragmatic solution to a growing crisis, emphasizing that it aligns with Italy’s government’s broader goals of combating illegal migration and prioritizing national security. In Europe, countries are increasingly outsourcing migration management to non-EU states, such as Turkey and Libya, despite the ethical and legal controversies surrounding such arrangements. Italy’s collaboration with Libya, in particular, has led to accusations that the country is complicit in violating international law, including the 1951 Refugee Convention, which protects the right to seek asylum. This trend is known as “Externalization”, specifically as it pertains to the outsourcing of migration control from European to non-European countries. 

However, the effectiveness of externalization policies in reducing migration flows is uncertain. While Italy and the European Union have managed to reduce the number of arrivals in recent years, migration remains a complex phenomenon that cannot be solved simply by outsourcing border control to third countries. Moreover, externalization does little to address the underlying drivers of migration, such as conflict, instability, and economic hardship in regions like sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. Until these root causes are tackled, migrants will continue to seek ways to reach Europe, often through alternate routes, risking their lives in the process.

The implementation of the Albania deal has been met with pushback from various corners. In Italy, a rift has emerged between the government and the judiciary, as courts question the legality of transferring asylum seekers to a non-EU country. Critics argue that this practice violates the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the act of returning individuals to a country where they may face human rights abuses. Safeguarding against refoulement is a fundamental right for asylum seekers and refugees. The principle of non-refoulement is a cornerstone of international refugee law and forms part of customary international law, making it obligatory for all States. This principle is also embedded in EU law under Article 78(1) TFEU and Articles 18 and 19 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In 2018, the European Commission clarified that the extraterritorial application of EU law is not currently feasible. Italy was already found in violation of the non-refoulement principle by the European Court of Human Rights in the 2012 case Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy.

In this new externalization policy, Albania will allow Italy to manage centers on its territory where up to 3,000 people may be held at any given time, in state-owned property provided free by Albania. These areas will be under Italian jurisdiction. The people to be helped are those rescued at sea by the Italian government agencies. However, minors, pregnant women, and other vulnerable individuals will not be included in this group. Therefore, after a rescue operation, Italian ships should disembark a portion of the rescued individuals in Italy and transport the remaining individuals to Albania. The centers will be managed in line with the relevant Italian and European legal obligations, but with no information on how these obligations will be respected. People eligible to international protection would be transferred to Italy, the rest returned, making it a quite discriminatory policy.

Potential legal problems include that the diversion of Search-and-Rescue (SAR) operations to Albania will often be a breach of the International Law of the Sea because it is not clear that Albania is a place of safety. For instance, for victims of trafficking of which there are many among those rescued in the Mediterranean. It is also not clear that transporting rescued people in order to detain them constitutes transporting to a place of safety and certainly breaches international human rights law. The usual interpretation of the International Law of the Sea, which Italy accepts, is based on the 2004 amendment to the Search and Rescue Convention is that people should be transported to the nearest place of safety. In addition, extra-territorial application of the screening process and the asylum and return border procedures is not allowed under EU Law Article 78(1) TFEU. According to the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, a significant jurisdictional issue is that it is not possible for a state to cede jurisdiction over part of its territory for the purposes described. Albania is also bound by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to which it is a signatory. As such, respect for procedural guarantees will not be possible and the proposal appears to envisage the automatic use of detention and difficult conditions, both which are unlawful.

The Albania deal is emblematic of a broader European trend toward migration externalization. Similar agreements, such as the EU-Turkey deal of 2016, have drawn criticism for outsourcing Europe’s migration responsibilities to third countries with weaker human rights records. These policies often prioritize short-term political gains over sustainable, humane solutions.

For Italy, the deal represents a test of its ability to baltic political pressures with its international obligations. Domestically, the move has bolstered Prime Minister Meloni’s popularity among conservative voters, who view it as a strong stance against illegal migration. Internationally, however, it risks straining relations with EU institutions and member states that advocate for a more collective approach to migration governance.

As Italy continues transferring migrants, long-term viability of the Albanian migration centers remains uncertain. Legal challenges, logistical hurdles, and international criticism are likely to intensify. Moreover, the approach raises fundamental questions about Europe’s commitment to protecting human rights and upholding international law in its migration policies.

Ultimately, Italy’s externalization strategy underscores the need for comprehensive, cooperative solutions to Europe’s migration crisis. While outsourcing may offer temporary relief, it does little to address the root causes of migration or to establish a fair, effective system for sharing responsibility among European nations. For externalization to be a truly effective and ethical solution, it must be accompanied by broader efforts to address the root causes of migration, strengthen international cooperation on human rights, and ensure that migrants are treated with dignity and respect, regardless of where they are. Until these concerns are addressed, Italy’s externalization strategy will remain a deeply divisive and controversial element of European migration policy.

Italy’s decision to outsource asylum processing to Albania represents a significant shift in migration policy, reflecting both the challenges and controversies inherent in managing large-scale migration. As this experiment unfolds, its outcomes will not only shape Italy’s migration landscape but also influence broader debates about the ethics and efficacy of externalization in Europe’s migration governance.