Outsourcing Europe’s Problems: How Bilateral Solutions Undermine European Federalism and Enlargement

Italy-Albania: A Cynical Asylum Solution

The Italy-Albania deal, currently under intense scrutiny , exemplifies the worst of this trend. Italian PM Giorgia Meloni has touted the agreement as a bold solution to the nation’s migration pressures, establishing asylum centres in Albania to process applicants outside Italy’s borders. Under this bilateral agreement, migrants intercepted en route to Italy are transferred to the centres in Albania if they meet specific criteria: 

• they must originate from countries classified by the government as “safe”, where individuals are presumed not to require international protection, and 

• must not belong to vulnerable groups such as unaccompanied minors, women and individuals with health or age-related vulnerabilities, as provided by the recast EU Reception Conditions Directive (2024/1346/EU).

The agreement primarily targets adult male migrants who are supposedly subjected to an accelerated 28-day asylum procedure. Approved asylum claims result in transfer to Italy, while rejections lead to deportation from Albania to their countries of origin. Reports indicate that these centers, funded with €67.5 million—just a small portion of the estimated €680 million projected to be spent over the next five years—using Italian taxpayer money, are poorly equipped to manage the influx of applicants and face legal uncertainties that may require clarification from the European Court of Justice.

Beyond its logistical failings, the plan appears to be a cynical attempt to placate anti-immigration voters rather than a smart solution. By outsourcing the asylum procedure, Meloni shifts the problem out of sight, setting a dangerous unilateral precedent that undermines the EU’s collective ability to address migration challenges effectively. 

Denmark's Dual Outsourcing Strategy: Kosovo and Rwanda

Denmark’s approach to penal outsourcing, while less internationally reported, is similarly concerning. In 2021, Denmark signed a deal to send 300 prisoners— convicted in Denmark and slated for deportation— to Kosovo. Unlike the Italy-Albania arrangement, Denmark’s prison deal with Kosovo is not explicitly focused on offshoring societal issues wholesale but rather addresses a narrow category of deportable prisoners. Yet, key concerns remain. 

How can Denmark’s legal system credibly monitor and support a system hundreds of kilometers away, while ensuring the same standards of prisoner care and human rights? Such outsourcing of justice and the exportation of prisoners is merely a temporary fix to avoid domestic investment in a long-term penal reform. The deal risks isolating prisoners from their families, lawyers, and Danish society, undermining the rehabilitative purpose of incarceration. Rehabilitation itself —proven to reduce recidivism and enhance public safety— may be at risk in an area where legal, cultural, and linguistic barriers may further isolate prisoners. 

The Broader Risks of Outsourcing Shared Challenges

The EU’s  current trend of outsourcing policies has troubling implications, reflecting a shift in how member states unilaterally address shared challenges. As Italy and Denmark’s strategies exemplify, the exportation of responsibilities to less affluent neighbours not only create further occasions for division within the EU, but they also dramatically undermine the continent’s moral leadership. Arguably, such agreements often push the limits of legality, jeopardising the principle of non-refoulement as enshrined in Article 33 of the UN Refugee Convention. International asylum law seeks to prohibit practices that could result in inhumane or degrading treatment— a risk inherent in outsourcing justice or migration management to countries with less resources or weaker legal safeguards.

But perhaps most concerning, these deals erode the trust in the EU as a unified body committed to shared values. The abdication of responsibility is merely a symptom of the EU’s dysfunctional governance, with unanimity voting at its core, that hampers its consensus-building capacity and prevents EU action in principle. When wealthier nations offload their responsibilities, they not only strain their relationships with less affluent neighbours but also send a message that solidarity is secondary to political expediency. This is hardly a successful strategy to bring the Western Balkans into the EU.

A Federal Alternative: Leading With Values

The alternative is clear: Europe must adopt a federal, EU-wide approach to migration and penal reform, as well as on many other contentious issues. Shared infrastructure, funding, and oversight would standardise practices and relieve individual member states from shouldering disproportionate burdens. A cohesive system should prioritise humane solutions like rehabilitation in penal systems and equitable asylum processing in accordance with our rule of law and European values. In other words, if member states continue to push for bilateral agreements that disperse and run counter to European values, they not only riddle the effectiveness of EU treaties and existing legislation, but also hinder the development of new, federal approaches.

The EU’s strength and its global projection should be centred around its ability to lead with values, from pioneering human rights protection to championing democratic governance. Outsourcing societal responsibilities amounts to sweeping the dust under the carpet, and it is a betrayal of its legacy. If the EU is to remain a moral leader it must confront its challenges with transparency, solidarity and a commitment to truly European solutions, which are the only way to forge policies that reflect its ideals. No member state should be left to carry these burdens alone.