Sovereign Discomfort: Can Liberal Norms Lead to Increasing Immigration Detention?

  • Michael FlynnEmail author


Many liberal democracies betray a noticeable discomfort when it comes to public scrutiny of immigration detention, neglecting to release comprehensive statistics about it, cloaking detention practices in misleading names and phrases, and carefully choosing which activities they define as deprivation of liberty. On the other hand, these same countries have labored to expand their detention activities and to encourage their neighbors to do the same. What explains this simultaneous reticence towards and embrace of immigration detention? This paper argues that a largely unrecognized variable influencing the evolution of immigration detention has been the promotion of some key human rights norms, which has helped spur states to adopt new institutions dedicated to this practice while at the same time prompting them to shift the burden of global migration to countries on the periphery of the international system.


Asylum Detention Immigration Incarceration Sovereignty 


  1. Adler-Nissen R, Gammeltoft-Hansen T (eds) (2008) Sovereignty games: instrumentalizing state sovereignty in Europe and beyond. Palgrave, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Amnesty International (2008) Mauritania: nobody wants to have anything to do with us. Amnesty International, 1 July 2008Google Scholar
  3. Bacon C (2005) The evolution of immigration detention in the UK: the involvement of private prison companies. RSC Working Paper No. 27. Refugee Studies Centre, Department of International Development, Queen Elizabeth House, University of OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Cornelisse G (2010) Immigration detention and human rights: rethinking territorial sovereignty. Martinus Nijhoff, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  5. Corrections Corporation of America (nd) A quarter century of service to America Accessed 26 Aug 2014
  6. Dougherty D, Lorenzen-Strait A (2010) Interview with Michael Flynn in Washington, D.C. on 16 Apr 2010. Global Detention Project, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  7. European Social Watch (2009) Spain: the externalisation of migration and asylum policies: the Nouadhibou Detention Center. European Social WatchGoogle Scholar
  8. Fernandes D (2007) Targeted: homeland security and the business of immigration. Seven Stories Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Global Detention Project (2009) United States detention profile. Global Detention Project, Geneva Accessed 26 Aug 2014
  10. Global Detention Project (2011) United Kingdom detention profile. Global Detention Project, Geneva. Accessed 26 Aug 2014
  11. Guiraudon V, Lahav G (2000) A reappraisal of the state sovereignty debate: the case of migration control. Comp Polit Stud 33(2):163–195Google Scholar
  12. Lahav G (2003) Migration and security: the role of non-state actors and civil liberties. United Nations Population Division, New York: UN/POP/MIG/2003Google Scholar
  13. Nowak M (2009) Press conference by United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture on 20 October 2009. UN Department of Public Information, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Pillay N (2009) Opening remarks at the panel discussion on human rights of migrants in detention centers at the UN Human Rights Council. Geneva, 17 September 2009Google Scholar
  15. UN High Commissioner for Refugees (2011) In rural Pennsylvania, a model of civil immigration detention. UNHCR, 6 January 2011Google Scholar
  16. Wilsher D (2011) Immigration detention: law, history, politics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (2007) Locking up family values: the detention of immigrant familiesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Global Detention ProjectGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations