The continuation of criminalization by other means: the role of judicial agency in the Italian policing of humanitarian assistance at sea

ABSTRACT

Over the last few years, many of the civil society organizations engaged in search and rescue activities in the Central Mediterranean have been targeted in different ways by public authorities. This phenomenon, widely described in terms of ‘policing’, has been central in the EU’s and member states’ migration governance. Scholars have increasingly considered various aspects of that, mostly focusing on legislation, practices and consequences of policing. This article contributes to the existing scholarship by shifting attention to the policy dimension and specifically considering the policy-making process. I focus on the Italian case, in the context of the broader EU policing dynamics, adopting an actor-centred institutionalist perspective, with a view to explaining how and why such policies emerged and evolved over time. To do so, I focus on the policy influence of the judiciary, as enabler of both expansive and repressive dynamics, in the broader context of European and national migration policy-making dynamics. Based on extensive research encompassing different governance layers, the case at hand offers interesting empirical and analytical reflections related to the policing of humanitarian assistance and on the role of the judiciary as a complex and ambivalent driver of the policy process.

KEYWORDS:

• Policing humanitarian assistance
• Mediterranean sea
• migration policy-making
• search and rescue
• judicial agency

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank the editors and the journal team for their support, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. I am also particularly grateful to all those who provided much appreciated feedbacks on previous versions of this article. A special thanks goes to the interviewees, who substantively contributed to the research by sharing their time and expertise with me.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

List of Interviewees

1. SIC_1, Lawyer, Sicily, 26 September 2018 (phone)

2. JUD_1, Member of the judiciary, Sicily, 28 September 2018 (in person)

3. LAW_1, Senior law enforcement officer, Sicily, 1 October 2018 (in person)

4. JUD_2, Member of the judiciary, Sicily, 17 October 2018 (informal conversation, in person)

5. SIC_2, Lawyer, Sicily, 17 October 2018 (phone)

6. JUD_3, National Deputy Anti-mafia Prosecutor, 17 April 2019 (in person)

7. ITA_1, Former leading official, Ministry of Interior – Department for Civic Liberties and Immigration, 17 April 2019 (in person)

8. EUR_1, Italian MEP, 2 May 2019 (Skype)

9. CSO_1, CSO officer, Mediterranean Sea, 22 May 2019 (Skype)

Notes

1. Decree-Law n. 213/18 (converted with Law n. 32/2018), Decree-Law n. 53/2019 (converted with Law n. 77/2019) and Decree-Law n. 130/20 (converted with Law n. 173/2020).

2. Original Italian quotes were translated by the author to the best of his ability.

3. Abbreviation for Parliamentary Committee of control for the enforcement of the Schengen Agreement.

4. Abbreviation for Parliamentary Committee of inquiry into the reception, identification and expulsion system as well as into the migrant detention conditions and on the allocated public resources.

5. Abbreviation for Parliamentary Committee of inquiry into mafia-related and other criminal organizations.

6. See also the similar cases involving the two Italian coast guard units Diciotti and Gregoretti (Tondo, 2020a).