One of Keir Starmer’s first actions as UK prime minister was to put an end to the controversial Rwanda asylum scheme. The plan, introduced by his predecessors, aimed to deter small boat crossings by sending those who reached the UK to Rwanda to have their claims assessed.
So it was surprising to many observers to see Starmer visit Italy for a meeting with Giorgia Meloni about Italy’s handling of asylum seekers through an arrangement with Albania. At first glance, this approach is similar to the Rwanda plan.
Both are examples of “externalisation” of immigration. This consists of collaborating with other countries to manage migration, often by moving immigrants who arrive on the soil of a certain country to the territory of another country. Forms of externalisation are used by several other countries, such as Australia, Canada and the US.
The UK pursued this approach through its Rwanda scheme, under which anyone arriving irregularly in the UK to claim asylum would be moved to Rwanda to have their claims processed by Rwandan officials. In exchange, the UK had agreed to give Rwanda nearly £500 million in development funding, plus additional funds for each person moved.
The policy faced serious political opposition and legal challenges, and ultimately never got off the ground before the general election.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.
Italy’s partnership with Albania is different in some ways. Under a protocol signed by both countries, asylum seekers rescued at sea while trying to reach Italy will be moved to Albania for their applications to be examined. This will take place in processing centres that Italy will finance and build for this purpose.
In those areas, however, Italian – and not Albanian – law will be applied and Italian authorities will be competent for the implementation of the process. Under the Rwanda scheme, Rwandan officials (and law) would have governed the asylum procedure once seekers were moved there. This was part of why the UK supreme court said it was not a “safe” country and ruled the plan unlawful.
Additionally, successful applicants will be granted asylum in Italy, while the Rwanda plan would have only allowed them to stay in Rwanda (not come to the UK).
Read more: Is the Rwanda plan acting as a deterrent? Here's what the evidence says about this approach
The Albanian programme is not up and running yet, but Starmer has praised Meloni’s “remarkable progress” in reducing irregular arrivals to Italy by 60%.
In recent years, Italy has enacted other measures to manage migration by paying North African countries to stop illegal migration to Italy. Italy financed the construction of a maritime area where Tunisian boats can intervene and bring migrants to Tunisian soil.
Similarly, Italy has outsourced search-and-rescue operations in the Mediterranean to the Libyan Coast Guard, in exchange for funding to enhance Libyan migration infrastructure and a commitment to improve conditions of reception centres.
However, human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have raised serious concerns about these arrangements. In both cases, they say, reception centres amount to fully fledged detention centres, under poor conditions potentially amounting to inhumane and degrading treatment. Meloni has called such accusations “completely groundless”.
An investigation by The Guardian newspaper, published after Starmer’s visit to Italy, detailed harsh abuse of migrants by Tunisian coast guard and border patrol. Human rights groups have been raising concerns for years about the Libyan Coast Guard’s treatment of migrants in distress at sea, including potentially conducting illegal “pushback” operations, which involve pushing boats back across a border they have crossed.
Read more: The EU's outsourced migration control is violent, expensive and ineffective
Potential hurdles
Starmer has said he is “interested” in Italy’s plan with Albania, and has expressed openness to other forms of externalisation. He also wants the UK to work closer with other European states to cooperate on migration.
One positive side to the Italian model is undoubtedly that Italy does not waive its legal jurisdiction. Italian law applies in the Albanian processing centres, although conflicts with Albanian law (whose jurisdiction can’t be eliminated totally) may arise. If the UK incorporates this aspect in any future plan, it could mitigate a key weak point of the Rwanda plan.
The Italian scheme also explicitly guarantees that the UN refugee commissioner oversees the process taking place in Albania, in theory ensuring that international human rights standards are met. However, it is certainly possible that these safeguards might be overlooked in the practical enforcement of the agreement, for example because Italian law will need to be applied by officers of a foreign country.
It is worth nothing that Italy and the UK currently have very different geopolitical positions. Italy is an EU member state, and bound by European asylum laws and standards. This too could cause future legal issues should any of Italy’s actions in Albania violate EU law.
Any externalisation policy will always involve balancing several interests. First and foremost, the need to comply with human rights standards, but also the fair handling of migration, and the necessity to avoid some countries taking more people than they can support.
These pressures will be different for the UK than for Italy, and must be carefully considered. Just as the migration of people is a thorny issue, so too is the migration of policy.
Chiara Graziani does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
