The Italian government has recently presented a draft law that significantly impacts the country’s migration and asylum framework, in part to implement the new EU Pact on Migration and Asylum at the national level. However, the timing and substance of the proposal suggest a deeper domestic motivation. Amidst a climate of intense political polarization, reaching a peak after a defeat in the March 2026 constitutional referendum, the bill serves as a rhetorical provision aimed at reaffirming the Executive’s agenda ahead of next year’s political elections.
Among the bill’s clauses is the so-called “naval blockade”, a measure that the government has always announced as a flagship issue. Legal experts emphasize that, at Article 2, the bill introduces a temporary administrative interdiction of Italian territorial waters. Referring to it as an actual naval blockade is not only lexically incorrect but also legally risky. Applying a wartime instrument – governed by the San Remo Manual – to civilian actors, frames NGOs vessels as enemy ships, in contrast with Italy’s international obligations.
The temporary ban on entry into Italian territorial waters is justified by broad threats to public order or national security. These grounds include the concrete risk of terrorism, unusually high migration pressure, public health emergencies, or high-profile international events. The interdiction is designed to be exceptional, lasting initially for thirty days with possible extensions up to a cumulative maximum of six months.
To enforce the interdiction of access, the legislation introduces a severe punitive system: offenders face administrative fines ranging from €10,000 to €50,000, and in cases of repeated violations with the same vessel, the law mandates an immediate precautionary seizure followed by the final confiscation. Furthermore, the provision establishes that rescued people may be transferred to a third State, with which Italy has signed cooperation agreements.
The proposed Article 2 introduces four primary profiles of illegitimacy that have drawn sharp criticism from humanitarian organizations and legal scholars alike.
Picture: Picture: ResQShip / Paula Gaess
The Misclassification of Rescued People
The first critical issue lies in the bill’s fundamental compatibility with the international law of the sea. The legislation seeks to apply immigration enforcement measures to individuals still at sea, incorrectly qualifying them as “migrants” before they have reached land.
Under the established international framework of UNCLOS, SOLAS, and the SAR Convention, these individuals must be legally classified as shipwreck survivors until the moment of disembarkation at a Place of Safety (POS). This is not a mere terminological dispute; it is a vital legal distinction. By applying migration law prematurely, the bill undermines the master’s duty to provide assistance and threatens the integrity of search and rescue operations, which must remain distinct from law enforcement activities.
Vague Grounds for Territorial Interdiction
A second profile of illegitimacy stems from the broad and indeterminate nature of the grounds for issuing entry bans. The bill allows for interdictions based on “unusually high migration pressure” or a “concrete risk of terrorist acts,” yet it fails to provide objective parameters or quantitative criteria for these assessments.
This lack of precision grants the administrative authority excessive discretionary power, making the government’s actions difficult to predict or legally challenge. Such vagueness risks the “political instrumentalization” of the law, where security concerns may be invoked without a clear evidentiary basis to prevent the disembarkation of specific humanitarian vessels.
Moreover, security and defence matters, on whose justification the ban would be grounded, restrict civil actors’ ability to access public documents, which may be classified, most especially when terrorism is implied.
Risks of Collective Expulsion and Refoulement
The third major concern involves the protection of fundamental rights and the potential for collective expulsions. By authorizing the transfer of rescued persons to third countries – such as those defined in recent bilateral agreements like the Italy-Albania Protocol – the law bypasses the required individual assessment of each person’s protection needs. This practice directly threatens the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the return of individuals to countries where they may face persecution or inhuman treatment. Furthermore, the European Court of Human Rights has established that a State’s jurisdiction begins the moment it exercises effective control over survivors, meaning Italy remains legally responsible for their rights even before they step onto Italian soil.
Disproportionality of the Sanction System
Finally, the bill introduces a sanctioning regime that could violate the principles of proportionality and reasonableness. The legislation mandates heavy administrative fines up to €50,000 and, most severely, the detention and potential confiscation of vessels in cases of repeated violations. This punitive framework applies an “automatic” measure that does not account for the specific context of a rescue or the severity of the conduct. By targeting the assets of NGOs, the law creates a deterrent effect that threatens the operational capacity of civil society and interferes with the fulfilment of mandatory international duties to save lives at sea.
Conclusions
In light of these systemic legitimacy issues, the draft law presents a framework that prioritizes political signalling over legal consistency. The proposed measures not only risk overlapping and contradicting the EU’s crisis governance architecture – that envisages forms of solidarity in case of high migration pressure – but also place shipmasters before an operational dilemma between domestic penalties and international legal duties. Consequently, civil society organizations are calling for the integral withdrawal of Article 2.
Italy must instead focus on coordinating search and rescue operations in accordance with international maritime law, ensuring that humanitarian efforts are not obstructed and that the fundamental rights of people on the move are upheld.
EMERGENCY Advocacy Department
