The European Union's planned action against human traffickers in Libya presents nothing short of a constitutional conundrum for Malta and its constitutionally-enshrined neutrality.

The EU's upcoming crackdown on human traffickers and their assets in Libya is not necessarily a military mission, but the terms agreed upon by EU governments leave the door wide open for military action in Libya.

Without entering into the somewhat dubious merits of the EU's plans to stem the Mediterranean migration crisis by destroying human traffickers' assets in Libya, the mission that Malta has signed on to is questionable from a constitutional perspective.

EU internal policy documents on the mission that have been approved by all 28 member states, Malta included, in fact, specifically state that military intervention on the ground in Libya will in all probability be required.

But if push were to come to shove and direct military action is taken in Libyan waters or on Libyan soil, as envisaged by the operation's rules of engagement, what will Malta's position on its long-held constitutional neutrality be?

Given the rather unclear situation, it would be opportune for the government to come forward with an explanation on the mission, on whether it considers it to be humanitarian in nature or an issue of national security and, if so, how it reconciles the terms of engagement allowing for military action with what is stipulated in Malta's Constitution.

Malta's constitutional neutrality is, after all, one of the country's most cherished tenets of its statehood. But the government is treading a slippery slope by signing on to what can clearly be deemed a military action, not only by its nature but because of the fact that neither the Tobruk nor the Tripoli governments have endorsed any such action. As such, would boots on the ground by EU forces constitute an invasion of a sovereign state?

In fact, the reaction from Tobruk and Tripoli has been one of outrage. They have both said they were never consulted by the EU over any such mission and both rival governments, in fact, have rejected such military action on their territory and have stated that they would fight against any 'boots on the ground'.

But despite that, the EU is clearly planning for the possibility of placing European boots on the ground, and that would entail Maltese boots too, lest Malta were to back out of the mission if it comes down to that.

Two weeks ago, this newsroom had reported the content of leaked EU internal documents outlining what the mission holds in store.

While the EU is focusing on an air and naval campaign, it also believes a "presence ashore" might be needed to destroy smugglers' assets. According to an EU strategy paper agreed upon by EU governments, "A presence ashore [in Libya] might be envisaged if agreement was reached with relevant authorities," the paper, seen by this newspaper, reads. "The operation would require a broad range of air, maritime and land capabilities. These could include: intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; boarding teams; patrol units (air and maritime); amphibious assets; destruction air, land and sea, including special forces units."

It adds that "land operations in Libya might be needed and are not ruled out" on account of "militia and terrorist threats to the EU forces" in Libya and that "the existence of heavy military armaments (including coastal artillery batteries) and military-capable militias present a robust threat to EU ships and aircraft operating in the vicinity. The terrorist presence in the region also constitutes a security threat. Action taken ashore could be undertaken in a hostile environment".

An EU military planning document reiterates that the EU's anti-smuggling operation could result in a ground conflict in Libya that leads to the loss of life of soldiers, refugees and smugglers, and destabilise Libya in the process.

The risks of the operation are clearly spelt out in the document, particularly where it states: "Force Protection is paramount in all phases, but will have particular significance when confronted by hostile smugglers and for any engagement within the Libyan sovereign area... the threat to the force should be acknowledged, especially during activities such as boarding and when operating on land or in proximity to an unsecured coastline, or during interaction with non-seaworthy vessels. The potential presence of hostile forces, extremists or terrorists such as Da'esh should also be taken into consideration. The threat emanating from the mere handling of large volumes of mixed migrants flow need also to be considered."

But despite this hawkish context and the concerns over Malta's constitutional neutrality that it raises, the government has, so far, not clarified what the mission and Malta's involvement in it will be all about, and whether it has drawn any red lines in terms of operations in which it will or will not engage inside Libya.

The government's silence on such an issue that affects the country's very notion of statehood is, in actual fact, deafening.