Advertisement

Effective Protection or Effective Combat? EU Border Control and North Africa

  • Martin Lemberg-Pedersen
Part of the Palgrave Series in African Borderlands Studies book series (PSABS)

Abstract

This chapter traces and conceptualizes the evolution of the EurAfrican borderscapes during the 2000s. It points out how a popular, but flawed, perspective that sees borders through a closed-system perspective is responsible for much knowledge production and policy-making in European border politics, including the critical image of Fortress Europe. This image, however, fails, it is argued, to appraise the border regime’s functionality as a transnational network of control nodes. The chapter explains how the traditional conceptualization of forced migration, although important, has viewed border control as a response to forced migration and has therefore not seen how the border control regime in itself is also causing forced migration. The various ways in which states’ border control yields displacement is labelled border-induced displacement and explored. The chapter thus traces the longstanding European externalization of detention camps to Gaddafi’s Libya, the Italian–Libyan Friendship Treaty of 2008, and how it fed into policy driven by the Dutch, British and Danish governments, which had pursued variations of such externalization of European control and responsibility since the 1980s. It also details the kind of issue linkages characterizing the politics of the EurAfrican borderscapes. Finally, and continuously, the chapter interrogates migrants’ humanitarian conditions in the EurAfrican borders.

Keywords

European Union Asylum Seeker Border Control Forced Migration Sovereign Power 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Agamben, G. 1995. We refugees. Symposium 49(2): 114–119.Google Scholar
  2. Agamben, G. 1998. Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Agamben, G. 2005. State of exception. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agnew, J. 1994. The territorial trap: the geographical assumptions of international relations theory. Review of International Political Economy, 1(1): 51–80Google Scholar
  5. Amnesty International. 2010. Seeking safety, finding fear: Refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants in Libya and Malta. London: Amnesty International.Google Scholar
  6. Appadurai, A. 1996. Modernity at large. Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  7. Balzacq, T. 2009. Frontiers of governance: Understanding the external dimension of EU justice and home affairs. In The external dimension of EU justice and home affairs: Governance, neighbours, security, ed. T. Balzacq, 1–34. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Betts, A. 2009. Forced migration and global politics. Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Betts, A., and J. Milner. 2007. The externalisation of EU asylum policy: The position of African states. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies.Google Scholar
  10. Bigo, D. 2007. Detention of Foreigners, states of exception, and the social practices of control. In Borderscapes: Hidden geographies and politics at territory’s edge, ed. P.K. Rajaram and C. Grundy-Warr, 3–34. London: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  11. Boswell, C. 2003. The ‘external dimension’ of EU immigration and asylum policy. International Affairs 79(3): 619–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brambilla, C. 2015. Exploring the critical potential of the borderscapes concept. Geopolitics 20(1): 14–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown, C. 2010. The only thinkable figure? Ethical and normative approaches to refugees in international relations. In Refugees in international relations, ed. A. Betts and G. Loescher, 151–168. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cassarino, J-P. 2010. Unbalanced Reciprocities: Cooperation on Readmission in the Euro-Mediterranean Area. The Middle East Institute, Special Edition, Viewpoints, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  15. CEAR. 2008. Informe de evaluación del Centro de Detención de migrantes en Nouadhibou (Mauritania). Bilbao: CEAR.Google Scholar
  16. Commission of the European Communities. 2005a. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: On Regional Protection Programmes. 1.9.2005, Brussels. COM(2005) 388 final.Google Scholar
  17. Commission of the European Communities. 2005b. Technical Mission to Libya on Illegal Migration, November 27–December 6, 2004 Report, No. 7753/05. Brussels.Google Scholar
  18. Commission of the European Communities. 2010. Commission Memo: European Commission and Libya agree a Migration Cooperation agenda during high level visit to boost EU-Libya relations. 5.10.2010, Brussels, MEMO/10/472.Google Scholar
  19. Council of the European Union. 2005. 2664th Council meeting. Justice and Home Affairs. Luxembourg. 2–3 June.Google Scholar
  20. Dahlman, C., and G. Ó Thuathail. 2005. Broken Bosnia: Localized geopolitics of displacement and return in two Bosnian places. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95(3): 644–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Danish Ministry of Justice. 2012. Discussion paper: Informal justice and home affairs ministers’ meeting. Copenhagen: Danish Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
  22. Danish Proposal. 1986. UN Third Committee, 39th meeting, 11 November 1986, UN Doc. A/C.3/41/SR.39. New York: United Nations Organization.Google Scholar
  23. De Genova, N. 2010. Theoretical overview. In The deportation regime. Sovereignty, space and freedom of movement, ed. N. De Genova and N. Peutz, 33–68. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dean, M. 2002. Liberal government and authoritarianism. Economy and Society 31(1): 37–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Del Grande, G. 2009. Border Sahara: The detention centres in the Libyan Desert. Fortress Europe, [blog] January. Available at: http://fortresseurope.blogspot.com/2006/01/border-sahara-detention-centres-in.html. Accessed 16 Nov 2011.
  26. Department of Migration and Home Affairs. 2013. Global approach to migration. [online] Brussels: European Commission. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/international-affairs/global-approach-to-migration/index_en.htm. Accessed 15 Nov 2013.
  27. DG Home Affairs 2013. Global Approach to Migration and Mobility. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/homeaffairs/, accessed June 3rd, 2013.
  28. Europeaid. 2006. Aeneas Programme: Programme for financial and technological assistance to third countries in the area of migration and asylum. Overview of projects funded 2004–2006. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  29. Foucault, M. 2007. Security, territory, population. Chippenham/Eastbourne: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  30. Foucault, M. 2008. The Birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collége de France, 1978–1979. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  31. Gammeltoft-Hansen, T. 2011. Access to Asylum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Gazzini, C. 2009. Assessing Italy’s grande gesto to Libya. Middle East research and information project [online] 16 March. Available at: http://www.merip.org/mero/mero031609. Accessed 30 Nov 2015.
  33. German Ministry of Interior. 2005. Effektiver Schutz für Flüchtlinge, wirkungsvolle Bekämpferung illegaler Migration. Berlin: Bundesministerium des Innern.Google Scholar
  34. Gibney, M. 2006. A Thousand Little Guantanamos: Western States and Measures to Prevent the Arrival of Refugees, in Tunstall, K. (ed.) Displacement, Asylum, Migration, Oxford Amnesty Lectures 2004. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hansen, P. 2007. EU migration policy in the post-Amsterdam era: The contradictions between migrant ‘integration’, flexible labour immigration and refugee protection. In Irregular migration, informal labour and community: A challenge for Europe, ed. E. Berggren, 21–39. Maastricht: Shaker Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. Human Rights Watch. 2009. Pushed back, pushed around [online]. New York: Human Rights Watch. Available at: http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/09/21/pushed-back-pushed-around. Accessed 12 May 2010.
  37. Huysmans, J. 2006. The Politics of insecurity: Fear, migration and asylum in the EU. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. International Organization for Migration (IOM). 2011. Assessment mission finds migrants in remote Libyan Town of Al-Kufrah in need of help. [Press release] 16 August 2011. Available at: https://www.iom.int/news/assessment-mission-finds-migrants-remote-libyan-town-al-kufrah-need-help. Accessed 30 Nov 2015.
  39. Lavenex, S. and Ucarer, E. 2004. The External Dimension of Europeanization: The Case of Immigration Policies. Cooperation and Conflict, 39(4): 417.Google Scholar
  40. Lavenex, S. & Wagner, W. 2007. Which European Public Order? Sources of Imbalance in the European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, European Security, 16(3–4): 225–243.Google Scholar
  41. Lemberg-Pedersen, M. 2011. Solidarity (In)action? Politik 14(4): 27–34.Google Scholar
  42. Lemberg-Pedersen, M. 2012. Forcing flows of migrants: European externalization and border-induced displacement. In The border multiple: The practicing of borders between public policy and everyday life in Europe, ed. D. Andersen, M. Klatt, and M. Sandberg. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  43. Lemberg-Pedersen, M. 2013. Private security companies and the EU borderscapes. In The migration industry and the commercialization of international migration, ed. N. Nyberg Sørensen and T. Gammeltoft-Hansen. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Lemke, T. 2005. A zone of indistinction—A critique of Giorgio Agamben’s concept of biopolitics. Outlines. Critical Social Studies 7(1): 3–13.Google Scholar
  45. Lucht, H. 2011. Darkness before daybreak: African migrants living on the margins in Southern Italy today. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  46. Minca, C. 2007. Agamben’s geographies of modernity. Political Geography 26: 78–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Noll, G. 2003. Visions of the exceptional. European Journal of Migration and Law 5(3): 303–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. O Thuathail, G. 1999. Borderless Worlds? Problematizing Discourses of De- territorialization. Geopolitics, 42(2): 139–54.Google Scholar
  49. O Thuathail, G. 1996. Critical Geopolitics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Rajaram, P.K., and C. Grundy-Warr (eds.). 2007a. Borderscapes: Hidden geographies and politics at territory’s edge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  51. Rajaram, P.K., and C. Grundy-Warr. 2007b. Introduction. In Borderscapes: Hidden geographies and politics at territory’s edge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  52. EUObserver. 2013. EU ‘civilian’ mission training paramilitaries in Libya. Euobserver [online] 18 November. Available at: https://euobserver.com/investigations/122134. Accessed 12 Oct 2015.
  53. UK Government. 2003. A new vision for refugees [pdf]. London: UK Government. Available at: http://www.proasyl.de/texte/europe/union/2003/UK_NewVision.pdf. Accessed 30 Nov 2015.
  54. van Houtum, H., and T. van Naerssen. 2002. Bordering, ordering and othering. Tjidschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 93(2): 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van Munster, R. 2009. Securitizing immigration: The politics of risk in the EU. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vaughan-Williams, N. 2009. Border politics: The limits of sovereign power. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Wimmer, A. and Glick Schiller, N. 2002. Methodological nationalism and beyond: nation-state building, migration and the social sciences. Global Networks, 2(4): 301–334.Google Scholar
  58. Zeitung, Neue Zürcher. 2005. Zusammenarbeit mit Libyen gegen Einwanderung wird konkret. Neue Züricher Zeitung(3 June).Google Scholar

European Union Official Documents

  1. Commission and Parliament Communication COM/2005/388 of 1 September 2005 on Regional Protection Programmes. Google Scholar
  2. Commission Memo MEMO/10/472 of 5 October 2010 on the agreement between the European Commission and Libya on A migration cooperation agenda during high level visit to boost EU-Libya relations. Google Scholar
  3. Commission Report 7753/05 of 2005 on The technical mission to Libya on Illegal Migration, November 27 –December 6, 2004. Google Scholar
  4. Council Meeting 2463 14183/02 (Presse 350) of 18 Novembre 2002 on General affairs and external relations. Google Scholar
  5. Note from Presidency to Council, 14366/3/05 REV 3, 2. of 6 December 2005 on a Strategy for the external dimension of JHAGlobal freedom, security and justice. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Lemberg-Pedersen
    • 1
  1. 1.Global Refugee StudiesCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations