Italy’s asylum pact with Albania, hailed as a...

Italy’s asylum pact with Albania, hailed as a solution to Europe’s recent migration wave, is quickly falling apart. Though both countries anticipated progress, the deal has instead sparked outrage, exposing Europe’s inconsistencies on human rights and placing vulnerable migrants in greater peril—all under the guise of streamlined border control.

Initially promoted as a breakthrough in migration management, the Italy-Albania asylum agreement has instead highlighted Europe’s hypocrisy on human rights. Signed in 2023 and ratified in 2024, the deal allows Italy to transfer asylum seekers to Albania, effectively offloading its responsibilities onto a non-EU country. The arrangement has left vulnerable migrants exposed while serious questions about fairness and accountability loom over Europe’s migration policies.

The first transfer occurred on 16 October, when 16 migrants from Egypt and Bangladesh were screened aboard an Italian Navy ship before arriving in Albania. Of these, 12 were deemed eligible to enter the Gjader facility in Albania. Albania, eager to strengthen its political and economic ties with Italy, accepted the migrants without questioning the deal’s ethical implications or imposing any additional conditions. While the agreement demonstrated deeper cooperation between Albania and Italy, it set a dangerous precedent: EU countries outsourcing border control to poorer nations, leaving migrants in unfamiliar and inadequate conditions.

Rome has established two reception centres in Albania with capacity to hold up to 3,000 people for a month. The centres are managed by Italian staff and security personnel, with oversight from Italian judges. The plan, set in motion for an initial five years, comes at a cost of €160 million. According to Rome, individuals granted asylum will be allowed to return to Italy, while those deemed ineligible will be deported back to Albania.

Amnesty International has condemned the plan, describing it as a cruel experiment which will tarnish the reputation of the Italian government. On the contrary, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen praised the project as an innovative, “out-of-the-box” solution for handling migrants seeking asylum in the EU.

However, a special immigration court in Rome ruled it was unlawful to send the first group of migrants to Albania for processing. The court decided the migrants should return to Italy, citing concerns their countries of origin cannot be considered safe. Politically, the Five Star Movement, the Democratic Party and the League of Greens and Leftists embraced the ruling and called for the agreement to be overturned.

The agreement is a convenient loophole for Italy to bypass its obligations under international asylum laws. Rather than enforcing and enhancing protections for individuals fleeing persecution and conflict, Italy has adopted a new approach to managing the issue – sending them to other countries. Meanwhile, Albania has tried to support this approach by preparing to address the treatment and protection of asylum seekers, aiming to meet European human rights standards.

What initially appeared to be pragmatic and realistic cooperation has, in reality, proven to be a short-sighted policy which undermines justice and solidarity for asylum seekers. Europe’s migration crisis cannot be addressed by simply shifting the burden; it demands a unified and humane solution grounded in shared responsibility across all EU members. The agreement between Italy and Albania did not only fail due to the inhumane conditions and legal challenges. It also set a troubling precedent in Europe, where a true solution should prevail over outsourcing responsibility and kicking the can down the road.

The agreement between Italy and Albania highlights the humanitarian and legal challenges migrants face in achieving proper integration. It has attracted criticism from human rights organisations, political parties, and the courts over legal concerns.

Critics also point to issues of inequality and political backlash. Right-wing parties in some countries have largely supported the agreement while other parties argue it unfairly shifts responsibilities onto non-EU countries, stirring political tensions within Italy and the EU. Overall, this agreement, which fails to meet legal standards and raises human rights concerns, undermines fairness and solidarity in European migration policy.

Despite these criticisms, Italian authorities, including prime minister Giorgia Meloni, remain determined to curb irregular migration. The prime ministers of both Italy and Albania would do well to reevaluate their approach to migration management and consider alternative solutions rather than pursuing an appeal.

These developments illustrate the difficulties of outsourcing migration control to non-EU countries, as seen in efforts to manage asylum flows across Europe more broadly. The European Commission had initially supported the deal as a possible model for future migration policies, though its feasibility remains uncertain given recent setbacks.

Rather than relying on agreements with non-EU countries to absorb migration flows, the EU needs a sustainable solution which involves a transparent, legally accountable process for migrant and asylum seeker transfers within the Union. Such a policy would better align with human rights obligations, minimise risks of abuse, and eliminate the pressures placed on individual member states to handle migration alone.