The Italy-Albania Migration Protocol: Externalised Border Governance and Rights Protection in the European Union (Published)
The Italy-Albania Migration Protocol is a new type of migration externalisation, involving extraterritorial processing of asylum claims and the exercise of Italian jurisdiction over migration centers in Albania. This article critically evaluates the Protocol from the perspective of constitutional law, international human rights law and European migration governance, with particular focus on the decision of the Albanian Constitutional Court on the constitutionality of the Protocol. It examines the legal implications of overlapping Albanian and Italian jurisdictions and highlights outstanding concerns related to territorial sovereignty, access to justice, effective remedies, detention and protection of asylum seekers under Albanian, Italian, EU and European Convention on Human Rights standards. The article also examines the legal basis cited for the Protocol and the difficulties arising from the extraterritorial application of Italian law in Albania. The Protocol exposes a core contradiction in the externalisation of migration control: while migration management functions may be displaced territorially, the obligations of states to ensure fundamental rights and effective judicial protection cannot. The Italy–Albania deal thus constitutes a critical test case for the changing relationship between migration externalisation, state sovereignty, jurisdiction and human rights protection in Europe. The article warns that jurisdictional ambiguity and accelerated procedures for migration can weaken effective rights protection unless accompanied by accessible judicial remedies and strong institutional oversight.
Keywords: EU migration policy, Human Rights, Italy-Albania Migration Protocol, State Sovereignty, access to justice, asylum governance; extraterritorial jurisdiction;, migration externalization
The Legality of Humanitarian Intervention (Published)
The humanitarian intervention is a concept in evolution that is widely accepted, but also controversial at the same time. The legality of humanitarian intervention is a controversial issue because on the one hand the intervention contradicts the Charter of the United Nations and on the other hand it is developed through state practice. The international system of security is based on concepts such as non-interference and the sovereign equality of states, concepts by which States do not give up because of the stability that derives from them, even in terms of increasing the evaluation for human rights and the obligation of states for the protection of these rights. The use of force against a state is prohibited if it is unauthorized by the Security Council of the United Nations, or is not taken for self-defense. In international life the disputes between countries should be resolved peacefully. This general prohibition of the use of force causes the difficulty of establishing norms and policies on humanitarian intervention. Nothing in the United Nations Charter creates the possibility that the use of force for humanitarian purposes to be understood differently from any other type of the use of force. Can the use of force in the form of humanitarian intervention be considered legal, according to this existing international legal environment? Does the practice of humanitarian intervention support the legality of the intervention?
Keywords: Humanitarian Intervention, State Sovereignty, The Practice Of Intervention, Use of Force