The mass crossing of thousands of migrants into the city of Ceuta, a Spanish territory in North Africa, on July 30, 2026, has opened migration and border management policies up for debate among European Union (EU) member states. The security debates that intensified following the Ceuta Crisis are creating divisions within the Union and are being used by radically security-oriented countries to construct a new migration policy. In line with the agreement it signed with Albania at the end of 2023, Italy has proposed turning the model of offshore asylum centers into a common EU policy. While the EU’s current strategy is based on transferring responsibility for border control, asylum procedures, and detention to countries outside the Union, Italy’s aforementioned proposal has the potential to bring about a qualitative structural change in this policy.
The transfer of responsibility to third countries within the scope of the EU’s border protection policies has turned into a strategic advantage for these countries, leaving Europe vulnerable to diplomatic blackmail. Following the events in Ceuta, Italy, which has drawn attention with its security-oriented approach, has proposed a new approach to European migration policies by pointing to this vulnerability at Europe’s borders, in addition to taking rapid and radical measures such as calling for the suspension of the Schengen Agreement and increasing border controls on travelers arriving from Spain. The proposal in question is based on the agreement signed between Italy and Albania in November 2023; it is based on completing all procedures at centers outside the Union before migrants enter European borders.
While the traditional externalization that the EU implements in its bilateral relations with countries such as Morocco, Libya, Egypt, and Türkiye under its current migration management strategy is based on transferring to third countries the responsibility for preventing migrants from reaching the borders and for border control, the Italy–Albania model operates on the principle of moving the location where the process itself is conducted outside the Union. The potential for a structural transformation of the EU’s classical externalization model can be explained by the qualitative shortcomings of existing policies and practices. In line with the agreement signed between Italy and Albania and the model of migration centers, individuals rescued by the Italian Navy outside EU territorial waters will be transferred to the Shëngjin and Gjadër centers in Albania.[i] Through this model, Italy is moving the entire process concerning asylum seekers to Albanian territory. Furthermore, this model grants Italy the right to exercise its sovereign rights and legal system within the borders of another state.
Under the agreement between Italy and Albania, asylum seekers to be transferred to the centers must come from countries that Italy classifies as “safe countries,” while children, pregnant women, and vulnerable groups categorized as vulnerable are technically excluded from this transfer. Within the scope of this limited application, the methods used to identify the structural vulnerabilities of migrants on the open sea and the extent to which the protection mechanisms of the centers in Albania are open to inspection in accordance with international law reflect the concerns surrounding this practice. The practical feasibility and efficiency of the process have particularly attracted criticism from human rights advocates. Civil society organizations argue that this practice disregards fundamental human rights and causes further harm to the existing vulnerabilities of asylum seekers.[ii]
The concerns of civil society organizations regarding violations of fundamental human rights became concrete once again when European Parliament officials were prevented from conducting an inspection at the Gjadër center in June 2026, revealing the practice’s contradiction with legal transparency and oversight.[iii] These restrictions at the center in Albania clearly reflect how the externalization of asylum procedures confines fundamental human rights within a legal “black hole.” On the other hand, Italy’s migration management has been supported, on a non-binding basis, by an Advocate General serving at the Court of Justice of the European Union. The legal support provided by an official of the Court of Justice of the European Union for this model implemented by Italy and Albania is paving the way for the practice to be implemented at the European Union level. While this strategy, designed around asylum and migration policies, is becoming institutionalized through legal support, it is deepening its internal contradictions due to a lack of transparency, insufficient oversight, and time constraints concerning fundamental human rights behind closed doors.
Albania aims to maintain this agreement with Italy until 2030.[iv] If Albania, which is in the EU accession process, gains member status, the oversight and control of these centers, the application process for asylum seekers, and freedom of movement within Europe will create uncertainty in the long term. Following the mass migration of more than 70,000 people to Ceuta on July 30–31, 2026, Italy put forward the idea of transforming the model it has been implementing with Albania into a system to be applied throughout the EU. Although this practice represents an example of the qualitative transformation of migration policies through temporary crisis management, the proposal to introduce this practice across the EU, despite its internal limitations and problems, reveals the qualitative shortcomings and inadequacies of Europe’s existing migration policies.
While traditional externalization methods have so far sought to keep migration control beyond the border, this model of cooperation, which has taken concrete form between Italy and Albania, points to a fundamental change across the EU. With this new approach, the objective of implementing asylum and return procedures entirely outside EU territory has introduced the concept of“offshore return centers” into migration management.[v] The main motivation behind the practical implementation of this transformation is the EU’s effort to free its migration management from the initiative of third countries and preserve its strategic power. Consequently, the EU aims to prevent third countries from instrumentalizing migration as a bargaining tool in order to gain diplomatic advantages. In order to prevent the crisis experienced in Ceuta and similar incidents, the EU’s institutionalization of its cross-border migration policies through this new model has significant potential to form the main backbone of migration management in the coming period.
The events in Ceuta, the existing agreement between Italy and Albania, Italy’s stance toward Spain, and this proposal, which has received support across the EU, clearly reveal the potential for structural change in the EU’s migration and asylum regime. A new externalization model, in which the centers where the entire process takes place are geographically relocated outside the Union, is emerging as one of Europe’s current debates, replacing the classical externalization strategy under which asylum procedures, border security, and control are entrusted to third countries through agreements. The concept of migration centers, shaped under the leadership of the Italy–Albania model and the Italian government’s proposal, points to the transformation of temporary crises within Europe into permanent border policies. Consequently, despite the human rights debates, transparency and oversight crises, and legal contradictions they entail, these centers, which have received support, have the potential to become part of the measures the EU may adopt against migration crises.
[i] International Rescue Committee (IRC). “What is the Italy-Albania asylum deal?”, Rescue.org, https://www.rescue.org/article/what-italy-albania-asylum-deal, (Date of Access: 08.08.2026).
[ii] Amnesty International. “The Italy–Albania Agreement on Migration: Pushing Boundaries, Threatening Rights”. Amnesty.org, Belge No: EUR 30/7587/2024, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur30/7587/2024/en/ (Date of Access: 08.08.2026).
[iii] “EU lawmakers say they were blocked from fully inspecting Italy’s migrant detention centre in Albania”, Euronews, https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/06/29/eu-lawmakers-say-they-were-blocked-from-fully-inspecting-italys-migrant-detention-centre-i, (Date of Access: 08.08.2026).
[iv] Wax, Eddy ve Nicoletta Ionta. “EXCLUSIVE: Albania won’t extend Italy migration deal beyond 2030, foreign minister says”, Euractiv, https://www.euractiv.com/news/exclusive-albania-wont-extend-italy-migration-deal-beyond-2030-foreign-minister-says/, (Date of Access: 08.08.2026).
[v] InfoMigrants. “Italy: Disembarkation amid fall in number of arrivals as government calls for offshore migrant detention centers at EU-level”, InfoMigrants, https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/72879/italy-disembarkation-amid-fall-in-number-of-arrivals-as-government-calls-for-offshore-migrant-detention-centers-at-eulevel, (Date of Access: 08.08.2026).
