Externalisation Rwanda Albania Conclusion PDF

Global crimes (border criminology) VALERIA FERRARIS THURSDAY AND FRIDAY 2-4 PM UK-Rwanda Agreement UK-Rwanda agreement - Facts On April 13, 2022, then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson signed the Migration and Economic Development Program...

Global crimes (border criminology) VALERIA FERRARIS THURSDAY AND FRIDAY 2-4 PM UK-Rwanda Agreement UK-Rwanda agreement - Facts On April 13, 2022, then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson signed the Migration and Economic Development Program (MEDP) with Rwanda. AIM -> relocate asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda for processing and resettlement The agreement enabled the UK Secretary of State to transfer asylum seekers to Rwanda without affording them legal rights in UK or international courts Rwanda received an initial payment of £140 million for accepting and processing asylum seekers (the funds had reached £240 million by end 2023)  UK-Rwanda agreement - Facts In June 2022, the first flight to Rwanda was stopped last minute by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on potential risks of refoulement. A group pf asylum seekers, supported by NGOs, challenged the policy's legality in UK courts. In December 2022, the High Court ruled that the UK government’s policy could proceed, though specific decisions were deemed procedurally unfair for individuals. The UK Court of Appeal ruled the policy unlawful, citing concerns about Rwanda's asylum system and the risks of refoulement UK-Rwanda agreement - Facts On November 15, 2023, the UK Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision, declaring the Rwanda policy illegal due to insufficient safeguards against refoulement. The Supreme Court highlighted the unreliability of Rwanda’s assurances about its internal system (and protections) in place and referenced similar issues in past Rwanda-Israel asylum agreements. UK-Rwanda agreement – HR Issues Human Rights concerns by HR groups, and international criticisms by UNHCR: -> Rwanda’s high rejection rates of asylum claims (sometimes 100%) -> inadequate legal protections for applicants -> no written therefore appealable decisions -> risk of refoulement -> insufficient/non existent independent monitoring UK-Rwanda agreement - the Bill December 2023: the UK government introduced the "Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill”, declaring Rwanda a “safe country” by law. The legislation was passed in April 2024, to ensure flights to Rwanda could resume as early as mid-2024 The new Bill: -> restricts judicial reviews on Rwanda's status as a “safe” country: UK courts cannot challenge the assumption of safety for deported asylum seekers -> It also limits the application of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) interventions, allowing the UK government to ignore ECtHR’s urgent orders to halt flights if deemed necessary UK-Rwanda – the Bill controversy Public and political debate, with concerns about the law overstepping the UK’s international obligations Bill created a “legal fiction” by legislating Rwanda’s safety, despite documented concerns and potential human rights abuses Civil Servants’ resistance: British civil servants, filed a legal challenge against the policy, as it could force civil servants to violate the Civil Service Code by preparing flights in potential breach of international law UK-Rwanda – the Bill controversy Logistical issues: Rwanda kept defending its record on refugee care, noting that it remained ready to accept migrants from the UK under favourable conditions. But properties in Kigali initially marked for migrants were all sold to residents, leaving in a limbo the initially planned accommodations Broader debates about immigration policy, the role of the judiciary, and civil liberties. Many viewed the plan as part of a troubling trend toward eroding judicial independence and other freedoms Public opinion in the UK remained divided both about the plan and the Bill, with many questioning the government's spending on the Rwanda scheme over domestic priorities like healthcare and employment UK-Rwanda – the non-existent results As of today: No migrants have left the UK towards Rwanda The UK Government switched to offering money (£3,000) to anyone who wanted to “relocate” there (as of July 2024, 4 people had accepted) Sunak’s Government lost the elections in June 2024, and the new ruling party vowed to never apply the Safety of Rwanda Bill Rwanda has refused to refund UK Italy Albania agreement Italy Albania agreement - Overview The deal was announced on November 6, 2023, and signed by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama AIM -> externalize migration management by transferring migrants, intercepted by Italian authorities, to Albania for processing Details of the agreement were initially kept confidential. The full protocol text became available only after an Albanian website published it, later shared by Italian media. This secrecy heightened public and political scrutiny Both Parliaments approved the deal, but the Albanian Constitutional Court reviewed two appeals challenging the agreement’s compatibility with Albania’s constitution and international obligations. The court ruled that the agreement did not infringe on Albania’s territorial integrity, clearing it for parliamentary ratification Italy Albania agreement – Legal pitfalls Democratic and transparency deficits. The MoU, characterized as a politically motivated bilateral arrangement rather than an official international treaty, bypasses EU frameworks and traditional legal safeguards. It was negotiated behind closed doors, with limited scrutiny from either national or EU legislative bodies. Critics argue that Italy's unilateral decision infringes upon democratic principles, as the agreement covers areas that EU law typically regulates. Search and Rescue (SAR) and Human Rights Issue. The protocol raises concerns over Italy's SAR obligations under international maritime law. According to the MoU, people rescued at sea will not be disembarked at the nearest Italian ports but may instead be transported over 700 km to Albania. This delay in disembarkation, alongside selective criteria that separate “vulnerable” individuals for Italian territory, potentially risks the health and safety of those rescued, further exposing them to hazardous conditions. Access to fair asylum procedures. The agreement lacks clear legal protections for asylum- seekers in Albanian centers, with concerns about limited judicial recourse and language barriers that could infringe upon the right to due process. EU law requires accessible, timely asylum procedures, but the protocol’s remote location complicates legal representation, exacerbating risks of arbitrary detention and unfair treatment. Italy Albania agreement – The costs Total Projected Cost: The Italian government estimated the agreement would cost around €650 million over five years (cost estimates are subject to increase due to various factors, such as the need for additional infrastructure at the Albanian sites like sewage, electricity, and paved roads) Infrastructure and Operational Costs: Italy bears all costs for building and operating the migrant centres, including a designated annual payment of €16.5 million towards a fund managed by the Albanian government specifically for this purpose Security and Legal Personnel Costs: Italy will cover expenses for deploying Italian law enforcement officers and legal personnel to manage and support operations. This includes an annual €200 million to deploy 500 Italian security officers and €6.5 million for on-site legal representatives to guarantee migrant rights Additional Costs: Italy also covers all the costs for transportation of migrants and personnel and vowed to establish two separate financial guarantees in Albanian Banks against missed or delayed payments Italy Albania agreement – see the chronology in moodle  AIM -> *The government's new genius anti-migrant plan: Welcome back to Italy! There's an appeal against the counter-appeal on the ruling, so now you must go back to Albania again. Enough! Have mercy! Just send us home! Externalisation, summarised  The hidden costs of Externalisation More Than Just Border Control -> Externalization goes beyond logistics; it has far-reaching economic, ethical, and political implications Shift from Protection to Security -> Europe's focus is moving from humanitarian obligations to controlling who enters and stays -> This shift prioritizes containment over compassion, raising questions about Europe’s commitment to human rights Consequences at Home and Abroad -> These policies impact not just migrants but also neighbouring countries, leading to increased tensions and potential instability -> What is the real price of outsourcing migration management, and who ultimately pays?  Control over Compassion – a hidden Agenda Prioritizing Control Over Human Rights Externalization deals often focus on limiting migration rather than providing genuine protection for those fleeing danger Deterrence as a Central Strategy Agreements like the UK-Rwanda deal are designed to deter future migrants, signalling that Europe’s doors are closing The measures aimed at controlling numbers rather than addressing the underlying causes of migration Invisible Boundaries Containment policies crafted to keep the reality of migration struggles out of the public eye, reducing domestic pressures -> shift away from transparency and accountability.  A Colonial Legacy in Modern Policies q Modern externalization reflects colonial-era practices of managing migration by sending people to distant locations. q There is a noticeable difference in how Europe handles refugees based on their origin, echoing a colonial mindset. Policies often draw lines between who is deemed “desirable” and “undesirable” based on racial and geopolitical biases. q Agreements with countries like Albania or Libya reveal how the EU continues to exert influence over regions seen as less powerful. These dynamics reinforce a colonial-style imbalance where Europe dictates terms while shifting burdens outward.  Hidden Agreements and Risks Opaque Decision-Making: many externalization deals rely on informal agreements like Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) that avoid public and parliamentary scrutiny. Legal and Ethical Vulnerabilities: the lack of transparency raises concerns about compliance with international standards, leading to potential human rights violations. Undermining of Trust: secrecy in these agreements fosters public suspicion and erodes trust in governmental decision-making, making accountability challenging.  Costly Policies, Empty Promises q Huge Investments with Little Payoff Billions of euros are funnelled into externalization projects, but evidence suggests these measures often don’t achieve long-term results q Aid Funds Repurposed for Border Control Development funds, originally intended to support economic stability in partner countries, are frequently redirected to finance border security q Questionable Sustainability The heavy financial costs raise doubts about whether Europe’s current strategy is economically sustainable or simply a short-term fix  Political gain over People Ø Political instead of Practical Solutions Externalization policies often serve political narratives, reinforcing the idea of “Fortress Europe” rather than addressing existing migration needs Ø Populism and Fear-Driven Policies Right-wing and populist rhetoric push for tighter controls, applealing to fears of an “invasion” rather than focusing on real economic or humanitarian needs. Ø Ignoring Europe’s Own Needs This political focus often disregards Europe’s demographic and economic realities, like the need for a younger workforce, in favour of short-term public approval