Global crimes 7

Global Crimes (Border Criminology)

• This presentation covers the topic of global crimes, specifically focusing on border criminology.
• The presentation was given by Valeria Ferraris on Thursday and Friday, between 2 and 4 PM.

Externalization

• This is a practice where countries shift border control responsibilities beyond their own territory to manage migration.
• It avoids direct involvement in humanitarian crises at their borders.
• Problems associated with migration are shifted to other countries, creating new challenges for them.

Types of Externalization

• Interception and Return: Countries establish agreements to intercept and return migrants before they reach their national borders. Examples include Italy and Libya.
• Offshore Processing Centers: Centers are located in foreign countries where migrants are screened prior to reaching the main destination country.
• Containment Zones: Establishing partnerships with other countries to prevent migrants from moving further.

Effects of Externalization

• Effect on Accountability and Public Perception: Externalization policies shift the focus away from public view and national accountability.
• Reduced Visibility of Human Impact: Migration management becomes a logistical task, rather than a humanitarian issue. The public and institutions in receiving countries might be less aware of the human impact on migrants.

Core Concept: "Safe" Third Countries & Safe Countries of Origin

• "Safe" Third Countries: Countries considered capable of providing adequate protection and security to asylum seekers. Other countries can transfer migrants there for processing or resettlement.
• Safe Countries of Origin: Nations considered as countries where individuals are not at risk of persecution. Asylum claims from these countries might be fast-tracked or rejected.

Problems with "Safe" Classifications

• Safety is not universal and varies based on individual factors like background, social status, and vulnerabilities.
• This approach (simplified classification) prioritizes bureaucratic efficiency over safety and genuine individual needs.
• It fails to recognize systemic discrimination that groups (e.g., LGBTQ+ asylum seekers) might face in countries classified as "safe."

The Non-Refoulement Principle

• The foundation of international refugee law originates from the 1951 Refugee Convention.
• Prohibits states from returning individuals to countries where they face persecution, torture, or severe harm.
• Externalization policies are undermining this principle by moving migration management to third countries instead of handling it at the borders.

Tension Between Non-Refoulement and Externalization Policies

• Outsourcing asylum processing to third countries may expose migrants to less secure environments while destination states claim compliance with the non-refoulement principle.
• A conflict is created between state sovereignty and humanitarian obligations, with the state emphasizing border security over humanitarian commitments to those fleeing persecution.
• The framing of migration as a security issue (rise of securitization) often tips the balance in favor of state control over humanitarian considerations.

Legal Basis for Externalization

• The legal basis is complex and lacks a unified framework; seen as a patchwork of precedents, agreements, and selective interpretations of international law.
• It emerged from European states' desire to manage increasing migration flows in the early 2000s.
• Initially, migration control was an internal matter (ex: Dublin Regulation), but as challenges grew, countries outsourced control to third nations.

Legal Ambiguities

• European states use selective interpretations of non-refoulement and safe third-country principles.
• They avoid direct violations of international law by transferring asylum seekers to third countries (ex: Libya, Turkey).
• Creating a grey area where states technically operate within the law while sidestepping their humanitarian responsibilities.

Role of International Organizations in Externalization

• International bodies (UNHCR and IOM) often collaborate on externalization policies, aiming to uphold human rights standards.
• These efforts do not eliminate legal ambiguities around externalization or absolve states from ethical concerns about outsourcing migration control.

Justifications for Externalization

• National Sovereignty: Countries have the right to control their borders. (e.g., Italy-Albania, UK-Rwanda agreements) But these rely on loopholes rather than robust legal principles. Selective interpretation can weaken global protection.
• Safe Country: Countries deemed safe enough for resettlement or processing. Allows destination countries to transfer asylum seekers while claiming compliance with non-refoulement. (Criticism: relative safety, risk of indirect refoulement)

Financial Incentives and Ethical Concerns

• Financial incentives and policy encourage third countries to act as migration gatekeepers (e.g., Italy's cooperation with Libya using EU funds for pull-back strategies).
• Bypasses direct responsibility, creates legal loopholes.
• Migrant abuses and ethical concerns arise in transit countries.

Prioritizing "Border Rights" over Human Rights

• Prioritizing securitization and political convenience weakens human rights standards by putting control over compassion.
• Asylum changes from a right to a privilege contingent on geographic factors.

Test your knowledge on the concepts and policies surrounding externalization in migration management. This quiz covers key definitions, implications, and the role of various international organizations in relation to safe countries and non-refoulement principles.