_edited.jpg)
The surprise announcement on November 6th by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni regarding the signing of a memorandum of understanding with Albanian Premier Edi Rama has triggered a robust debate on the future of migration policies in the region. The essence of this agreement revolves around the relocation of migrants rescued at sea by Italian military vessels to Albania.
The memorandum, composed of fourteen articles, was made public by the Albanian government two days after the signing, while the Italian government delayed its release, sparking speculation about its finalized status. This accord, set to last for five years, outlines the construction of two facilities in the port of Shengjin and the Gjader area. Financed and managed by Italy, these structures will assess asylum applications and oversee the potential repatriation of those denied asylum. Scheduled to commence in the upcoming spring, the agreement focuses solely on migrants intercepted by the navy and financial guard, excluding those rescued by non-governmental organizations.
The Albanian Premier, Edi Rama, expressed uncertainty about the pact's effectiveness in an interview with Fatto Quotidiano, while legal experts raised concerns about its compatibility with national and international asylum laws.
Adding to the complexity, Marina Castellaneta, a professor of International Law at the University of Bari, pointed out potential conflicts with the Constitution and international and community obligations behind the migrant agreement with Albania. She highlighted several critical issues, including the externalization of the asylum procedure, potential human rights violations, and limitations on the migrants' right to defence.
Castellaneta emphasized the territorial externalization of the asylum procedure, which, despite being managed by Italian authorities in Albania, raises constitutional issues under Article 10, recognizing the right of asylum in Italy. Moreover, potential conflicts with Article 117 regarding the respect for international obligations, especially the 1951 Geneva Convention and its Protocol, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights, come into focus.
Notably, migrants seeking asylum will be rescued at sea by Italian military or coast guard vessels and transported to Albania. Castellaneta highlighted that even when such rescue operations occur in international waters by Italian authorities, Italy remains responsible for any violations of the European Convention, as affirmed by the European Court of Human Rights in the Hirsi case.
While Albania is deemed to be in a relatively better position regarding human rights, complying with international standards, Italy remains accountable for potential human rights violations.
Castellaneta emphasized that the agreement, given its significance and the potential legislative changes it may entail, must undergo scrutiny by the Italian Parliament for ratification under Article 80 of the Constitution.
As Italy and Albania venture into this uncharted migration framework, global observers remain attentive to the multifaceted implications on constitutional legality, human rights, and the broader context of migration governance. The agreement's fate, intertwined with legal intricacies, underscores the necessity for meticulous examination and thoughtful consideration by national and international stakeholders.
Reactions from Albanian public opinion:
The Gazeta Shqiptare, a newspaper with leanings towards the government, reported the news in calm, supportive tones, highlighting the positive aspects. According to this source, Italy will establish two reception centres in Albania by early 2024, housing migrants rescued from the Middle East and North Africa by Italian military or humanitarian organization vessels. The newspaper emphasizes that these are individuals in danger during navigation, excluding minors, pregnant women, and vulnerable individuals from the agreement.
However, the opposition is not as sanguine. The Democratic Party, a centre-right party in Albania, has expressed concerns about the lack of transparency, accusing the Albanian government of not providing clear information. They argue that the Italian government's echo of the same raises questions. Former Prime Minister Sali Berisha goes further, declaring the agreement invalid and accusing Rama of aiding human traffickers.
The opposition press, aligned with the Albanian Democratic Party, raises legal and political concerns. It criticizes the rapid closure of the agreement without parliamentary discussion, accusing the government of sidelining minority parliamentary views. The lack of consultation with civil society and industry experts is also highlighted, using terms with historical roots in Albanian history, labeling the ruling party as "enverists."
In response, the ruling party refers to the opposition as "zogists," drawing a connection to Ahmed Zogu, an Ottoman army officer who proclaimed himself King Zog I after Albania's independence.
References
Intesa Italia-Albania sui migranti: i rischi di incostituzionalità e violazioni dei diritti umani (2023, 8 November), Il Messaggero https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/migranti-nodi-dell-accordo-italia-albania-cosa-dice-diritto-internazionale-AFU2VKYB
Antonio Frate (2023, 14 November), Accordo Italia-Albania: le reazioni dell’opinione pubblica Albanese, Affari Internazionali
Comments