Italy between immigration, justice and diplomacy
At Palazzo Chigi, discussions resume on the project for migrant centers in Albania, but not in the way the government had hoped. Fifteen months after the agreement was signed with Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama, the facilities in Gjader and Shengjin remain empty, and Giorgia Meloni’s government is forced to revise the protocol. The problem? Every attempt to transfer migrants to the centers has been blocked by Italian courts, which have ruled the measures to be in conflict with European regulations. While the government tries to find a solution, sources close to the two deputy prime ministers, Matteo Salvini and Antonio Tajani, report a certain coldness towards the project, with the leader of Forza Italia even allegedly instructing his party members not to get too involved in the issue. This strong skepticism, although not explicitly declared, makes it even more challenging to find a shared strategy. Among the proposals being considered is the transformation of all centers into CPRs (Permanent Repatriation Centers), but this change of purpose could create more problems than it solves, as it would require renegotiation with Albania and could lead to potential violations of the Dublin Regulation, which stipulates that migrants must be processed in the first country of entry. Moreover, the government is facing a legal dilemma: until recently, it prided itself on guaranteeing rights protection through the application of Italian jurisdiction, yet now it finds itself having to justify a potential transition to Albanian jurisdiction.
Remaining on the domestic front, this scenario of institutional uncertainty intersects with the prolonged deadlock in appointing judges to the Constitutional Court, which finally found a resolution on Thursday after more than a year of impasse. The election of four new members, including Francesco Saverio Marini, a legal advisor to Meloni, and Massimo Luciani, supported by the opposition, is the result of a delicate political compromise, reached after thirteen failed votes and constant pressure from President Sergio Mattarella. Restoring the Court’s full operational capacity is crucial, given that it must rule on decisions that could directly impact the management of migrants, the legitimacy of the government’s restrictive policies, and compliance with European regulations.
Meanwhile, the international political scenario is becoming even more complex with new tensions emerging. In the midst of this instability, a phone call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin has shaken diplomatic balances, opening up the possibility of negotiations on the war in Ukraine. The conversation, which lasted ninety minutes, could mark a turning point, but it has also raised concerns in Kyiv and European capitals, where there are fears that an agreement may be reached without Ukraine’s full involvement. Zelensky has reiterated that he will not accept compromises that undermine his country’s sovereignty, but the real uncertainty lies in the stance of the United States: Trump appears to rule out a return to pre-2014 borders, which would mean Kyiv losing Crimea and Donbass.
This scenario is forcing Europe to rethink its strategic role in Ukraine’s defense at a time when Washington has already indicated that it no longer wants to place the Old Continent at the center of its security strategy. If the U.S. reduces its involvement, the European Union will have to quickly find resources, alliances, and strategies to address the Russian threat. The coming weeks will be crucial in determining whether European institutions can build a united front and whether Italy will be able to play a decisive role in this delicate international situation.
