This article comparatively analyses offshore asylum agreements in Australia, the UK and Italy, focusing on the use of “safe country” designations. It finds that in all three States courts assert their constitutional authority to review these executive acts, grounding this power in the need to protect fundamental rights when their violation is at stake in the concrete application of migration policy. This exercise of judicial oversight systematically triggers institutional conflict with empowered executives, which have often legislated to override adverse rulings. The effectiveness of these constitutional checks ultimately depends on national legal frameworks, with Italy’s multi-layered system, reinforced by EU law, offering the most robust protections.
Diritto d’asilo ”offshore” e Paesi sicuri, tra Legislatore, Esecutivo e Corti
Maria Dicosola
2025-01-01
Abstract
This article comparatively analyses offshore asylum agreements in Australia, the UK and Italy, focusing on the use of “safe country” designations. It finds that in all three States courts assert their constitutional authority to review these executive acts, grounding this power in the need to protect fundamental rights when their violation is at stake in the concrete application of migration policy. This exercise of judicial oversight systematically triggers institutional conflict with empowered executives, which have often legislated to override adverse rulings. The effectiveness of these constitutional checks ultimately depends on national legal frameworks, with Italy’s multi-layered system, reinforced by EU law, offering the most robust protections.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
