Intervention: Rethinking Externalisation in Migration and Border Studies PDF

Political Geography 105 (2023) 102911 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Political Geography...

Political Geography 105 (2023) 102911 Intervention Interventions on the concept of externalisation in migration and border studies☆ Sebastian Cobarrubias a, Paolo Cuttitta b, *, Maribel Casas-Cortés Nora El Qadim e, Beste İşleyen f, Shoshana Fine g, Caterina a Fundación Agencia Aragonesa para la Investigación y el Desarrollo b Institut de Droit Public, Sciences Politiques et Sociales, Université c Departamento de Psicología y Sociología, Facultad de Economía d Department of Politics and International Studies, University e Paris 8 University - CRESPPA-Labtop / Institut Convergences f Political Science, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands g European School of Social and Political Science, Lille Catholic h Laboratoire d’études et de recherche en sociologie, Université i Graduate Institute, Geneva, Switzerland 1. Rethinking externalisation in migration and border studies 1.1. Sebastian Cobarrubias and Paolo Cuttitta About twenty years have passed since initial research on migration- related border externalisation began to be published (Andreas, 2003; Lahav & Guiraudon, 2000; Zolberg, 2003). Externalisation is the process through which states directly or indirectly operate activities related to border control outside their sovereign territories, namely in other countries or on the high seas. Practices of externalisation illustrate that the state itself is a dynamic and multi-scalar process “spread both inside and outside of state territory” (Moisio & Paasi, 2013: 257). Border functions are thus detached from the official demarcation lines of state boundaries (Casas-Cortés et al., 2015; Cuttitta, 2015) and extend into forms of dispersed management practices turning from fixed-continuous lines to mobile and intermittent points or zones. Along with the spatio-temporal reconfiguration of state borders, externalisation entails a multiplication of the actors involved in border management, including non-state ones. Thus, sovereignty is extended and reworked in important ways (Jones et al., 2017; Mountz, 2013; Paasi et al., 2022), inevitably transforming externalisation in the process (Marino et al., 2022). Two decades ago, the European Union (EU)’s policy of expanding migration management through “partnership with third countries” ☆ All authors have contributed equally to each intervention. reflects alphabetical order in order of appearance in the interventions * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: (S. Cobarrubias), [email protected] (P. Cuttitta), [email protected] (M. Casas-Cortés), martinlembergpedersen@ class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="90feffe2f1bef5fcbde1f1f4f9fdd0e5fef9e6bde0f1e2f9e3a8bef6e2">[email protected] (N. El Qadim), [email protected] (B. İşleyen), [email protected] (S. Fine), caterinagiusa@ class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="30535851425c55431e58555c5c5542705742515445514455595e434459444544551e5358">[email protected] (C. Heller). Political Geography 105 (2023) 102911 ways, supporting, influencing, or resisting it. Secondly, the authors argue that the autonomy of non-state actors puts the very concept of (state) externalisation into question. Indeed, insofar as non-state actors act autonomously, they raise the question of where externalisation ends or begins. The authors argue for a more complex reading that embeds externalisation in the ambivalent and conflictual dynamics resulting from a networked multiplicity of actors. Cuttitta, Fine, Giusa and Heller (herein) also interrogate the relationship between externalisation and migration management and suggest that studies on externalisation could benefit from engaging with assemblage theory (Casas-Cortés & Cobar rubias, 2019). The discussion on the multiplicity of non-state actors, who do not possess territories defining an inside and outside, opens up spaces of critical reflection on a further dichotomy: that between the very cate gories of interior and exterior. In the last intervention, Cuttitta, Heller and Lemberg-Pedersen (herein) suggest embedding externalisation into the wider context of the present global order, where no clear-cut division can be drawn between the territorially based ideas of ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ on which the very concept of externalisation rests, as sover eignty is diversified in its multiple state and non-state, territorial and non-territorial manifestations. Accordingly, migration management becomes a transnational issue. This is also exemplified by the increasing importance of the management of ‘routes’ and ‘corridors’, which cut across state boundaries to create itinerant spaces and border assem blages (Cobarrubias, 2020). Moreover, Cuttitta, Heller and Lemberg-Pedersen (herein) point out the blurriness of the distinction between externalisation and its opposite - internalisation - and suggest identifying and engaging more encompassing concepts such as ‘deloc alisation’ to complement ‘externalisation’. These interventions taken individually signal innovative research lines for future work. Yet there is a further added value in thinking through these interventions in different combinations. For example, combining a non-presentist approach with an emphasis on challenging the inside/outside dichotomy can elucidate how externalisation policies today often occur in