Buying Security: The EU’s History of Outsourcing Migration Control

By Dimitra Sofianou

Source: Canva

Introduction

On an early Wednesday morning in October 2024, an Italian navy ship carrying 16 migrants docked at the port of Sengjin, Albania. The trip marked the inauguration of a highly contested migration deal between the two countries, which foresees sending migrants trying to reach Italian territory to detention facilities in neighbouring Albania instead, where they are to await a decision on their asylum claims. While the plan was met with concerns over migrants’ rights violations,  it is not technically illegal. The 1951 Refugee Convention — to which Italy is a signatory — establishes international standards for the protection of refugees. Yet, it does not prescribe specific conditions for carrying out asylum procedures, leaving it up to individual states to set up their own mechanisms. Additionally, under the Convention, participating countries are not obliged to grant entry to asylum seekers who were intercepted outside of their territory. 

Those two omissions provided the basis for the Italian government’s deal with Albania. Migrants intercepted by the national coastguard in Italian waters receive an initial screening upon boarding the rescue boat. Those deemed most vulnerable — such as women, children, and victims of torture — are taken to Italy. At the same time, the rest, almost exclusively men travelling alone, are sent to Albania to have their asylum applications processed.

Despite the Meloni administration’s initial enthusiasm, the plan has faced substantial obstacles.  Shortly after the first ship carrying migrants arrived in Albania in mid-October, Italian judges demanded that the men be transferred to Italy, stating that it is unlawful to detain them outside the EU until their countries of origin are safe, in which case they can be repatriated. Following the ruling, all migrant cohorts sent to Albania were returned to Italy, and the centres remained largely inactive. Still hoping to make good on its investment, the Italian government approved a decree in May 2025 to expand the centres’ operation as repatriation hubs, hosting migrants whose asylum claims have been rejected and who are awaiting deportation.

The Logic Behind Migration Outsourcing 

This is not the first time Italy has attempted to hand over control of migration problems to a third country. In fact, migration outsourcing has become an increasingly common practice across the European Union over the past decade. Following the surge in migrant arrivals beginning in 2015, various European governments struck deals with leaders in nearby countries such as Libya, Turkey, and Tunisia, who agreed to take measures to prevent migrants from reaching Europe’s shores in exchange for financial assistance or diplomatic concessions. In the Western Hemisphere, the United States recently used this tactic in agreements reached with Panama and Costa Rica in early 2025. Under these agreements, the two Central American nations agreed to temporarily host US deportees before repatriating them to their countries of origin.

The logic behind these attempts to outsource migration control is simple: as long as a country can keep migrants outside its national borders, it has no legal obligations towards them. For the European Union, which has received over 2.7 million migrants since 2015, this strategy has become an increasingly appealing alternative to “managing this flow ourselves”, as Italian PM Giorgia Meloni said in defence of her country’s deal with Albania. The recent EU Pact on Migration and Asylum takes a further step towards institutionalising outsourcing by explicitly endorsing it as a strategy to be pursued at the Union level. The creation of the Pact was motivated partly by the complaints of “frontline” countries, such as Greece, Italy, and Spain, which argue that, due to their location at the borders of Europe, they have borne a disproportionate share of managing migrant flows and have called for greater support from other member states. The Pact seeks to address those demands by establishing a common asylum system and collaborating with partners outside the bloc, such as Egypt and Mauritania, to halt migrant departures and further securitise border management — all under the stated aim of fighting human smuggling and preventing loss of life. 

The Financial, Political and Moral Costs of Migration Outsourcing 

Apart from being morally questionable, the practice of migration outsourcing is also ineffective. Experts warn that while arrivals might decline temporarily following a deal with a third country, smugglers eventually find new — and often more dangerous — transit routes, causing numbers to rise again. A 2016 agreement between the EU and Turkey initially seemed successful, as crossings from Turkey to Greece reduced significantly; yet, soon, the central Mediterranean route, which connects Libya to Italy, became more popular and absorbed many of those migrants. Still, Europe continues to overlook evidence suggesting that making crossings more difficult only serves to increase demand for smuggling services. Similar dynamics have been observed at the US-Mexico border as well, where years of increased efforts to “secure” the border have not curbed migrant flows, but, on the contrary, pushed asylum seekers towards more dangerous routes, taking the lives of hundreds.

Additionally, externalising migration control not only costs the EU billions of euros but also involves voluntarily ceding control over its borders to questionable actors. Many of the countries EU members have struck deals with are governed by autocratic leaders who, on more than one occasion, have threatened to “unleash” large numbers of migrants into Europe, in a skilful weaponisation of migrants as leverage to extract more benefits from the Union. Collaborating with openly undemocratic regimes that routinely violate human rights risks legitimising those actors and stands in stark contrast with the EU’s reputation as an upholder of liberal values, further highlighting the inconsistencies in its policies. 

Moving Forward 

While outsourcing has been promoted as a promising model to follow at the national and Union levels, it is not Europe’s only option for managing migration. Instead of continuing to channel funds into ineffective agreements that come with high political trade-offs, the EU could direct its resources towards improving economic and political conditions in major countries of origin, addressing the problem at its root. Additionally, expanding visa programmes would encourage legal migration, relieving pressure on Europe's overburdened asylum system while also contributing to a solution for the continent’s demographic and labour shortage problems. In either case, averting attention from the issue and transferring responsibility over to third parties is a short-sighted approach that has consistently yielded disappointing outcomes. 

---

Dimitra is a student at Brown University pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in International and Public Affairs with a focus on migration. She is an analyst for the Brown Initiative for Policy, where she focuses on promoting legislation around bilingual education access. She has also worked as an Immigration Policy intern at a think tank in Washington, D.C. Dimitra is passionate about advancing more effective and humane immigration policies around the globe, with a special interest in migration across the Mediterranean and her home country, Greece.