Reframing Migration: Toward a Human-Centered Security Approach

Abstract

As Albania emerges not only as a transit country but increasingly as a destination for migrants, its migration policies are undergoing notable shifts. This article examines Albania’s evolving migration governance, focusing on the transition from a traditional, state-centered security approach to a human-centered security framework. Drawing on qualitative methods—interviews with stakeholders from state institutions, academia, and NGOs, alongside a thematic analysis of the key literature and policy documents—this study identifies the drivers of this shift, including democratic reforms, EU integration, and alignment with international standards. The findings reveal a growing emphasis on human security in policy discourse and design, yet also underscore persistent challenges in policy implementation. This article contributes to debates on migration policy by highlighting the tensions and interplay between state security imperatives and human security priorities within Albania’s EU integration trajectory.

1. Problem Statement

Albania’s migration landscape has undergone a profound transformation over the past three decades, revealing a critical policy challenge. Historically a country of emigration, Albania experienced mass outflows after 1990 due to economic hardship and political upheaval. In this context, national migration policy remained ad hoc and predominantly security-centric, focused on border control, strict visa regimes, and the prevention of irregular migration. Emerging in a period marked by fragile institutions and transitional governance, Albania’s state-centered security framework prioritized sovereignty and national security. However, it neglected the broader social and human dimensions of migration, often overlooking migrants’ rights and the developmental potential of migration. Adamson (2006) argued that “Migration and migration policies are also closely intertwined with issues relating to individual and human security” (p. 174), while Elbasani (2009) emphasized that “In post-communist states such as Albania, policies have often been transplanted in a top-down manner, dominated by security concerns, and shaped by international conditionality rather than domestic policy learning or social demands” (p. 299). As a result, Albania’s policies treated migration primarily as a security threat to be managed rather than a multifaceted social phenomenon involving human beings with inherent rights.

In recent years, Albania’s migration reality has shifted, necessitating a policy reorientation. The country is no longer solely a source of emigrants but has become a transit and destination country, particularly for migrants from the Middle East, Africa, and neighboring regions. From 2010 to 2023, there was a marked increase in foreign nationals working in Albania and a growing number of refugees and asylum seekers crossing its territory en route to the European Union. This changing landscape has exposed a policy mismatch, where a traditional security-heavy framework is insufficient to manage complex migration flows, protect migrants, and harness potential benefits for development. Albania thus faces the imperative of reforming its migration governance to balance border control with human rights protections, transitioning from a narrow security focus to a human-centered security approach that prioritizes individual dignity and well-being (IOM 2023).

The post-2015 migration crisis in Europe—triggered by conflict in Syria and instability across the Middle East—reconfigured regional migration routes and placed new pressures on transit countries in the Western Balkans, including Albania. A key factor in this shift was Turkey’s role as both a host and a gatekeeper country. Following the 2016 EU–Turkey Statement (European Council 2016), which aimed to stem irregular flows into Europe, many migrants began seeking alternative routes westward, including through Albania. This re-routing, compounded by tighter controls in Hungary and North Macedonia, redirected movement patterns and intensified Albania’s exposure to cross-border migration. As a result, Albania’s migration governance became increasingly influenced by geopolitical dynamics beyond its control, particularly the fluctuating enforcement and renegotiation of EU–Turkey cooperation on migration management (European Council 2016).

This policy shift is driven largely by external pressures and opportunities, particularly Albania’s aspirations for European Union membership. As an EU candidate, Albania is under significant pressure to align its migration policies with EU standards and broader international norms on human rights and governance. The EU acquis communautaire mandates rigorous protections for human rights and migrant welfare, acting as a catalyst for domestic policy change. Albania’s policymakers increasingly understand that compliance with EU requirements is essential not only for accession but also for strengthening democratic governance. International agreements such as the Global Compact for Migration (United Nations 2018) and United Nations recommendations (United Nations Network on Migration 2021) further reinforce this shift, embedding human security principles—centered on the safety and rights of individuals—into Albania’s policy discourse. National strategies, like the National Strategy on Migration and Action Plan 2019–2022, illustrate a formal commitment to moving beyond a security-first paradigm toward more comprehensive migration governance (Ministry of Interior, Republic of Albania 2019).

Despite these formal commitments, implementing a human-centered migration policy remains a significant challenge for Albania. Persistent institutional weaknesses, limited administrative capacities, and governance gaps hinder the translation of policy frameworks into effective practice (IOM 2023, pp. 11–13). While legislation and strategy documents align with EU and international standards, Albania continues to face obstacles. These dynamics create a gap between policy rhetoric and on-the-ground realities, where Albania’s stated commitments to human security struggle to materialize in practice.

The central problem this research addresses is how Albania can effectively operationalize its migration policy shift from a state-centric security model to a human-centered approach, particularly in the context of EU integration and domestic governance limitations. This is both a practical and strategic question: failure to implement such a shift could jeopardize migrant welfare, strain Albania’s international partnerships, and slow its EU accession process. Conversely, successfully embedding human security principles in migration policy would enhance Albania’s democratic credibility and institutional resilience.

Albania offers a particularly compelling case within the Western Balkans due to its evolving role from a primarily emigration country to a transit and destination state. Unlike some of its neighbors, Albania’s EU accession trajectory, bilateral migration agreements, and relatively weaker administrative capacity position it uniquely within regional migration governance. These factors, combined with its strategic geographic location and security concerns, make Albania a critical site for examining the interplay between state-centered and human-centered security approaches.

2. Literature Review

Creating a literature review that effectively bridges the detailed problem statement with specific concepts involves identifying and synthesizing key contributions from recognized authors in the fields of security studies and international relations. Accordingly, this review explores the dual themes of traditional versus human security approaches to migration. In doing so, it contributes to the academic discourse regarding the shift toward a human security approach in migration policy. The discussion also underscores the evolution of thought and policy in response to global migration dynamics, highlighting significant theoretical and practical developments. Moreover, this review seeks to provide a deep understanding of the changing landscape of migration policy, reflecting broader international trends and specific regional challenges faced by countries like Albania.

Migration covers both traditional and human security approaches, each representing distinct perspectives within the broader landscape of international security policy. Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde’s work redefined security paradigms by advocating a shift from the traditional state-centric focus toward a broader conception that includes human-centric issues and non-state actors (Buzan et al. 1998, p. 4). Similarly, Roland Paris (2001) emphasized the growing relevance of human security by arguing that it broadens the scope of security beyond military threats to encompass economic, environmental, and social vulnerabilities (Paris 2001, p. 88). This pivot is crucial for understanding how migration is increasingly integrated into the domain of human security. In this view, the emphasis shifts from safeguarding state sovereignty and territorial integrity to prioritizing the safety and rights of individuals.

