This thesis examines the extent to which Italy can instrumentalize international law to eschew protection responsibilities for migrants in distress at sea. In doing so, this study delimits itself by focusing on three legal cases: Aquarius, Hirsi Jamaa, and GLAN. These cases are analyzed against relevant international legal doctrine by means of Martti Koskenniemi’s deconstructive method, in order to explicate the political maneuvering embedded in the international legal framework. By adopting B.S. Chimni’s theory on the non-entrée regime, this thesis finds that Italy exploits the legal ambiguity in international law, in order to distance themselves from rescue and protection obligations. Conclusively, instead of creating a legal framework that is responsive to the protection needs of boat migrants, international law simultaneously enables Italy to barter off responsibility for refugees in distress at sea. Thus, this thesis contributes with a critical perspective to international law related to migrants in distress at sea.