From law to practice: a comparative analysis of access to education for unaccompanied minors in Italy and Australia

This thesis examines the extent to which legislation concerning unaccompanied minors (UMs) in Italy and Australia translates into effective access to education, and what this reveals about the structural balance between child protection and migration control. While both countries are signatories to the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child and the 1951 Refugee Convention, they embody markedly different migration governance models: Italy operates within a protection-oriented, multi-level framework embedded in European Union law, whereas Australia adopts a status-based and deterrence-oriented regime in which rights are closely mediated by migration status. Adopting a comparative socio-legal approach, the research combines doctrinal analysis with qualitative and descriptive empirical data collected through questionnaires and expert interviews. It investigates how formal entitlements are implemented in practice, focusing on compulsory and post-compulsory schooling. Drawing on theories of migration governance, securitisation, street-level bureaucracy, and structural vulnerability, the study conceptualises education as a key site where the tension between child protection and migration control becomes visible. The findings show that in Italy, a broad and protection-centred legal framework coexists with significant implementation gaps, that hinder timely enrolment and educational continuity. In Australia, by contrast, access to education is structurally shaped by visa status and migration control settings, generating legal uncertainty and fragmented support pathways. The thesis identifies two distinct models of rights dilution: implementation-driven dilution in Italy and structurally embedded dilution in Australia. By foregrounding education as a lens of analysis, the study contributes to scholarly debates on child rights and migration governance, demonstrating how international commitments may be formally upheld yet substantively constrained in practice.