what were previously intra-imperial spaces, be tween colony and metropolis. In what ways have historical efforts at mobility control constituted the very limits of inside and outside we now seek to challenge? Approaches critical of state-centrism and Eurocen trism may also be fruitfully associated to better highlight the different degrees of agency or autonomy of the various actors involved in exter nalisation, as well as the multiple directionalities and spatialities emerging from the relevant practices, which all contradict univocal and unilinear readings. The reflexivity turn (Dahinden, 2016) within migration studies has been key to identifying methodological and epistemological issues at play in much migration-related research. These interventions signal a similar spirit of reflection about the state of border externalisation research. Of course, they cannot exhaustively identify additional facets of inquiry for externalisation research. Increased dialogue among research on other ‘classic’ externalising actors such as the US and Australia would be generative, too. Re-examining definitions of exter nalisation based on containing migration may open inquiry into the ways in which states of the Global South are also ‘externalising’ parts of their migration policy, for example through emigration and diaspora policies. The interventions herein are then one more contribution to externalisation research’s coming of age after more than two decades. 2. Pushing past postcolonial presentism in European externalisation studies – 2.1. Maribel Casas-Cortés, Sebastian Cobarrubias and Martin Lemberg- Pedersen authors add Research on cases of externalisation policies undertaken by EU member states has produced much insightful work on the distinct legal and spatial configurations of extraterritorial border management (Lahav 2 Political Geography 105 (2023) 102911 border policies. The politics around the identity of the European proj ect has partly caused the presentism of European externalisation studies. As noted by Hansen and Jonsson (2017), since early in its history, the European Economic Community (EEC) has depicted itself as built on normative foundations of decolonisation. This has led to a remarkable absence of colonial-imperial history in the Union’s self-representation even though five of the EECs founding members were fully-fledged colonial powers at the time of its establishment. Consequently, EU member states’ bilateral relations with former possessions are thor oughly embedded within postcolonial contexts. We would add that due to the transcontinental geographies of empires, the repercussions of European colonialism have near global implications to this day far beyond the immediate regional neighbourhood of the EU, which is the focus of much externalisation research. We suggest that a productive path for the postcolonial turn in externalisation studies is to use some of the latter’s important findings as points of comparison to colonial-imperial practices and politico-legal histories of mobility control contained in archives and colonial studies (see also Lemberg-Pedersen et al., 2022). Thus far, the literature on externalisation has identified a series of recurring practices such as visa policies, diplomatic fora, and naval interception, as well as detention, deportation and readmission agreements (cf. Bialasiewicz, 2012; Mor eno-Lax, 2018; Zaiotti, 2016). Scholars have argued the existence of an underlying logic of preemption premised on European states affirming ‘rights protection systems’, whilst extra-territorially barring migrants’ ability to access them (cf. Balzacq, 2009). Comparisons have also been made between European, U.S. and Australian practices (cf. Hyndman & Mountz, 2008), accompanied by arguments that these practices rest on a crisis-driven nexus of care and control, where the boundaries between humanitarian rescue and securitised intervention become blurred (cf. Walters, 2011). Thus, the Hera operations by Frontex have been analysed as in stances of extraterritorial naval controls by European states based on a logic of preemption and crisis (cf. Casas-Cortes et al., 2016). But the West African locales where these missions were launched are ripe with postcolonial significance as spaces central for the transatlantic slave trade. In the nineteenth century, this was also the space from which the British empire launched the West Africa Squadron’s naval interception missions. Started after abolition to suppress the slave trade, these mis sions contributed to achieving British naval hegemony and territorial expansion, heralding the so-called ‘Scramble for Africa’ (cf. van der Linden, 2010). The Mixed Commission Courts, where intercepted vessels were brought, freed around 80,000 recaptured slaves. These courts were negotiated between empires. This postcolonial geography foreshadows today’s legal European disputes about search and rescue, anti-trafficking, humanitarianism and sovereign responsibility. Before Frontex, and bilateral EU member state agreements, this space was already imbued with centuries of heated inter-imperial diplomatic conflicts, mutual inspiration, treaties and colonial case law on emerging notions of universal human rights. Mirroring a silence in international human rights law (Martinez, 2012: 99), this particular postcolonial ge ography has not yet been studied extensively in relation to border externalisation. During World War II, the British-dominated Middle East Relief and Refugee Administration (MERRA), predecessor