This chapter investigates France’s conception and contribution to human protection from 1987 to 1993. It first discusses the emergence of France’s domestic norm of human protection. It then analyses the extent of the role played by France in the emergence of humanitarian intervention and argues that France was a norm entrepreneur between 1987 and 1991 before helping to consolidate the international principle through its practice from 1992. Finally, it investigates the French involvement in Bosnia and Herzegovina – France’s main intervention at the time – in order to illustrate the evolution of France’s conception and contribution to human protection during that period.

This chapter details the dialogue with republicans that led to the IRA ceasefire of 1994 and how the formative stages of the peace process took shape through confidential contacts and channels

Steffen Mau, in his response to Ayelet Shachar's lead essay, begins by recapping the historical development of border control. Before the twentieth century, it was possible to cross many national borders in continental Europe without travel documents or controls. Comprehensive systems for suppressing “informal” and non-authorized mobility are a relatively recent invention. Moving on to Shachar's essay itself, Mau acknowledges the value of her approach, which introduces a functional definition of borders. He identifies four key developments: increased selectivity and visa policies, internationalization of border regimes, macroterritorialization, and digitization and new border technologies. While Shachar includes these in her analysis, Mau argues that they can only be partially subsumed under the concept of the shifting border, and may in fact have a different momentum. In the final part of his response, Mau addresses Shachar's suggestions for developing an institutional-legal design that can match the change in border controls, offering a number of criticisms. While agreeing with her about expanding legal obligations in the area of humanitarian migration, he notes that the discussion should be extended to cover labor migration and tourism too. He also points out the mounting problems posed by the establishment of “smart borders." His final objection relates to the question of political feasibility. As necessary and normatively convincing as Shachar’s call for corresponding legal responsibility and shifting border control might be, it seems highly improbable that this will actually come to pass.

Sanctuary legislation is used in many different contexts. What the so-called ‘sanctuary cities’ have in common is that city authorities actively ignore people’s legal status when conducting business with their inhabitants. Thus, while drawing on humanitarian principles, sanctuary practices often have a pragmatic side. For example, the variety of legal and residency statuses of people living together in a city have often resulted in complicated organisational and social networks, the disruption of which by immigration authorities would endanger social peace. This tension has been framed as a contradiction between national requirements and a post-national local reality, a tension that sanctuary practices might be seen as responding to. This chapter draws on these contradictions between the national and the post-national to explore in metropolitan areas discussion of the future role of the local and of statehood is being made and remade in response to concerns around national identity and post-national populations. Sanctuary in these contexts emerges as an urban policy framing that results from such discussions. The chapter thus argues that if sanctuary legislation is a sign of political change in the perception and organisation of migration, it may also signal the changing nature and significance of the nation-state in an interconnected and increasingly urbanised world.

This chapter critically addresses the temporary reception of refugees and asylum seekers in Europe, by focusing on the everyday forms and practices of resistance that migrants put in place, primarily to counter the 'illegalising' policies of EU states. Conceptually, the chapter connects critical citizenship studies with autonomy of migration debates, to discuss the immobility – or the 'temporality of waiting' – of the prolonged moment during which migrants are stuck in the net of EU migration policies. The chapter focuses on a specific form of refugee response initiative – a self-reception system in the form of the City Plaza in Athens (Greece), a disused hotel that has been squatted by migrant activists and refugees to produce a space of accommodation and social support. The chapter argues that through City Plaza, we witness practices of 'autonomous geographies' that constitute forms of self-provided 'alternative' welfare, capable of extending and renegotiating the status of citizenship and enacting diverse forms of solidarity. In addition, they provide a discursive space of political legitimation, while acknowledging alternative and non-state forms of 'citizenship in motion'. The chapter is based on six months’ fieldwork in Athens, living and working at City Plaza as a refugee accommodation and solidarity space.

Traditionally, international law was divided into the law of war and the law of peace, with no intermediate stage between. When hostilities began, usually following a declaration of war, and non-parties to the conflict were held by the belligerents to be subject to the duties of, and they claimed the rights pertaining to, neutrals, war was recognised and the law of war came into operation. As with the situation under customary law, it is irrelevant whether the conflict is in accordance with the obligations of Hague Convention III, the Pact of Paris or the Charter of the United Nations. Even if the conflict does not amount to war in the legal sense of that term, there is nothing in international law, other than human rights conventions, preventing a country imposing restrictions upon the freedom of residents possessing adverse-party nationality.

This chapter first historicises securitisation theory and situates the theory in the wider field of international security. It shows that securitisation theory was innovative in the sense of challenging the state-centricity and over-militarised nature of international security during the Cold War. The chapter then proceeds with a brief discourse analysis of speeches made by George W. Bush and Barack Obama in relation to Islam and the role of Muslims in the war on terror. It argues that Bush and Obama articulated Islam as a ‘peaceful religion’ and that terrorists ‘hijacked its peaceful teachings’. Even Donald Trump sought to reassure the American public that his executive order banning citizens from Muslim-majority countries was ‘not a Muslim ban’. As a result, the chapter demonstrates that this presents a challenge to securitisation theory. The last section engages with the burgeoning post-Copenhagen School literature, which has raised important concerns about securitisation theory, and concludes by addressing the implications for the puzzle of the book.