The traditional security approach to migration primarily views it through the lens of state security and national sovereignty, as “… existential threats are traditionally defined in terms of the constituting principle—sovereignty, but sometimes also ideology—of the state. Sovereignty can be existentially threatened by anything that questions recognition, legitimacy, or governing authority” (Buzan et al. 1998, p. 21). Historically, migration was often perceived as a potential threat to public order and national identity, leading to policies focused on rigorous border control and restrictive immigration laws. The early theoretical underpinnings of this approach can be seen in works such as Weiner’s theories on the security dilemma posed by migration, which argue that uncontrolled migration can destabilize national structures, both socially and economically. As Weiner (1993) states, “Large-scale movements of people across state boundaries can have consequences for the security of states. The arrival of refugees and immigrants may create or exacerbate ethnic tensions, provoke civil conflict, or even lead to interstate disputes” (p. 91). These perspectives dominated the discourse around migration policy until the late 20th century, reflecting a period where state security was paramount and migration was managed under strict regulatory frameworks.

However, such traditional approaches increasingly faced criticism for their inability to capture the social and political processes through which migration becomes framed as a security issue. In response to these gaps, the introduction of securitization theory by Buzan et al. (1998) marked a pivotal shift in understanding migration in security studies. Their framework suggested that security is not an objective condition but a subjective process wherein state actors declare certain issues as existential threats, justifying extraordinary measures to counter them. As they argue, “Security is thus a self-referential practice, because it is in this practice that the issue becomes a security issue—not necessarily because a real existential threat exists but because the issue is presented as such a threat” (Buzan et al. 1998, p. 24). This broadened conception of security opened the door for migration to be reframed as more than a military or state threat—it became a legitimate subject of security discourse, with implications for policy and governance. Indeed, migration has since been considered a security imperative, emphasizing both state and human dimensions.

This dual framing of migration as both a security risk and a human concern has increasingly steered academic and policy debates toward a human security framework. For instance, as Yayboke and McAuliffe (2021) noted in a CSIS commentary, while migration has often been securitized response-wise, it also demands a human-security lens that balances national interests with migrant welfare. Furthermore, recent research by Carrera and Geddes (2022) explored how the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine have reinforced the dual framing of migration as both a security risk and a human security issue, urging the EU to refine its migration governance strategies.

The theoretical foundations of state security approaches to migration can be traced back to the core principles of Realism and Liberalism in international relations. Realists like Mearsheimer (1994) emphasize the anarchic nature of the international system, suggesting that states prioritize their security and survival through power and control, which extends to their handling of migration. Liberal theorists, such as Keohane and Nye (1998), however, highlight the role of international institutions and norms in shaping state behavior, suggesting that cooperative frameworks, like the EU, can influence member and candidate states to adopt more comprehensive and human-centric migration policies.

As the global order evolved in the post-Cold War era, critiques of the traditional security approach to migration grew. Scholars argued that framing migration solely as a security threat disregarded the complex socio-economic dynamics and the human rights of migrants. As Huysmans (2000) observed, “The securitization of migration constructs migrants as a threat to public order, cultural identity and the welfare state. This approach neglects the social and economic dynamics that migration involves and sidelines the human rights of migrants” (p. 760). Such a critique paved the way for the emergence of human security approaches, which focus on the safety and rights of individuals rather than the interests of the state. Theoretical advancements argued for a de-securitization of migration, suggesting that enhancing the human rights aspect of migrants could lead to more sustainable and peaceful international relations (Guild and Bigo 2010, pp. 5–7). These evolving perspectives have not only reshaped academic debates but have also permeated regional policy frameworks. Notably, the European Union has emerged as a key actor in translating these normative shifts into concrete migration governance mechanisms, particularly in its relations with neighboring states.

Building on these normative shifts, the influence of regional governance frameworks, particularly the European Union, has further shaped migration policies beyond its borders. “The concept of Europeanization refers to the process by which EU political and economic dynamics influence the domestic policies and practices of candidate and neighboring countries” (Featherstone and Radaelli 2003, p. 3). In the context of migration, Europeanization has led to significant shifts in how non-member states manage migration, aligning with EU standards and frameworks. This influence is particularly evident in the Western Balkans, where candidate countries are progressively aligning with EU migration standards. For Albania, the Europeanization of migration policies has meant adopting more comprehensive and integrated approaches that go beyond mere border control to include aspects of asylum, integration, and human rights protection. This shift is critical as it reflects Albania’s efforts to harmonize with EU policies, not only to meet accession criteria but also to address broader migration challenges in a way that aligns with European values and legal standards (Ministry of Interior, Republic of Albania 2019, p. 7). The EU’s New Pact on Migration and Asylum, adopted in 2020 and further debated in 2022, has reinforced these trends by promoting a more unified and rights-based approach to migration management across member and candidate countries (European Commission 2022).

For EU non-member countries, the Europeanization of migration policies has entailed adopting more comprehensive and integrated frameworks that extend beyond border control to encompass asylum, integration, and the protection of human rights (Statewatch 2020). Trauner (2009) demonstrated how the EU employs conditionality to promote the adoption of the acquis communautaire, which includes detailed directives and regulations governing migration and asylum. Similarly, Elbasani (2009) emphasized that EU conditionality often drives institutional reforms in candidate and neighboring countries by linking compliance with migration governance to broader processes of European integration (p. 295). In Albania’s case, this process has driven a substantive shift from a traditionally security-centric approach toward one rooted in human security, prioritizing the rights, protection, and well-being of migrants and refugees.

The role of global governance and international institutions has been instrumental in shaping national migration policies, particularly for countries like Albania that are aligning their practices with a human security approach. International organizations such as the United Nations, through agencies like the UNHCR, have set global standards advocating for the protection of refugees and migrants, emphasizing human rights, safety, and dignity—principles central to human security (Lavenex and Uçarer 2002). In Albania’s case, these global pressures are reinforced by regional initiatives, notably the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe (1999–2008) and its successor, the Regional Cooperation Council, both of which promote security, democracy, and economic development in the Balkans (RCC 2023). Such frameworks provide not only guidelines but also platforms for Albania to reform its migration policies toward greater inclusivity and human rights protection. This evolution is evident in Albania’s recent legislative reforms, which increasingly embrace a comprehensive migration management model anchored in human security. These reforms highlight Albania’s commitment to meeting international obligations while strengthening its governance capacity and enhancing its international standing.

There is a growing tendency to frame migration through the lens of human security. The gradual shift toward this approach in migration policy reflects a broader trend in international relations and security studies, recognizing the limitations of traditional state-centric models. Paris (2001) argued for the “securitization of humanity,” advocating for a security paradigm that places the individual at the center of policy considerations (p. 87). This perspective is increasingly evident in the policies of international bodies and in the national strategies of countries like Albania, which are adapting to the complex realities of global migration by emphasizing human rights and individual well-being. Furthermore, recent analyses highlight that the humanitarian crises resulting from the Ukraine war have accelerated the incorporation of human security principles into national migration frameworks across Europe, including the Western Balkans (ICMPD 2023).