of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), operated refugee re locations to colonial territories in Africa and the Middle East. Tens of thousands of European refugees were evacuated from Yugoslavia, Poland and Greece and transferred through colonial territories to refugee camps in Gaza and Egypt. One transfer between 1942 and 1945 moved 2700 Greek refugees from the Aegean Islands to the Belgian Congo and Rwanda (Lingelbach, 2022). In general, the MERRA policies illustrate how the late-colonial era contained multiple cases which bear striking similarity to current-day externalisation practices. They also illustrate a crucial difference, namely that these forced relocations were enacted within imperial spaces. By contrast, the externalisation policies 3 Political Geography 105 (2023) 102911 emerged in Europe from the 19th century onwards (…) above other modes of knowing” (Sabaratnam, 2013: 262). Eurocentrism in debates on agency and externalisation is rooted in ethnocentrism, which defines much IR theorising of agency and international security. As Bilgin (2016: 17) puts it, “Ethnocentrism occurs when scholars seek to make sense of other groups and societies through their own concepts and categories,” with the conviction “that ‘we already understand’ ‘their’ behaviour” (2016: 19). This in turn constitutes the epistemic (concep tual and methodological) boundary of analysis and judgement as regards the motivations, belief systems and behaviour of others. Two lines of critique in postcolonial IR are relevant for our discussion on the ethnocentric limits of the concept of agency in externalisation research. First, there is a tendency to relegate the countries of the ‘non- West’ to the role of ‘trouble-makers’ if they do not fit into the role available to them as ‘junior-partners’ of core states (Korany, 1986). Academic debates on Turkey-EU migration and border cooperation are an example of this. Besides a few studies inquiring into discourses, policymaking and everyday practices of border security and migration in Turkey (e.g. İşleyen, 2018), most scholars analyse the Turkish posi tion and behaviour as either a partner in the periphery fulfilling the role of Europe’s ‘gatekeeper’, or as a troublemaker engaged in ‘rent-seeking’ and even ‘black-mailing’ the EU (Tsourapas, 2019). Second, ethnocentrism entails a bias towards rationalist explanations to understand others’ foreign policy behaviour (Bilgin, 2016) with limited attention paid to alternative explanations, such as affective politics underpinning how the world outside Europe identifies itself and its relations with Europe (Sabaratnam, 2013). To continue with the example of Turkey, intentions and motivations are attributed to an anthropomorphised country and presumed to rest purely on ration alist/materialist considerations, such as increased EU funds for refugee and border governance. Similarly, analyses of Morocco’s positions in negotiations with European countries on migration often focus on direct ‘financial incentives’, although Moroccan officials highlight other ob jectives than funding (El Qadim, 2018). Little effort is made in “taking seriously questions of subjects’ presence, positionality and the materi ality of experience” (Sabaratnam, 2013: 274) within the broader context of global mobility and the EU’s border regime. As a result, Europe is depicted as the only factor or concern for third countries’ security imaginations and political considerations, regardless of whether they are collaborating with or troubling EU policy. How can we overcome the rationalist/materialist bias which informs dominant theorisation of non-European subjects in externalisation? When it comes to migration policy, how can we conceptualise non-EU actors in ways other than their conventionally assigned roles (junior- partner or troublemaker) and with explanations beyond the rationalist/ materialist framework? In this short contribution, we put forward two strategies drawing upon postcolonial insights. Our first invitation is to reconsider state autonomy within IR. Arlene Tickner observes that autonomy differs from the Westphalian idea of sovereignty and is better suited to inquire into ‘non-Western’ perceptions of the international. For Tickner (2003: 319), autonomy in the ‘non-West’ “constitutes a basic symbol of state hood, and is viewed as the primary means of securing distinct forms of non-dependent or autochthonous development”. Thus, autonomy is essentially a political concept and involves a form of resistance to outside intervention by emphasising local capacities to address domestic conditions and needs. Tickner notes that autonomy differs from power politics as traditionally theorised in the field of IR. Power is about the capacity to make others do what they are otherwise not willing to do; it is about enforcing one’s will over others, making a difference in some one else’s actions. Autonomy, in contrast, is a matter of safeguarding national sovereignty through the acquisition and development of local capacities, the establishment of alliances to prevent outside interference and the management of transnational practices and processes in and outside state boundaries. What new insights can be gained from the idea of state autonomy, 4 Political Geography 105 (2023) 102911 (Fiddian-Qasmieh, 2020). Here we propose two additional, practical strategies to address the Eurocentrism of the field: reconsidering state autonomy from how it is currently theorised in postcolonial IR and taking symbolic politics into account. 4. Externalisation, state-centrism and non-state actors 4.1. Paolo Cuttitta, Shoshana Fine, Caterina Giusa and Charles Heller among other Externalisation is an intrinsically state-centric concept insofar as it is based on the idea of state territoriality, postulating neatly bounded spaces of exclusive sovereignty within fixed border lines. With exter nalisation, states expand their migration and border control activities beyond their territorial boundaries, so that such activities can be carried out within other countries’ sovereign territory. Yet, since “borderwork is no longer the exclusive preserve of the nation-state” (Rumford, 2006: 164), externalisation is not just a relationship between ‘externalising’ states, designing externalisation policies to protect their own borders, and ‘externalised’ states in whose territories those policies are imple mented as a result of cooperation agreements. Instead, a range of non-state actors have long been essential to the implementation of externalisation policies: international organisations (IOs), non-governmental and civil society organisations (NGOs/CSOs), trans port companies, security professionals, and combatants (e.g. Libyan militias), to name just a few examples. These actors play a crucial role in enabling the (in)direct operation of states beyond their borders, where direct intervention of the externalising states’ authorities would not be possible, as it would represent an unacceptable limitation of the host countries’ sovereignty. The mediation of non-state actors also allows states to avoid legal and political accountability. However, such medi ation may also lead to friction and ambivalence as non-state actors mobilise their agency and follow their own rationales, which may differ from those of states. Thus, it is crucial to analyse how states continue recruiting growing numbers of (new) actors to implement their externalisation strategies. At the same time, however, it is essential not to fall into state-centric traps and keep in mind that non-state actors enlisted by states may, in turn, transform state-driven externalisation processes. Moreover, other non- state actors may intervene without being recruited by states to engage externalisation – and, more broadly, migration-related activities – ac cording to their own missions and convictions. This is exemplified by the Central Mediterranean, where several SAR (search and rescue) NGOs have long been acting against externalisation (Cuttitta, 2022) while a right-wing CSO once deployed its own ship to impede them (Cusumano, 2021) and facilitate forced returns to Libya. Externalisation, then, ap pears not only as a tool that states can use to expand the reach of their migration containment policies, but also as a catalyst triggering re actions and dynamics that do not necessarily support containment logics. From this point of departure, we caution against state-centric biases when examining the migration-related activities of non-state actors in so-called countries of origin and transit. As a corrective, we encourage adopting perspectives such as assemblage theory and critical engage ment with categories such as migration management. Hereafter, we first introduce the multiplicity of non-state actors involved in externalisa tion. Then we suggest that engaging assemblage theory and investi gating the ambiguous relationship between externalisation and migration management may help better grasp the complex dynamics resulting from such networked multiplicity. Such engagement may also help problematise the state-centricity of the externalisation perspective. The literature has long paid attention to the role that international organisations (IOs) play in externalisation. In the early 2000s, IOM (International Organization for Migration) and UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) were denounced (Düvell, 2002; Migreurop, 2003) for supporting the globalisation of migration control and the externalisation of asylum in the interest of their main donor 5 Political Geography 105 (2023) 102911 Research on externalisation could therefore benefit from an engagement with assemblage theory. The concept of assemblage has been originally used by Deleuze and Guattari (1987) to indicate any combination of actors and factors entering into a relationship with one another without a coherent organising logic while still contributing to creating, shaping and transforming objects, ideas and practices. In migration and border studies it has been consequently used to address “the multi-layer coalescence of a series of actors, territories and devices” (Casas-Cortés & Cobarrubias, 2019: 202). While the concept is often used to refer primarily to the dimension of control (Allen & Vollmer, 2018), we see assemblage as “a process of ‘co-functioning’ whereby heterogeneous elements come together in a non-homogeneous group” (Anderson & McFarlane, 2011: 125) without necessarily sharing a common goal or interest. Thus, state-led externalisation can be rela tivised as one among several drivers giving rise to hybrid entanglements of actors and spatialities. This reduces the state-centrist bias that is inherent to the study of externalisation, as well as to migration and border studies in general. It unveils the productive effects of external isation policies and opens up new spaces of intervention for new actors that may go beyond (or against) externalisation. Indeed, non-state actors are also key players in a shift from state-led migration control to (global) migration management (Geiger & Pécoud, 2010). Migration management is an ideology which espouses trans national modes of governance of human mobility and which is associ ated with a depoliticised posture and trans-border, hybrid spatialities. It includes international and non-governmental organisations as well as experts and market forces, more so than exclusively nation-states. The de-politicised (Pécoud, 2015) aura surrounding the migration manage ment approach helps non-state actors persuade countries of origin and transit to adopt supposedly universal standards in order to align with the externalisation policies often promoted by states of the Global North (Stock et al., 2019). However, non-state actors can be more than just subcontractors or opponents of states in externalisation. Even when they are enlisted by states for externalisation purposes, they can also become more or less autonomous actors. It may then become difficult to separate state-led externalisation and more diffuse practices of migration management. Thus, autonomous and agentic non-state actors including interna tional NGOs, intergovernmental organisations and multinational cor porations challenge the territoriality upon which the concept of externalisation is founded: the closed territoriality of nation-states. Non- state actors – while some may be registered in a country and have a particular relationship with that country – do not represent territorial units. Therefore, their action, insofar as it is autonomous, cannot be seen as being externalised. The entanglement between state and non-state action makes it increasingly difficult to identify policies that are purely governmental, and which can thus unequivocally be deemed externalisation. Externalisation, in sum, produces hybrid spatialities that cannot be grasped from an exclusively state-centric perspective. To conclude, research can problematise and relativise externalisa tion politics, and interrogate its own state-centric bias, by shedding more light on the practices of non-state actors and how they participate in or resist externalisation practices. Externalisation is neither an exclusive matter of states nor a smooth top-down process, with states delegating tasks to passive non-state executors. The multifarious pro cesses and dynamics triggered by externalisation are embedded in broader contexts. These processes and dynamics – including the roles played by non-state actors – can be better grasped by investigating the ambiguous relationship between externalisation and migration man agement, and by engaging concepts such as assemblage. 5. Challenging the inside/outside divide […] in a 5.1. Paolo Cuttitta, Charles Heller and Martin Lemberg-Pedersen The concept of externalisation rests on assumptions of interiority and 6 Political Geography 105 (2023) 102911 along the evolving routes. Thus, it traces a geography of control that cuts across state boundaries (Casas-Cortés et al., 2017) and involves different state and non-state actors, which is an essential feature of what is called ‘migration management’ (Geiger & Pécoud, 2010) – here applied to routes. This transversal geography is also visible in the notion of ‘Inte grated Border Management’ that is central to both the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Frontex’s operations extending geographically from so-called ‘third countries’ over the EU’s external borders and to EU territory and vice versa. Thus, the route becomes a transversal, itinerant and shifting border that replaces the neat insi de/outside divide of fixed territorial borders with the more elusive one of ‘itinerant border/ing assemblages’ (Casas-Cortés & Cobarrubias, 2019). Forms of border externalisation operate within the EU as well: intra- European or internal externalisation (Heller & Pezzani, 2016) involves the outsourcing of border control across the core-periphery geography of the EU itself. The logic of border externalisation has always been ingrained in the expanding Schengen regime (the set of regulations and practices that have introduced freedom of movement between associ ated European countries while imposing the creation and build-up of ‘external borders’) as well as the Dublin regime (the set of norms determining which state is responsible to examine each asylum appli cation). According to the latter, an asylum-seekers’ first EU country of entry is responsible for processing their claims. The Dublin regime has exacerbated the uneven European geography of responsibility, placing a heavier load of cases on states located along the EU’s external borders (Kasparek, 2016). Processes of externalisation of migration management thus also operate within EU territory. Notably, ‘internal externalisation’ suggests that the above points about selective and transversal geogra phies, multidirectionality, inverse effects and non-state actors are also applicable at the European scale. Acknowledging this aids in question ing how externalisation processes within and beyond the EU shape each other. Future research may enquire as to how the Dublin regime incentivises EU ‘frontline’ states to implement externalisation policies, or how internal externalisation instruments, such as the EU’s hotspot camps in Italy and Greece, relate to past and present EU projects of sorting camps, ‘disembarkation platforms’ and regional protection programmes in North Africa (Migreurop and FTDES, 2020). While controls on land occur in a space that is supposedly internal or external depending on the involved states’ perspective, controls on the high seas occur in a space that lies outside of any exclusive sovereignty. In the Mediterranean Sea, at the EU-North Africa boundary, attempts by governmental authorities to externalise migration control are also at tempts to internalise the sea – to make it their own backyard. As the sea is a liminal space, states capitalise on the fragmentation of its legal regime involving overlapping and conflicting geographical partitions and obli gations. By alternatively constructing the sea as mare nullius (Main waring & DeBono, 2021) or an extension of their own territory, states selectively expand their capacities to police it while also recusing themselves from obligations to rescue (Heller & Pezzani, 2018). In the daily operations of non-rescue, interceptions, push-backs and pull-backs, as well as through ‘maritime carceral’ policies detaining boat migrants on vessels in high seas for protracted periods of time (Dickson, 2021; Stierl, 2021), states in fact seek to instrumentalise the blurriness of the inside/outside in the space of the sea. Externalised border man agement at sea, however, also entails responsibilities for European states, which opens up paths of differential inclusion for those rescued and brought to European shores: indeed, once arrived there, they are divided into different legal categories with different, limited sets of rights (Cuttitta, 2018). While they are (physically) included, they are also (legally, politically and symbolically) excluded insofar as their in clusion is only partial, fragmented and temporary. This, again, questions neat inside/outside assumptions. Finally, the inside/outside conundrum puts the distinction between ‘externalisation’ and ‘internalisation’ into question. ‘Internalisation’ (Menjívar, 2014) describes the shifting of border functions to the 7 Political Geography 105 (2023) 102911 References Adamson, F. B., & Tsourapas, G. (2020). The migration state in the Global South: Nationalizing, developmental, and neoliberal models of migration management. International Migration Review, 54(3), 853–882. Adderley, L. R., & Fett, S. M. (2022). Slave trade and imperial agendas. In M. Lemberg- Pedersen, et al. (Eds.), Postcoloniality and forced migration. Mobility. Control. Agency. Bristol: Bristol University Press. Allen, W. L., & Vollmer, B. A. (2018). Clean skins: Making the e-Border security assemblage. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 36(1), 23–39. Anderson, B., & McFarlane, C. (2011). Assemblage and geography. Area, 43(2), 124–127. Andersson, R. (2014). Illegality, Inc. Clandestine migration and the business of bordering Europe. Oakland: University of California Press. Andreas, P. (2003). Redrawing the line. Borders and security in the twenty-first century. International Security, 28(2), 78–111. Baird, T. (2018). Interest groups and strategic constructivism: Business actors and border security policies in the European Union. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44 (1), 118–136. Balibar, E. (2009). Europe as borderland. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 27(2), 190–215. Balzacq, T. (2009). The external dimension of EU justice and home affairs : Governance, neighbours, security. Basingstoke [England]; New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Basaran, T. (2015). The saved and the drowned: Governing indifference in the name of security. Security Dialogue, 46(3), 205–220. Bialasiewicz, L. (2012). Off-shoring and out-sourcing the borders of EUrope: Libya and EU border work in the Mediterranean. Geopolitics, 17(4), 843–866. Bigo, D. (2001). The Möbius ribbon of internal and external security(ies). In M. Albert, D. Jacobson, & Y. Lapid (Eds.), Identities, Borders, Orders: Rethinking International Relations Theory (pp. 91–116). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Bilgin, P. (2016). The international in security, security in international. London: Routledge. Boswell, C. (2003). The ‘external dimension’ of EU immigration and asylum policy. International Affairs, 79(3), 619–638. Casas-Cortés, M., & Cobarrubias, S. (2019). Genealogies of contention in concentric circles: Remote migration control and its Eurocentric geographical imaginaries. In K. Mitchell, R. Jones, & J. Fluri (Eds.), Handbook on critical geographies of migration. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Casas-Cortés, M., Cobarrubias, S., De Genova, N., Garelli, G., Grappi, G., Heller, C., by inter Hess, S., Kasparek, B., Mezzadra, S., Neilson, B., Peano, I., Pezzani, L., Pickles, J., Rahola, F., Riedner, L., Scheel, S., & Tazzioli, M. (2015). New keywords: Migration and borders. Cultural Studies, 29(1), 55–87. Casas-Cortés, M., Cobarrubias, S., Heller, C., & Pezzani, L. (2017). Clashing cartographies, migrating maps: The politics of mobility at the external borders of E. U.rope. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 16(1), 1–33. Casas-Cortés, M., Cobarrubias, S., & Pickles, J. (2013). Re-Bordering the neighbourhood: Europe’s emerging geographies of non-accession integration. European Urban and Regional Studies, 20(1), 37–58. Casas-Cortes, M., Cobarrubias, S., & Pickles, J. (2016). ‘Good neighbours make good Fences’: Seahorse operations, border externalization and extra-territoriality. European Urban and Regional Studies, 23(3), 231–251. Cassarino, J. P. (2018). Beyond the criminalisation of migration: A non-western perspective. International Journal of Migration and Border Studies, 4(4), 397–411. Chimni, B. S. (1998). The geopolitics of refugee studies: A view from the South. Journal of Refugee Studies, 11(4), 350–374. Cobarrubias, S. (2020). Scale in motion? Rethinking scalar production and border externalization. Political Geography, 80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. polgeo.2020.102184 Cusumano, E. (2021). Defend(ing) Europe? Border control and identitarian activism off the Libyan coast. International Politics. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-021-00291- 7 Cuttitta, P. (2015). Territorial and non-territorial: The mobile borders of migration controls. In A.-L. Amilhat-Szary, & F. Giraut (Eds.), Borderities and the politics of contemporary mobile borders (pp. 241–255). Basingstoke: Palgrave-McMillan. Cuttitta, P. (2018). Delocalization, humanitarianism and human rights. The Mediterranean border between exclusion and inclusion. Antipode, 50(3), 783–803. Cuttitta, P. (2020). Non-governmental/civil society organizations and the EU- externalization of migration management in Tunisia and Egypt. Population, Space and Place, 26(7), 1–13. Cuttitta, P. (2022). Over land and sea. NGOs/CSOs and EU border externalisation along the Central Mediterranean route. Geopolitics. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14650045.2022.2124158 Cuttitta, P. (2023). Bridgeheads of EU border externalisation? NGOs/CSOs and migration in Libya. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 23996544221143905 Dahinden, J. (2016). A plea for the ‘de-migranticization’ of research on migration and integration. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(13), 2207–2225. De Genova, N. (2002). Migrant “illegality” and deportability in everyday Life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 419–447. Del Sarto, R. (2021). Borderlands. Europe and the Mediterranean Middle East. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Dickson, A. J. (2021). The carceral wet: Hollowing out rights for migrants in maritime geographies. Political Geography, 90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102475 a Ramón y Dini, S., & Giusa, C. (2020). Externalising migration governance through civil society. Tunisia as a case study. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 8 Political Geography 105 (2023) 102911 Zur neuen Einwanderungspolitik practice. Interventions and solutions (pp. 59–78). Houndmills/New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Korany, B. (1986). Strategic studies and the third world: A critical evaluation. Sociology, 30(4), International Social Science Journal, 38(4), 547–562. Korvensyrjä, A. (2017). The Valletta process and the Westphalian imaginary of migration research. Movements, 3(1), 191–204. at:. In In critical Lahav, G., & Guiraudon, V. (2000). Comparative perspectives on border control: Away 134–151) http://www.e-ir.info/201 from the border and outside the state. In P. Andreas, & T. Snyder (Eds.), The wall (Accessed 16 around the West. State borders and immigration controls in North America and Europe (pp. 55–77). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Landau, L. B. (2019). A chronotope of containment development: Europe’s migrant crisis and Africa’s reterritorialisation. Antipode, 51(1), 169–186. In E. Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, Lavenex, S. (1999). Safe third countries: Extending the EU asylum and Immigration policies to Handbook of Refugee and Forced central and Eastern Europe. Budapest, Hungary ; New York: Central European University Press. Lavenex, S. (2016). Multilevelling EU external governance: The role of international /tam_en.htm?te organizations in the diffusion of EU migration policies. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(4), 554–570. witnesses won’t be silenced: Lavenex, S., & Uçarer, E. M. (2004). The external dimension of Europeanization: The case of Race Relations. of immigration policies. Cooperation and Conflict, 39(4), 417–443. Lawler, K. C. (1994). Averting immigration emergencies. Research paper, US commission on immigration Reform. Available at: http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=437723. and states. New York: (Accessed 20 December 2022). Lemberg- Pedersen, M. (2013). Private security companies and the European symboliques. Le cas des borderscapes. In T. Gammeltoft-Hansen, & N. Nyberg-Sørensen (Eds.), The migration industry and the commercialization of international migration (pp. 152–172). London: agenda: Europe as a post- Routledge. Lemberg-Pedersen, M. (2019). Manufacturing displacement. Externalization and territoriality, shared postcoloniality in European migration control. Global Affairs, 5(3), 247–271. Studies, 46(1), 4–22. Lemberg-Pedersen, M., Fett, S. M., Mayblin, L., Sahraoui, N., & Stambøl, E. M. (2022). Australia and the Postcoloniality and forced migration. Mobility, control, agency. Bristol: Bristol Survey Quarterly, 33(2), University Press. van der Linden, M. (2010). Unanticipated consequences of ‘humanitarian intervention’: https://www.rai.it/dl/Re The British campaign to abolish the slave trade, 1807-1900. Theory and Society, 39 (3/4), 281–298. Lingelbach, J. (2022). Imperial refugee management. Moving Greek refugees through the (2013). The migration British empire and into the Belgian Congo (1942–1945). Journal of Imperial and London-New York: Commonwealth History, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/03086534.2022.2084939 Mainwaring, C., & DeBono, D. (2021). Criminalizing solidarity: Search and rescue in a neo-colonial sea. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/2399654420979314 of migration: Militant Marfleet, P. (2007). Refugees and history: Why we must address the past. Refugee Survey Studies, 16(3), 245–249. Quarterly, 26(3), 136–148. complexity in ‘Southern’ Marino, R., Schapendonk, J., & Lietaert, I. (2022). Translating EUrope’s return migration https://doi.org/10.1080/ regime to the Gambia: The incorporation of local CSOs. Geopolitics. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14650045.2022.2050700 migration management. Martinez, J. S. (2012). The slave trade and the origins of international human rights law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. and the ‘Refugee crisis’: On Mayblin, L. (2017). Asylum after empire: Colonial Legacies in the politics of asylum seeking. settler colonialism- London: Rowman & Littlefield International. Mayblin, L., & Turner, J. B. (2021). Migration studies and colonialism. Cambridge, UK ; colonial origins of the Medford, MA: Polity Press. McKeown, A. (2008). Melancholy order: Asian migration and the globalization of borders. Columbia studies in international and global history. New York: Columbia University at: https://forens Press. Menjívar, C. (2014). Immigration law beyond borders: Externalizing and internalizing EU’s shifting practices of (Non) border controls in an era of securitization. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Online 1. Available at: http://n 10, 353–369. es-of-non-assistan Mezzadra, S., & Neilson, B. (2013). Border as method, or, the multiplication of labor. Durham/London: Duke University Press. the deaths of migrants at the Migreurop. (2003). Europe : Vers une externalisation des procédures d’asile. Available of Europe. Autonomy of at: http://www.migreurop.org/article40.html?lang=fr. (Accessed 20 December Duke University Press. 2022). analysis of the ICMPD. In Migreurop and FTDES. (2020). Politiques du non-accueil en Tunisie : Des acteurs migration management (pp. humanitaires au service des politiques sécuritaires européennes. Available at: http:// www.migreurop.org/article2992.html?lang=fr. (Accessed 20 December 2022). the politics of migration. On Moisio, S., & Paasi, A. (2013). Beyond state-centricity: Geopolitics of changing state research. Migration spaces. Geopolitics, 18(2), 255–266. Mongia, R. V. (2018). Indian migration and empire: A colonial genealogy of the modern state. Neo- Refoulement and the Durham: Duke University Press. and Opposition, 43(2), Moreno-Lax, V. (2018). The EU humanitarian border and the securitization of human rights: The ‘Rescue-through-interdiction/rescue-without-protection’ paradigm. at European Union Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(1), 119–140. and Planning D: Moreno-Lax, V., & Lemberg-Pedersen, M. (2019). Border-induced displacement: The ethical and legal implications of distance-creation through externalization. Questions Project. Available at: https:// of International Law, 56, 5–33. Mountz, A. (2013). Political geography 1: Reconfiguring geographies of sovereignty. (forthcoming). In Progress in Human Geography, 37(6), 829–841. international Handbook of Paasi, A., Ferdoush, M. A., Jones, R., Murphy, A. B., Agnew, J., Ochoa Espejo, P., Fall, J., & Peterle, G. (2022). Locating the territoriality of territory in border studies. Political Geography, 95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102584 P., Mountz, A., & Paoletti, E. (2010). The migration of power and North-south Inequalities: The case of Italy at the border. Political and Libya. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Parker, N., Vaughan-Williams, N., et al. (2009). Lines in the sand? Towards an agenda for critical border studies. Geopolitics, 14(3), 582–587. (Eds.), Migration policy and 9 Political Geography 105 (2023) 102911 and international migration Stierl, M. (2021). The Mediterranean as carceral seascape. Political Geography, 80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102417 and Latin America. Stock, I., Üstübici, A., & Schultz, S. (2019). Externalization at work: Responses to migration policies from the Global South. Comparative Migration Studies, 7(48). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-019-0157-z Journal of Ethnic Stoler, A. L. (2008). Imperial debris: Reflections on Ruins and Ruination. Cultural Anthropology, 23(2), 191–219. Teunissen, P. (2018). Border crossing assemblages: Differentiated Travelers and the viapolitics of FlixBus. Journal of borderlands studies, 35(3), 385–401. Geopolitics, 17(4), Tickner, A. (2003). Seeing IR differently: Notes from the third world. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 32(2), 295–324. of the liberal peace. Triandafyllidou, A. (2020). Decentering the study of migration governance: A Radical view. Geopolitics. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2020.1839052 in the European Tsourapas, G. (2019). The Syrian refugee crisis and foreign policy decision-making in Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. Journal of Global Security Studies, 4(4), 464–481. Vigneswaran, D. (2020). Europe has never been modern: Recasting historical narratives space: Frontiers of change and of migration control. International Political Sociology, 14(1), 2–21. NY: State University of New Walker, R. B. J. (1993). Inside/Outside: International relations as political theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Intervention: Rethinking Externalisation in Migration and Border Studies PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript