Global Crimes (Border Criminology) PDF

Global crimes (border criminology) VALERIA FERRARIS THURSDAY AND FRIDAY 2-4 PM Externalisation Externalization refers to a practice where countries manage migration by shifting border control responsibilities beyond their own national territories. I...

Global crimes (border criminology) VALERIA FERRARIS THURSDAY AND FRIDAY 2-4 PM Externalisation Externalization refers to a practice where countries manage migration by shifting border control responsibilities beyond their own national territories. It avoids direct involvement within the national territory by distancing countries from humanitarian crises at their borders without necessarily solving the underlying issues. Problems are not solved but are moved elsewhere, creating new challenges for partner countries. Types of externalisation Interception and Return : Some countries establish agreements to intercept and return migrants before they reach national borders ( Italy and Lybia) Offshore Processing Centers : Centers located in foreign countries where migrants are screened outside of the main destination country. Containment Zones : Partnerships with other countries to prevent migrants from moving further. Effects 1) Effect on Accountability and Public Perception : Externalization policies shift the migration issue away from public view and national accountability. 2) Reduced Visibility of Human Impact : Migration management becomes more of a logistical task than a humanitarian issue. The human impact on migrants is less visible to the public and institutions of the receiving country Core Concept: “Safe” Third Countries & Safe Countries of Origin “Safe” Third Countries : Countries deemed capable of providing adequate protection and security for asylum seekers, allowing other countries to transfer migrants there for processing or resettlement. Safe Countries of Origin : Nations where individuals are presumed not at risk of persecution. Asylum claims from nationals of these countries are often fast-tracked or outright rejected. Problems with “Safe” Classifications Safety is not universal—it varies widely depending on personal background , social status , and vulnerabilities. This simplified classification prioritizes bureaucratic efficiency over genuine individual safety. Sociologist Cecilia Menjívar highlights that safety designations often fail to consider individual circumstances, such as systemic discrimination that certain groups, like LGBTQ+ asylum seekers , might face in “safe” countries. The Non refoulment principle Non-refoulement is the foundation of international refugee law, originating from the 1951 Refugee Convention. It prohibits states from returning individuals to a country where they face persecution, torture, or severe harm. Externalization policies increasingly undermine non-refoulement as states manage migration through third countries instead of at their own borders. The Non refoulment principle Non-refoulement is the foundation of international refugee law, originating from the 1951 Refugee Convention. It prohibits states from returning individuals to a country where they face persecution, torture, or severe harm. Externalization policies increasingly undermine non-refoulement as states manage migration through third countries instead of at their own borders. Tension between Non-Refoulement and Externalization Policies Outsourcing Asylum Processing à By transferring asylum seekers to third countries, destination states claim compliance with non-refoulement but may expose migrants to environments with less secure protections. What emerges is a conflict State Sovereignty vs. Humanitarian Obligations: The State Perspective gives priority to border security and control. The Human Rights Perspective underlines that States have a duty to uphold humanitarian commitments for those fleeing persecution. Rise of Securitization à Framing migration as a security issue often tips the balance in favour of state control over humanitarian considerations. Legal basis The legal basis for externalization is complex and lacks a unified framework. It is better described as a patchwork of precedents, agreements, and selective interpretations of international law. Externalization emerged from European states’ desire to manage increasing migration flows since the early 2000s. Initially, migration control was an internal matter (e.g., Dublin Regulation ), but as challenges grew, countries began outsourcing control to third nations.. Legal ambiguities European states use orchestration strategies to delegate migration control to third countries, “breaking the legal link” without explicitly violating international law. Through selective interpretations of non-refoulement and safe third-country principles, European states avoid direct violations by transferring asylum seekers to countries like Libya and Turkey. These practices create a grey area where states technically operate within the law while sidestepping their humanitarian responsibilities.. The Role of International Organizations in Externalization International bodies like the UNHCR and IOM often collaborate with states on externalization policies, aiming to uphold human rights standards. Despite cooperation, these efforts do not eliminate the legal ambiguities surrounding externalization, nor do they absolve states from ethical concerns about outsourcing migration control.. Justifications National Sovereignty: Countries have the right to control their borders as part of sovereignty. Example: Italy-Albania and UK-Rwanda agreements à They rely on loopholes in international law rather than robust legal principlesà Selective interpretation of international obligations can weaken global asylum protections.. Justifications Safe Country: Countries deemed safe enough for migrants to be processed or resettled. Allows destination countries to transfer asylum seekers while claiming compliance with non-refoulement. à Criticism: Relative Safety and Risk of Indirect Refoulement. Financial Incentives and Ethical Concerns Financial incentives and policy orchestration encourage third countries to act as migration gatekeepers. Example: Italy's cooperation with Libya using EU funds for "pull-back" strategies. Consequences: - Bypasses direct responsibility and creates legal loopholes. - Migrants face abusive conditions in transit countries. - Raises ethical and legal concerns about the morality and durability of such practices. Prioritizing «Border Rights» over Human Rights The prioritarization of Securitization and Political Convenience 1) Weakened Human Rights Standards : Rights protections are compromised as states emphasize control over compassion. 2) Transform asylum from a Right to a Privilege : Asylum becomes contingent on geographic factors, potentially reshaping it into a privilege rather than a universal right.