3. Methodology

This study employs a qualitative research design combining document analysis and semi-structured interviews to examine Albania’s migration policy shift from a state-centered to a human-centered security approach. The methodology is structured to ensure a comprehensive understanding of both the formal policy frameworks and the practical governance dynamics influencing migration policy in Albania.

A wide-ranging document analysis was conducted, focusing on national policies, EU reports, and international frameworks relevant to Albania’s migration governance. The selection of documents was guided by a systematic search using keywords such as Albania migration policy, human security and migration, EU migration standards, and Western Balkans migration. The data sources included official Albanian government portals (e.g., Ministry of Interior, Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs); European Commission reports (2020–2024 progress reports); international organization publications (IOM, UNHCR, EUAA); and key academic works relevant to migration and security studies. The following criteria were used for the selection of sources: relevance to Albania’s migration policies (2010 onwards); documents addressing EU alignment, human security, and institutional governance; and accessibility via official sources, academic databases, and international agencies (

Table 1. Key Documents Analyzed.

Document Title	Source	Year	Focus
National Strategy on Migration and Action Plan 2019–2022	Ministry of Interior	2019	National migration strategy
National Strategy for Development and Integration 2015–2020	Albanian Government	2015	Development and integration priorities
EU’s New Pact on Migration and Asylum	European Commission	2020	EU migration policy framework
EU Albania Progress Reports (2020–2024)	European Commission	2020–2024	Progress on migration governance
Global Compact for Migration	UN	2018	International migration standards

).

In addition to document analysis, this study conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with carefully selected key stakeholders. These included officials from Albanian state institutions engaged in migration governance, representatives from EU-affiliated bodies and international organizations operating in Albania, and academics specializing in migration, security studies, and EU integration, as well as leaders of NGOs and civil society organizations actively involved in supporting migrants and advocating for human rights. This diverse set of perspectives ensured a comprehensive understanding of both the policy frameworks and the practical challenges in Albania’s migration governance. Participants were selected using purposive sampling to capture diverse institutional perspectives (

Table 2. Overview of Interview Participants.

Stakeholder Group	Institutions	Number of Participants	Mode of Interview
Government Officials	Ministry of Interior, Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Border and Migration Police	5	In-person/Online
EU-Related Bodies	Delegation of the EU to Albania, EUAA representatives	3	Online
International Organizations	IOM Albania, UNHCR Albania	2	Online
Academia	University of Tirana, European University of Tirana	2	In-person
NGOs and Civil Society	Albanian Helsinki Committee, Refugee and Migrant Services NGOs	3	In-person/Online

).

The interview themes were as follows: perceptions of Albania’s migration policy evolution; implementation challenges of human security approaches; institutional capacity and inter-agency coordination; influence of EU integration on migration governance; and perspectives on regional cooperation in the Western Balkans. The interview themes were designed to align with the operationalization of this study’s core variables, particularly the dependent variable, migration policy orientation, which captures Albania’s shift from a state-centered to a human-centered security approach. The themes explored perceptions of policy evolution, the implementation of human security principles, and institutional capacities, directly reflecting the moderating variable: institutional and governance challenges. Additionally, themes on EU integration and regional cooperation corresponded to the independent variables, namely, EU integration requirements and alignment with international standards. This structure ensured that the interviews systematically gathered insights relevant to understanding the drivers, constraints, and practical outcomes of Albania’s migration policy transformation within its broader governance context.

Each theme was explored through open-ended questions designed to elicit detailed, experience-based insights from key stakeholders. An additional wrap-up question was included to allow the participants to raise broader reflections or issues not directly addressed by the main themes (

Table 3. Semi-Structured Interview Guide.

Theme	Interview Question
1. Migration Policy Shift	How has Albania’s migration policy discourse evolved in recent years?
2. Drivers of Change	To what extent have democratic reforms and EU integration influenced migration policy?
3. Institutional Challenges	What are the main institutional or resource-related challenges in implementing migration reforms?
4. Security Tensions	How do you assess the balance between state security and human security in current migration policies?
5. Policy–Practice Gaps	Where do you see the largest gaps between formal migration policy and its practical implementation?
6. Open-ended Wrap-Up	Is there anything else you would like to add regarding the evolution or challenges of migration policy in Albania?

).

To enhance validity, data triangulation was employed, comparing insights from policy documents, interviews, and the existing literature. A consistent coding scheme was used to ensure reliability across the data sources. Interview anonymity was preserved, and the participants provided informed consent.

The analysis applied a thematic analysis approach to systematically examine data collected from the documents and interviews. The analysis focused on identifying recurring themes related to the framing of migration within state security and human security paradigms, the influence of democratic reforms, EU integration processes, and adherence to international standards, as well as institutional and governance challenges that affect policy implementation. The data were coded in alignment with the predefined variables of this study: the dependent variable of migration policy orientation, the independent variables of democratic reforms, EU integration requirements, and alignment with international standards, and the moderating variable of institutional and governance challenges. To enhance validity, this study triangulated the findings across the documents, interviews, and existing scholarly analyses, while ensuring reliability through the application of a consistent coding scheme across all data sources.

This methodological approach enabled a comprehensive examination of Albania’s migration policy landscape, integrating policy analysis with stakeholder insights to capture both formal commitments and the realities of governance practices.

4. Findings

This section presents the core findings of this study, which explores the progressive shift in Albania’s migration policy from a traditional state-centered security approach to a human-centered security framework. The findings are derived from a comprehensive analysis of three primary data sources: official documents and policy frameworks, relevant theoretical works, and qualitative insights gathered through 15 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, including policymakers, academics, EU representatives, and NGO leaders. This triangulated approach enables a rich, multi-layered understanding of the drivers, dynamics, and constraints that shape Albania’s evolving migration governance.

The findings are organized thematically, reflecting the main dimensions that emerged from the data: the evolution of migration policy orientation, the key drivers of policy transformation, institutional and governance challenges, and the enduring tensions between state security imperatives and human security commitments. This thematic organization allows for a structured presentation of how Albania’s policy discourse and practices are shaped by both internal reforms and external pressures while also revealing persistent gaps between policy ambitions and on-the-ground realities (

Table 4. Theme 1: Migration policy shift.

Subthemes	Documents	Theoretical Perspective	Interviews	Convergence/Divergence
1.1. Policy Discourse Shift	The National Strategy on Migration and Action Plan 2019–2022 emphasizes EU-aligned priorities and migrant rights (Ministry of Interior, Republic of Albania 2019). EU Progress Reports (2021–2023) commend these shifts (European Commission 2023a).	Paris (2001) discusses the human security paradigm. Buzan et al. (1998) introduce securitization theory. Krause (2013) critiques the gap between rhetoric and practice.	Stakeholders acknowledge the reframing of migration policy toward human rights and EU standards. Some express skepticism about depth beyond rhetoric.	Convergence between policy documents and theory. Divergence noted by some interviewees on the implementation gap.
1.2. Practical Policy Measures	Law on Foreigners (2021), Migration Strategy 2024–2030 (European Commission 2023a), and the Italy–Albania Protocol (Government of Italy and Council of Ministers of Albania 2023).	Critique of migration externalization (Carrera and Geddes 2022). Securitization framework (Buzan et al. 1998).	PM Rama emphasized exclusivity of Italy deal. Stakeholders stress bilateral over multilateral focus.	Convergence on the existence of practical reforms. Divergence on ethical/legal concerns over externalization versus government pragmatism.

).

Albania’s migration policy has undergone a visible discursive transformation, marked by the adoption of EU-aligned frameworks that emphasize migrant rights and human security principles (Ministry of Interior, Republic of Albania 2019; European Commission 2023a). This rhetorical shift reflects the influence of the human security paradigm (Paris 2001) and securitization theory (Buzan et al. 1998), both of which frame migration within broader security and humanitarian concerns, as well as international expectations tied to EU accession. However, Krause (2013) warns of a gap between rhetoric and practice, a caution echoed by interviewees who, while acknowledging the policy shift, remain skeptical of its depth and sincerity.

While legislative measures such as the Law on Foreigners (2021) and the Italy–Albania Protocol illustrate practical reform, they also reinforce security-centric logics. These measures, framed as pragmatic solutions to regional migration pressures, often prioritize containment and border control, revealing a tension between Albania’s formal embrace of human security and its operational alignment with deterrence-based governance. The interconnection between discourse and practice shows that while policy language embraces human security, practical measures often align with deterrence and control mechanisms. Such a dichotomy suggests that while Albania’s migration policy reform is advancing, it remains constrained by geopolitical interests and governance pragmatism, potentially undermining its human security commitments (

Table 5. Theme 2: Drivers of change.

Subthemes	Documents	Theoretical Perspective	Interviews	Convergence/Divergence
2.1. Democratic Reforms	EU/NATO accession criteria have driven Albania to enact political reforms (e.g., judicial and electoral reforms) (European Commission 2023a). National strategy links democratization to stability (Ministry of Interior, Republic of Albania 2019).	Buzan et al. (1998) on the political sector security; UNDP (1994) Human Development Report emphasizes political security.	Experts emphasize EU accession depends on an “open, inclusive society” (interview data). Judicial vetting seen as a precondition for migration reforms.	Convergence: All sources affirm democratization as key driver. Divergence: Minimal.
2.2. EU Integration Requirements	EU Progress Reports document Albania’s alignment with the EU acquis (European Commission 2023a). Western Balkans Summits emphasize migration system reforms (European Commission 2023a).	EU as normative power exporting values (Carrera and Geddes 2022). Securitization theory links migration policy to political/legal domain (Buzan et al. 1998).	Interviews report “considerable institutional control” by the EU. Officials align reforms with EU standards.	Convergence: Universal agreement on the EU’s role. Divergence: Interviews highlight implementation gaps.
2.3. International Standards	IOM and UN-led strategies show Albania’s commitments under global frameworks (IOM 2023; UNHCR 2023).	UNDP (1994) on human security dimensions; norm entrepreneurship—promoting and establishing new norms in international relations—by international agencies (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998).	Active collaboration with UN agencies noted (interview data). Policies emphasize dignity, but officials admit “weak link” in practice.	Convergence: Adoption of global standards is recognized. Divergence: Shortfalls in policy implementation.

).

Albania’s migration policy transformation is driven by three mutually reinforcing factors: democratic reforms, EU integration requirements, and the adoption of international standards. These drivers reflect both normative alignment and structural pressures, and they manifest across the legal, institutional, and strategic dimensions of governance.

Democratic consolidation has become a foundational pillar of Albania’s migration governance. EU and NATO accession criteria have prompted substantial political reforms—including judicial vetting—which are frequently framed in national strategies as prerequisites for institutional stability (Ministry of Interior, Republic of Albania 2019). This aligns with theoretical perspectives on political security (Buzan et al. 1998) and human development (UNDP 1994), which highlight the role of inclusive institutions in advancing human security. The interviewees consistently emphasized that EU conditionality has linked migration reform to broader democratization goals. Across the documents, theory, and stakeholder insights, there is clear convergence on democratization as a key enabler of governance readiness, though long-term sustainability remains contingent on continued institutional investment.

Albania’s EU accession aspirations are a dominant force shaping migration policy, driving alignment with the acquis communautaire and the priorities of the European Commission. Progress Reports and Western Balkans Summits document Albania’s steady legal harmonization and procedural reforms (European Commission 2023b), while theoretical frameworks on normative power (Carrera and Geddes 2022) and securitization (Buzan et al. 1998) explain how EU influence extends into the political and legal design of national migration systems. The interviews affirmed that domestic actors perceive the EU as an active shaper of migration governance, not just through incentives but also through monitoring and institutional modeling. While all sources affirm convergence around the EU’s centrality, some divergence arises in practice: the interviewees noted that implementation often lags behind formal alignment, revealing a gap between Europeanization on paper and institutional reality on the ground.

Alongside EU-driven change, Albania’s adoption of global norms further anchors its shift toward human security-based migration governance. Partnerships with the IOM, UNHCR, and other international organizations reinforce frameworks based on dignity, protection, and inclusion (IOM 2023; UNHCR 2023). These developments echo theoretical accounts of norm entrepreneurship (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998), where international agencies actively socialize states into human rights-based policy frameworks. The interviews confirmed Albania’s active cooperation with UN actors and the formal integration of international principles into strategic planning. Yet, the respondents noted a persistent “implementation gap,” with officials acknowledging weak follow-through on service delivery and legal aid. The implication for migration policy is that Albania’s credibility in the international arena will increasingly depend not just on formal adherence to standards but on its ability to ensure that these standards are implemented on the ground (

Table 6. Theme 3: Institutional challenges.

Subthemes	Documents	Theoretical Perspective	Interviews	Convergence/Divergence
3.1. Resource Constraints	EU Progress Reports and IOM (2023) highlight limited funding and staffing in Albanian migration services. Insufficient financial and human resources impact asylum processing and migrant support systems (European Commission 2023a; IOM 2023).	The governance literature links institutional weaknesses in transitional states to limited capacity for policy implementation (Börzel and Risse 2010).	Interviewees emphasize chronic underfunding of migration-related institutions, noting “resource scarcity hampers operational effectiveness.”	Convergence: All sources agree that resource constraints critically limit Albania’s migration policy implementation.
3.2. Coordination Gaps	National strategies acknowledge the need for better inter-agency coordination (Ministry of Interior, Republic of Albania 2019). EU reports criticize fragmented institutional cooperation (European Commission 2023a).	Public administration theory stresses that policy coherence is essential for effective governance (Peters 2015).	Stakeholders report “lack of coordination between ministries and local authorities” as a key barrier to integrated migration management.	Convergence: Uniform recognition across sources of weak inter-agency coordination as a major obstacle. Divergence: None significant.

).

Albania’s migration governance continues to face structural impediments rooted in resource scarcity and fragmented institutional coordination. These institutional constraints not only hinder the effective implementation of policies but also undermine Albania’s credibility in meeting its EU and international obligations.

Across the policy reports, theory, and interviews, there is a strong consensus that limited funding and human resources represent a fundamental obstacle to effective migration governance. EU Progress Reports and IOM assessments consistently point to underfunded and understaffed asylum and migration services (European Commission 2023a; IOM 2023). This diagnosis is echoed in the governance literature, which links transitional state weakness to a lack of administrative capacity and implementation gaps (Börzel and Risse 2010). The interviewees repeatedly cited chronic under-resourcing as a major holdup in executing even well-designed reforms. These findings underscore the systemic nature of Albania’s resource challenges: insufficient investment hampers not only frontline service delivery but also the state’s ability to fulfill its human rights and institutional commitments under EU integration.

Closely tied to the issue of capacity are persistent coordination failures across institutional actors. National strategies acknowledge the need for inter-agency alignment, and EU progress evaluations highlight the inefficiencies caused by fragmented governance structures (Ministry of Interior, Republic of Albania 2019; European Commission 2023a). Theoretical perspectives on public administration stress that policy coherence is essential for effective implementation, particularly in complex domains like migration (Peters 2015). The interview data confirmed these concerns, pointing to weak coordination between central ministries and local authorities as a key barrier to policy integration. Notably, this dysfunction is often aggravated by resource limitations: underfunded institutions lack both the incentives and infrastructure for sustained collaboration. The convergence of evidence suggests that unless Albania builds stronger inter-institutional mechanisms and addresses horizontal governance gaps, its migration policies will continue to falter at the implementation stage (

Table 7. Theme 4: Security tensions.

Subthemes	Documents	Theoretical Perspective	Interviews	Convergence/Divergence
4.1. State Security Prioritization	The Italy–Albania Protocol establishes offshore processing centers (Government of Italy and Council of Ministers of Albania 2023). The EU Commission notes Italy’s intent to respect obligations (European Commission 2023b).	Securitization theory describes migration as framed as an existential threat (Buzan et al. 1998). Critiques of externalization highlight risks to human rights (Carrera and Geddes 2022).	Interviewees note government framing of migration as a “threat to public order.” Observations on military deployment and expedited deportations.	Convergence: All sources acknowledge prioritization of state security. Divergence: Theoretical critiques highlight human rights concerns not fully addressed in practice.
4.2. Human Security Advancements	EU Progress Reports emphasize safeguarding asylum seekers’ rights (European Commission 2023b). Humanitarian safeguards in the Italy–Albania deal include exemptions for vulnerable persons (Government of Italy and Council of Ministers of Albania 2023).	Human security theory prioritizes individual safety and dignity (UNDP 1994). Calls for de-securitization to ensure access to asylum (Krause 2013).	Stakeholders highlight provisions for vulnerable migrants but report implementation gaps in legal aid and healthcare access.	Convergence: General alignment on formal protections. Divergence: Practical implementation often lacks comprehensive human security protections.

).

As already mentioned, Albania’s migration policy reflects a persistent tension between state-centric security imperatives and human-centered commitments. This duality is especially pronounced in recent bilateral initiatives and institutional responses, where securitization logic often overrides humanitarian obligations.

Albania’s alignment with Italy through the 2023 Italy–Albania Protocol exemplifies the externalization of EU border controls and a securitized framing of migration. The protocol, which establishes offshore processing centers in Albania for migrants intercepted by Italian authorities, reflects a strategic emphasis on deterrence and containment (Statewatch 2025; European Commission 2023b). This approach aligns with the theory of securitization (Buzan et al. 1998), which frames migration as an existential threat to state order. Critics such as Carrera and Geddes (2022) warn that such arrangements risk avoiding core human rights protections. The interviewees reinforced this concern, noting the government’s framing of migration as a “threat to public order” and referencing military deployments and accelerated deportation procedures. Across the sources, there is clear convergence on the dominance of security logic, with divergence centered on the ethical and legal implications of these practices.

In contrast to these securitized measures, recent policy frameworks and bilateral agreements have also introduced elements intended to uphold human security. The EU Progress Reports and the Italy–Albania deal include formal provisions to safeguard vulnerable persons and ensure basic protections (European Commission 2023b; Government of Italy and Council of Ministers of Albania 2023). Human security theory (UNDP 1994) and calls for de-securitization (Krause 2013) emphasize the importance of individual-centered approaches—principles that Albania has formally acknowledged. However, the interview data revealed significant gaps between legal commitments and practical enforcement, particularly in areas such as legal aid and access to healthcare for migrants. While formal frameworks suggest progress, the practical shortfalls identified by stakeholders expose a deeper implementation gap that threatens the integrity of Albania’s human security commitments (

Table 8. Policy–practice gaps.

Issue	Documents	Theoretical Perspective	Practice (Interviews)	Convergence/Divergence
Legal alignment with EU standards	Albania’s National Strategy on Migration (2019–2022) and EU Progress Reports (2021–2023) note alignment with EU norms (European Commission 2023b; Ministry of Interior, Republic of Albania 2019).	Lipsky (1980) and Hill and Hupe (2002) highlight that legal compliance does not ensure effective implementation due to discretion at the street level.	Stakeholders report legal alignment with EU directives but note gaps in implementation.	Convergence on policy alignment; divergence in practical enforcement (Lipsky 1980; Hill and Hupe 2002).
Asylum and return procedures	Strategy and EU reports emphasize asylum and return mechanisms (European Commission 2023b).	Infantino and Sredanović (2022) note complex multi-step processes hinder policy realization.	Stakeholders observe functional gaps in return and asylum procedures.	Convergence on commitment; divergence due to weak implementation.
Integration rights (services)	The strategy enshrines education and healthcare rights for migrants (Ministry of Interior, Republic of Albania 2019).	Lipsky’s street-level bureaucracy shows formal rights may not equate to real access (Lipsky 1980).	Practical barriers to accessing education and healthcare remain.	Convergence on rights; divergence in access to services.
Institutional capacity and coordination	Strategy and EU reports call for enhanced capacity and coordination (European Commission 2023b).	Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) stress that coordination failures lead to policy gaps.	Coordination challenges persist among agencies (interview data).	Convergence on need for coordination; divergence in actual capacity.

).

While Albania has achieved substantial legal alignment with EU migration standards, a recurring pattern of implementation failure reveals the fragility of this formal compliance. Across the domains of asylum, integration rights, and institutional functioning, the findings consistently highlight the gap between policy design and practical delivery.

Albania’s legal framework, particularly the National Strategy on Migration (2019–2022), reflects a strong formal alignment with EU directives (European Commission 2023b). However, this convergence masks significant enforcement shortfalls. Drawing on Lipsky’s (1980) street-level bureaucracy theory and Hill and Hupe (2002), the findings confirm that discretionary enforcement and limited administrative follow-through dilute the impact of these policies. Stakeholders acknowledged that despite legal harmonization, practical uptake is inconsistent, revealing a divergence between external alignment and internal effectiveness.

Although strategic documents emphasize robust asylum and return systems, operational realities are less encouraging. Infantino and Sredanović (2022) highlight how bureaucratic complexity undermines the timely and fair processing of asylum claims—an assessment echoed by the interviewees, who pointed to procedural delays and resource bottlenecks. This confirms a broader trend where formal institutional presence is not matched by operational functionality, limiting policy credibility.

While access to education and healthcare is guaranteed by policy (Ministry of Interior, Republic of Albania 2019), these rights often remain inaccessible in practice. Lipsky’s (1980) framework again proves instructive, showing how frontline discretion, under-resourced agencies, and systemic inefficiencies obstruct migrant access to basic services. The stakeholders frequently cited legal provisions that exist only “on paper,” particularly in rural areas or under-resourced municipalities.

Finally, inter-agency fragmentation continues to undermine the delivery of migration services. Despite repeated calls for improved coordination (European Commission 2023b), implementation remains hampered by unclear mandates and weak horizontal governance. Theoretical insights from Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) emphasize that effective policy execution requires not just mandates, but operational coherence—something currently lacking in Albania’s migration sector. The interviews confirmed these coordination gaps as a structural weakness impeding cross-sector implementation.

* * *

The findings of this study collectively demonstrate that while Albania has made significant efforts to align its migration policy with EU standards and international norms, persistent gaps remain between policy formulation and practical implementation. The thematic analysis reveals a complex interplay between state security priorities, human security advancements, institutional constraints, and external pressures, such as EU integration requirements. Across all themes, a recurrent tension emerges between the aspirational policy discourse and the operational realities on the ground, shaped by resource limitations, coordination challenges, and the enduring influence of securitization narratives. These findings underscore that migration policy reform in Albania is not solely a legal or technical process but is deeply embedded in broader governance dynamics and regional geopolitics. Addressing these multi-dimensional challenges requires not only continued legal harmonization but also substantial investments in institutional capacity, inter-agency cooperation, and a genuine commitment to human security principles. This sets a critical foundation for the subsequent discussion on how Albania can bridge these policy–practice gaps to create a more effective, humane, and sustainable migration framework.

5. Discussion

5.1. Stace-Centered Approach to Migration vs. Human-Centered Approach in Albania

The migration discourse is characterized by different perspectives on how migration should be managed. As mentioned above, central to this discourse are the state-centered and human-centered approaches. Each offers unique methodologies and foundations, affecting migration policy both in Albania and globally.

The state-centered approach prioritizes national security, control of borders, and regulatory frameworks that are designed to manage the entry and stay of migrants. It often emphasizes the sovereignty of the state in controlling its borders against unauthorized migration, which is seen as a potential threat to social order and national security. Authors like Hollifield (2004) and Weiner (1995) argue that migration policies derived from a state-centered perspective are largely driven by the need to protect the national labor market and maintain internal security. Specifically, Hollifield (2004) discusses the state-centered approach to migration, focusing on the state’s interest in controlling migration to protect the national labor market and internal security (pp. 887–90), and Weiner (1995) emphasizes that states develop migration policies as instruments to preserve sovereignty, social order and labor market, viewing uncontrolled migration as a security risk (p. 5).

These theoretical insights provide a valuable lens through which to examine Albania’s evolving migration governance. By situating Albania within these frameworks, we can better understand how external pressures, particularly from the EU, shape domestic policy orientations and institutional responses. In Albania, this approach has historically been visible in strict border controls and the alignment of visa policies with EU standards. Lately, this is evidenced by legislative reforms such as the Law on Foreigners (2021) and the Italy–Albania Protocol (Government of Italy and Council of Ministers of Albania 2023), which operationalize state security priorities through legal and bilateral frameworks. The Law on Foreigners (2021) formalizes regulations on the entry, residence, and treatment of foreigners, including stricter controls on irregular migration, residency conditions, and deportation procedures. The Italy–Albania Protocol refers to a bilateral agreement allowing Italy to process asylum seekers in centers established in Albania. This reflects a security-oriented externalization strategy, where migration control is extended beyond the state’s immediate borders, aiming to manage and deter irregular migration before it reaches the EU. Together, these instruments demonstrate how Albania’s migration governance is shaped by legal measures and bilateral cooperation designed to enhance state security, particularly in response to regional migration pressures and in alignment with EU expectations.

More specifically, when we talk about traditional security within the framework of security studies, it “is easy to identify…it is the phenomenon of war. Security Studies assumes that conflict between states is always a possibility and…accordingly, Security Studies may be defined as the study of the threat, use, and control of military force” (Walt 1991, pp. 212–13). Within the framework of critical security studies, there is a shift in the concept of security as “emancipation is the freeing of people…from the physical and human constraints which stop them carrying out what they would freely choose to do…Security and emancipation are two sides of the same coin. Emancipation, not power or order, produces true security. Emancipation, theoretically, is security” (Booth 1991, p. 319). Then, there is a further shift:

Human security aims “to protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfilment. Human security means protecting fundamental freedoms—freedoms that are the essence of life. It means protecting people from critical (severe) and pervasive (widespread) threats and situations, using processes that build on people’s strengths and aspirations, and creating political, social, environmental, economic, military and cultural systems that together give people the building blocks of survival, livelihood and dignity” (Commission on Human Security 2003, p. 4).

However, a shift toward the human-centered approach is increasingly evident. This perspective prioritizes the rights and well-being of migrants, advocating for policies that support integration, access to services, and the protection of human rights regardless of migrants’ legal status. Authors like Castles (2003) and Bhabha (2009) emphasize the human-centered approach. Castles (2003) argues that a human-centered approach to migration not only meets the immediate needs of migrants but also enhances social cohesion by fostering inclusion and reducing marginalization. He emphasizes that, “Only a human-centered approach that addresses the root causes of displacement and promotes social inclusion can lead to cohesive and stable societies. Without this, migrants are marginalized, leading to social fragmentation and conflict” (Castles 2003, p. 25). Further, Bhabha (2009) emphasizes that prioritizing the rights and needs of migrants, particularly children and vulnerable groups, is essential for creating equitable societies and reinforcing long-term social stability. She argues that “A human rights-based approach to migration, especially concerning children, not only safeguards their immediate well-being but also strengthens the social fabric by fostering equality and inclusion” (Bhabha 2009, p. 1868).

In Albania, this shift is reflected in recent legislative reforms that focus on enhancing access to healthcare and education for migrants, aligning with human-centered security principles. The National Strategy on Migration and Action Plan 2019–2022 specifically guarantees rights to key services such as education and healthcare for all migrants. Despite these formal commitments, the findings suggest that while obstacles remain—particularly for irregular migrants in accessing healthcare and education—Albania is progressively moving toward a human-centered security approach. This reflects the broader dynamics described by human security theorists, where policy evolution is often gradual and marked by tensions between normative aspirations and institutional realities (UNDP 1994; Booth 1991). The challenges illustrate not a rejection of human security principles but rather the complexity of embedding them within existing governance frameworks. This transition phase underscores the need for sustained institutional strengthening and resource investment to ensure that the normative commitment to human security is effectively translated into practice within Albania’s migration governance system.

Comparatively, the state-centered approach tends to be reactive, focusing on the immediate concerns of state security and public order, which can sometimes lead to restrictive and exclusionary policies. On the other hand, the human-centered approach is proactive, aiming to address the root causes of migration and the challenges faced by migrants through inclusive and protective measures. In general, countries vary in their adoption of these approaches based on their political, economic, and social contexts. For instance, the European Union’s migration policies often exhibit a blend of both approaches, emphasizing border control and security while also committing to upholding the rights and dignity of migrants (European Commission 2020).

The European Commission’s New Pact on Migration and Asylum (2020) presents a comprehensive strategy that blends security priorities with a commitment to human rights and integration. The Pact emphasizes that “Migration is a complex issue, with many facets that need to be weighed up. People need to be treated with dignity. Borders need to be managed with respect for human rights. Solidarity and responsibility must go hand in hand” (European Commission 2020, p. 1). In the context of Albania, this dual approach resonates strongly with the country’s efforts to align with EU standards. The National Strategy on Migration explicitly integrates principles of human security while also reinforcing border management and control mechanisms. Albania’s policy adaptations reflect the broader EU orientation of balancing migration control with safeguarding migrant rights, a balance at the heart of the New Pact’s vision.

In Albania, the evolution from a state-centered to a human-centered approach reflects broader regional and global trends in migration governance. This transition is significantly influenced by the country’s EU integration trajectory, where the alignment with the EU acquis plays a central role. Additionally, Albania’s adoption of international standards, facilitated by cooperation with global organizations, such as IOM and UNHCR, further embeds human rights and dignity into its policy frameworks. However, as reflected in the findings, while formal alignment with EU requirements and international standards is evident, practical implementation often lags behind due to institutional and resource constraints. This dual influence of EU conditionality and global normative frameworks demonstrates how external pressures shape domestic migration policies.

The ongoing challenge for Albania lies in balancing these approaches, managing its borders effectively, and ensuring that migration policies are humane and supportive of migrant rights. As Albania continues to align its policies with European standards, its experience can offer valuable insights into the complex interplay between state security and human rights in migration management.

5.2. Implications

For Albania, the gradual adoption of EU directives and standards into its national legislation is a critical step toward its aspiration for EU integration. This alignment not only assists in proper migration management but also enhances Albania’s credibility and reliability as a potential EU member state. However, the challenge remains in adapting these EU norms to the local context effectively. While Albania has formally aligned its legal framework with EU standards, practical implementation is hindered by institutional capacity limitations and coordination challenges. As evidenced by the findings, this gap is manifested in weak enforcement of asylum and return procedures, limited access to integration services for migrants, and fragmented inter-agency cooperation, which collectively undermine policy effectiveness.

For the European Union, Albania’s progress and challenges in adopting EU migration standards provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of its migration policy framework, especially in regions with distinct socio-economic conditions. The EU could consider these insights when designing policies that require adaptation by candidate countries, ensuring that the policies are both robust and adaptable enough to address diverse conditions across Europe. Additionally, the EU could enhance support mechanisms, such as funding and technical assistance, to help candidate countries like Albania overcome specific challenges related to migration management. As Castles (2003) highlights, the effectiveness of migration policies is often contingent on their adaptability and responsiveness to local conditions. Specifically, he emphasizes that migration policies must be sensitive to local social, economic, and political contexts to be effective and sustainable (Castles 2003, pp. 25–26). This perspective reinforces the need for Albania to tailor its migration governance not just to meet EU standards but also to align with its unique domestic and regional realities. (For instance, a critical aspect of these regional pressures stems from Turkey’s evolving role since the 2016 EU–Turkey Statement, which formalized Ankara’s function as both a host country and gatekeeper of Europe’s external border.) Thus, Albania’s migration governance cannot be analyzed in isolation from the broader geopolitical context shaped by Turkey’s migration diplomacy and fluctuating cooperation with EU institutions.

Balancing migration management and human rights is also a very important implication. Both Albania and the EU face the ongoing challenge of harmonizing effective migration management with the protection of human rights. This tension is particularly evident in Albania’s approach, where policies such as the Italy–Albania Protocol exemplify a prioritization of state security and border control, while formal commitments to human rights and safeguards for vulnerable migrants remain in place yet inconsistently applied. The findings illustrate this duality, highlighting the persistent struggle to balance securitization strategies with genuine human security advancements.

The shift toward a human-centered approach in Albania, characterized by enhanced rights and services for migrants, mirrors a broader European trend of placing human dignity at the core of migration policies. Such an approach not only aligns with international human rights standards but also promotes social cohesion and long-term security by fostering migrant integration. The EU could leverage Albania’s experiences to refine its strategies for handling migration in ways that balance state security concerns with human rights obligations. Bhabha (2009) discusses the intersection of migration, human rights, and state responsibilities, particularly in the context of vulnerable populations such as children—emphasizing that a rights-based approach to migration governance not only protects the immediate well-being of migrants but also contributes to shaping broader policy frameworks capable of harmonizing security imperatives with human rights commitments (p. 1868). This perspective is particularly relevant for the EU as it navigates its external migration partnerships and seeks to uphold its normative.

5.3. Albania—And Its Weak Links

Based on the findings, we come across problems such as misalignment with the local context (as Albania is ready to draft and approve many EU laws that may not match the Albanian reality); difficulties in meeting European standards (as Albania is not ready to measure up to European standards in this field); resource constraints (as Albania often lacks the financial resources, trained personnel, and infrastructure necessary to implement the complex frameworks it adopts); institutional weaknesses (as the country’s public administration often lacks the organizational ability and expertise to coordinate complex migration policies across multiple sectors); inferiority complex (when it comes to accepting recommendations from international bodies, leading sometimes to formal compliance without substantive engagement); and image over substance (the tendency of Albania to appear as a “beacon of light” for such reforms only to be ranked high in international relations—just for short-term benefits). These challenges are further compounded by persistent coordination gaps between relevant agencies and a broader divergence between policy commitments and actual practice, which collectively undermine Albania’s ability to fully realize its migration governance objectives.

While Albania demonstrates readiness to draft and approve numerous EU laws, there is a persistent challenge in ensuring that these laws are tailored to the Albanian reality. The adoption of EU standards without sufficient adaptation to local conditions can result in policies that are impractical or ineffective when implemented within Albania’s unique socio-economic landscape.

Albania faces considerable hurdles in aligning with European standards in migration management. Despite efforts to adopt EU directives, there is often a gap in the resources, expertise, and administrative capacities needed to fully meet these high standards, which can hamper effective implementation. (Such challenges are all outlined in the latest EU progress reports on Albania. While aligning with EU standards, the respective reports emphasize the ongoing need for enhancements in administrative capacities to meet these high standards effectively.)

Resource constraints remain a significant barrier to Albania’s effective migration governance. Despite formal alignment with EU standards, the country often lacks the necessary financial resources, trained personnel, and infrastructural capacity to operationalize complex policy frameworks. This limitation is particularly evident in the underfunding of asylum services, insufficient training for border and migration officials, and inadequate facilities for migrant reception and integration.

Institutional weaknesses present a critical challenge for Albania. The country’s public administration frequently lacks the know-how required to coordinate and implement complex migration policies across multiple sectors. This fragmentation leads to inefficiencies in policy execution, particularly in areas requiring inter-agency collaboration.

Albania’s approach to international recommendations is sometimes characterized by an inferiority complex (Zeqo 2018), leading to the acceptance of policies and directives without fully considering the local capacity for implementation. This can result in the formal adoption of standards without actual practical application, reflecting a disconnection between policy endorsement and on-the-ground execution.

In Albania, reform efforts are often driven more by the desire to enhance the country’s international image than by a commitment to meaningful implementation. This focus on appearances can lead to prioritizing the formal adoption of reforms over their actual enforcement. Consequently, there is a noticeable gap between the country’s reported adherence to international standards and the practical effects of these policies.

So, Albania’s migration policies suffer from acute capacity and resource shortfalls. As the EU’s recent report emphasizes, Albania’s laws need to be implemented effectively and require additional investment in administrative capacity (European Western Balkans 2024). In practice, key agencies like the Border and Migration Police and the Asylum Directorate remain under-equipped—officials need more technical capacity to identify vulnerable migrants and process asylum cases. As Lipsky (1980) notes, without adequate frontline resources, even well-intentioned policies risk stagnating at the implementation stage. Similarly, Börzel and Risse (2010) emphasize that institutional weaknesses, common in transitional states, impede the fulfillment of complex policy commitments. The European Commission (2023b) explicitly urges Albania to strengthen the administrative capacity of its institutions. Without targeted reforms—bolstering budgets, personnel, and inter-agency coordination—these weaknesses will persist, undermining Albania’s compliance with EU migration standards and delaying its broader EU integration prospects.

Beyond its practical policy insights, this study also enriches theoretical debates in migration governance. The following subsection details the academic contributions of this research, positioning Albania’s experience within broader scholarly frameworks.

5.4. Contribution

The adoption of EU laws and standards in Albania often does not fully consider local conditions. Such a situation shows how external pressures can drive policy changes in countries trying to join larger political and economic unions. This phenomenon supports the punctuated equilibrium theory in policy studies, a theory that suggests that significant policy changes can happen quickly after stable periods if there are strong external pressures (Baumgartner and Jones 1993). Albania’s efforts to modify its migration policies in response to EU integration goals illustrate how external aspirations can lead to substantial shifts in national policy landscapes.

This study’s findings also contribute to the understanding of how international pressures shape policy outcomes, particularly in small countries. The case of Albania shows that international pressures help enhance democratic standards, but, at the same time, can lead to the adoption of policies that may not be fully suited to the local context, reflecting theories of normative coercion in international relations. According to these theories, states adopt international norms due to perceived pressures rather than proper alignment with those norms. Finnemore and Sikkink (1998) describe the concept of “norm cascade phase” as follows: “During the norm cascade, norm leaders attempt to socialize other states to become norm followers. Peer pressure, desire for international legitimation, and the esteem of the international community are key motivators for states in this phase” (p. 902).

Considering migration studies, the shift from a state-centered approach to a more human-centered approach in Albania contributes to the discourse on how migration policies are evolving at the regional and global levels. This transition supports the theoretical framework proposed by scholars like Castles and Miller (2009), who argue that the global migration regime is increasingly considering human rights alongside traditional state security concerns (pp. 285–87). Albania’s policy evolution from strict border controls to enhancing the rights and integration of migrants illustrates this shift and provides a practical example of how migration theories apply in different geopolitical contexts.

Finally, this study offers insights into the effectiveness of global policy frameworks in influencing national migration policies. The inconsistencies and challenges in the implementation of these policies in Albania underline the need for more adaptable approaches in international policy frameworks. This contributes to theories in international policy studies that advocate for more flexible policymaking processes, which are crucial for the effective implementation of international standards (Barnett and Finnemore 2004).

6. Conclusions

This study shows that Albania’s migration governance reflects the broader conceptual shift from state-centered security frameworks toward a human security paradigm. As Krasteva (2013) observes, in the post-Communist Balkans, “migration stepped down to the individual level” and “entered the realm of human security” (p. 337). This normative reframing is evident in Albania’s new Migration Strategy 2024–2030, which explicitly aligns with the EU’s Action Plan on the Western Balkans (European Commission 2024). While this alignment signals progress in adopting EU-driven principles that prioritize human rights and migrant protection, practical implementation remains inconsistent. The European Western Balkans (2024) highlights that Albanian institutions dealing with migration still face challenges in this aspect. This tension between formal policy convergence and practical capacity underscores the complexities of norm diffusion within the EU enlargement framework. Ultimately, Albania’s case illustrates how aspirational policy shifts toward human security can coexist with implementation deficits, emphasizing the need for capacity building and governance reforms. By doing so, policy rhetoric can translate into tangible outcomes.

Albania’s migration policy has undergone a pronounced normative shift in recent years, gradually reorienting from a traditional state-centric security paradigm toward a human security framework. This evolution can be understood through the lens of norm diffusion: under the influence of European integration and global migration governance norms, Albanian authorities have aligned their legal framework and policy rhetoric with international standards on migrant protection. Through reforms and regional cooperation, Albania has formally embraced a more rights-based orientation, reflecting a cautious departure from a purely securitized policy stance. Such developments illustrate the country’s progress in recalibrating its migration governance toward the welfare of migrants, even as formal adoption still outpaces on-the-ground transformation.

Despite these advances, the transition has been uneven. The persistence of securitized practices underscores the enduring influence of the previous state-centered paradigm. Breaches in implementation indicate that new norms have not yet been fully internalized. This gap between formal commitments and practical execution highlights the conditional nature of norm diffusion: without sufficient institutional capacity and political will, the promise of a human security agenda can remain partially unrealized. In this sense, Albania’s trajectory exemplifies how external normative pressures can drive policy change while also revealing the obstacles in fully embracing a human security approach to migration.

In broader theoretical terms, Albania’s experience illustrates the interplay between external normative pressures and domestic policy evolution. By gradually adopting human security principles, Albania participates in a wider trend, whereby EU accession incentives and international humanitarian norms reshape national migration frameworks. This realignment carries implications beyond the national level: it not only advances the protection of migrants’ rights but also reinforces the legitimacy of Albania’s integration process. Ultimately, Albania’s evolving approach to migration governance demonstrates how normative diffusion can drive more inclusive and human-centered policies while also highlighting the importance of sustained commitment to ensure their lasting impact.