Malta, as a small island nation in the Mediterranean, is facing a considerable “migration burden” as a transit point for migrants and asylum seekers arriving from Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Malta currently hosts over 11,000 refugees and around 2,000 asylum seekers, primarily originating from Bangladesh, Libya, Syria, Sudan, and Ukraine. On the one hand, Malta, with a small population and limited geographical space, struggles to handle a large influx of migrants and asylum seekers compared to larger European nations. Not rarely, concerns are raised about a “migration crisis” and the country’s capacity to handle the influx. On the other hand, however, Malta has created legal pathways for foreign workers as the island is dependent on labour migration for its economy, especially to fill vacancies in the service industry and in the crucial social sectors such as healthcare. A trend can be seen in Malta and other EU countries like Hungary and Italy to welcome foreign workers to fill labour shortages via a legal migration pathway, while paradoxically repelling refugees and adopting more hostile policies for irregular migration, which is more often than not used for political gain.
In that context, Malta faces criticism for its treatment of migrants arriving by sea, who are often perceived as “illegal” compared to contracted migrants. Generally, concerns have been raised about Malta’s rescue policies, and potential “illegal tactics” to turn refugees away, including pushbacks at sea, as well as about detention policies, including the detention of asylum seekers and migrant workers. Malta’s handling of migration has strained its relations with the EU, with concerns raised about its adherence to EU regulations and its burden-sharing responsibilities.
Recently, remarks made by senior national leadership have reignited debate about the adequacy of long-standing human rights instruments in today’s migration landscape. Specifically, suggestions were made that conventions like the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), developed decades ago, may no longer effectively address contemporary migration challenges. These statements drew attention to issues such as the difficulties of returning migrants who do not qualify for asylum and legal barriers preventing their repatriation. At the same time, there was an implication that rights protections should be “merited” rather than automatic, which is an idea that strikes at the core of international human rights law.
Proposals to reform the ECHR with a focus on migration issues raise critical questions about the balance between national policies and international human rights obligations. It raises crucial questions about the resilience of human rights instruments like the ECHR in increasingly populist contexts and the use of sovereignty language to sidestep international obligations. The underlying issue up for debate is whether reforming human rights frameworks is a genuine need or a political manoeuvre to enable harsher migration controls.
Suggesting that ECHR may need reform due to its perceived inadequacy in addressing contemporary migration challenges raises serious concerns when viewed through the lens of international law and fundamental human rights protection. While states are entitled to engage in critical debate about the operation of international treaties, such discourse must be grounded in legal frameworks and principles, not political expediency. Further, suggesting that the ECHR requires updates to address modern challenges is misleading in the sense that the ECHR is inherently designed to be a “living instrument” as opposed to a static text, capable of evolving alongside societal developments through judicial interpretation without necessitating formal amendments. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has consistently applied this approach and developed its “living instrument doctrine”, allowing the Court to adapt the Convention to contemporary challenges, including those related to migration.
Reopening the convention for reform raises serious concerns of a dilution of fundamental human rights protections. Such moves come at a time when other European countries are actively seeking to weaken human rights standards, potentially undermining democratic values. Moreover, such a position can be seen as part of this pan-European political moment where leaders are calling for stricter migration controls, facing electoral pressure and migration fatigue, often invoking concerns about national sovereignty, public safety, and the limits of existing human rights frameworks, either explicitly as in Hungary or implicitly as in Italy, Austria, and in this case also in Malta.
While migration governance does present real challenges, especially for frontline states like Malta, international law provides mechanisms to balance state sovereignty with human rights obligations. Claiming that human rights should be “merited” contradicts the fundamental principle that human rights are universal, inalienable, and not subject to qualification based on status or merit.
This context reveals that such suggestions, if pursued as policy, could place Malta closer to illiberal trends in Europe rather than aligning with the EU’s foundational values of human rights and the rule of law. Instead of advocating for reforms of the ECHR, which may dilute the very protections it was designed to uphold, states should engage with the interpretive tools already embedded within international law that allow for the evolution of rights without their erosion.
Dr Lina Klesper is International Legal Assistant at PKF Malta
