Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-79b67bcb76-bntjx Total loading time: 0.246 Render date: 2021-05-16T18:55:08.788Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Another Brick in the Wall? Neo-Refoulement and the Externalization of Asylum by Australia and Europe 1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Abstract

Insecurity and fear in the global North produce political space to advance security measures, including the externalization of asylum. States in the global North make it increasingly difficult for asylum seekers to reach sovereign territory where they might make a refugee claim. While legal protection remains intact under the Refugee Convention, extra-legal measures employ geography to restrict access to asylum and keep claimants at bay through a variety of tactics. This article probes the ways in which fear of uninvited asylum seekers is securitized and looks at the tactics utilized to keep them at bay, far from the borders of states that are signatories to the UN Refugee Convention. Drawing on research in Europe and Australia, we demonstrate how states are promoting ‘protection in regions of origin’ through practices of de facto neo-refoulement. Neo-refoulement refers to a geographically based strategy of preventing asylum by restricting access to territories that, in principle, provide protection to refugees.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2008.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

1

We are grateful to Eva-Lotta Hedman and Matthew Gibney for organizing the workshop where this was presented at the Centre for Refugee Studies and for their editorial work, to Areti Sianni for her research contributions, and to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for funding the research.

References

2 Arendt, Hannah, The Origins of Totalitarianism, Cleveland and New York, Meridian Books, 1958, p. 269.Google Scholar

3 Arendt, cited in Matthew Gibney, The Ethics and Politics of Asylum: Liberal Democracy and the Response to Refugees, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 1. Cf. Jennifer Hyndman, Managing Displacement: Refugees and the Politics of Humanitarianism, Minneapolis, Minnesota University Press, 2000.Google Scholar

4 UNHCR, State of the World's Refugees, 2006, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006.Google Scholar

5 Derek Gregory, The Colonial Present: Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq, Malden, Blackwell, 2004.Google Scholar

6 Giorgio Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar

7 Butler, Judith, Precarious Life, New York, Verso, 2004, pp. 67 and 92.Google Scholar

8 Gregory, Derek, ‘Vanishing Points: Law, Violence, and Exception in the Global War Prison’, in D. Gregory and A. Pred (eds), Violent Geographies, New York, Routledge, 2007, p. 207.Google Scholar

9 Hyndman, Jennifer, ‘Conflict, Citizenship, and Human Security: Geographies of Protection’, in D. Cowen and E. Gilbert (eds), War, Citizenship, Territory, New York and London, Routledge, 2007, pp. 241–59.Google Scholar

10 Mountz, Alison, ‘Human Smuggling and the Canadian State’, Canadian Foreign Policy, 13: 1 (2006), pp. 5980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Gregory, The Colonial Present.Google Scholar

12 Hyndman, Managing Displacement.Google Scholar

13 Hyndman, Jennifer, ‘Preventive, Palliative, or Punitive? Safe Spaces in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Somalia, and Sri Lanka’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 16: 2 (2003), pp. 167–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Ian McEwan, Saturday, London, Cape, 2005, p. 39.Google Scholar

15 Bigo, Didier, ‘Security and Immigration: Toward a Critique of the Governmentality of Unease’, Alternatives, 27 (2002), pp. 6392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Hyndman, Jennifer, ‘The Securitisation of Fear in Post-Tsunami Sri Lanka’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97: 2 (2007), pp. 361–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Amoore, Louise and De Goede, Marieke, ‘Governance, Risk and Dataveillance in the War on Terror’, Crime, Law and Social Change, 43 (2005), pp. 149–73,CrossRefGoogle Scholar p. 168.

18 Alison Mountz, Transnational States of Migration: Human Smuggling and the Borders of Sovereignty, forthcoming.Google Scholar

19 Alison Mountz, ‘Embodied Geographies of the Nation-State: An Ethnography of Canada's Response to Human Smuggling’, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, 2003; and Mountz, ‘Human Smuggling and the Canadian State’.Google Scholar

20 Walters, William, ‘Secure Borders, Safe Haven, Domopolitics’, Citizenship Studies, 8: 3 (2004), pp. 237–60,CrossRefGoogle Scholar p. 241.

21 Deborah Cowen and Emily Gilbert, ‘Citizenship in the “Homeland”: Families at War’, in Cowan and Gilbert, War, Citizenship, Territory, pp. 261–8.Google Scholar

22 Sparke, Matthew, ‘The Neoliberal Nexus’, Political Geography, 25: 2 (2006), pp. 151–80,CrossRefGoogle Scholar p. 153.

23 Bigo, ‘Security and Immigration’, p. 63.Google Scholar

24 See for example Hugo, Graeme, ‘From Compassion to Compliance? Trends in Refugee and Humanitarian Migration in Australia’, Geoforum, 55 (2001), pp. 2737;Google Scholar and Suvendrini Perera, ‘What is a Camp…?’, Borderlands e-journal, 1: 1 (2002), pp. 1–10, available at http://www.borderlandsejournal.adelaide.edu.au/vol1no1_2002/perera_camp.html.

25 Australian Government Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), Managing the Border: Immigration Compliance, 2004–2005 Edition, 2006, p. 5, available at http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/compliance/managing-the-border/index.htm.Google Scholar

26 Interview, Canberra, April 2006.Google Scholar

27 Mountz, Transnational States of Migration, forthcoming.Google Scholar

28 Peter Mares, Borderline, Sydney, University of New South Wales Press, 2002.Google Scholar

29 Bashford, Alyson and Strange, Caroline, ‘Asylum-Seekers and National Histories of Detention’, Australian Journal of Politics and History, 48: 4 (2002), pp. 509–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

30 Mountz, Alison, ‘Embodying the Nation-State: Canada's Response to Human Smuggling’, Political Geography, 23: 3 (2004), pp. 323–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 Sparke, ‘The Neoliberal Nexus’.Google Scholar

32 Bloch, Alice and Schuster, Lise, ‘At the Extremes of Exclusion: Deportation, Detention and Dispersal’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28: 3 (2005), pp. 491512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Michael Welch, Detained: Immigration Laws and the Expanding I.N.S. Jail Complex, Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 2002.Google Scholar

34 Butler, Precarious Life.Google Scholar

35 Mountz ‘Embodying the Nation-State’.Google Scholar

36 Agamben, Homo Sacer.Google Scholar

37 Magner, Tara, ‘A Less than “Pacific” Solution for Asylum Seekers in Australia’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 16: 1 (2004), pp. 5390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 Eventually, with intervention by the UNHCR, some were resettled in third countries like New Zealand and Canada. This became a popular strategy for Australian officials to ‘save face’, successfully refusing to resettle migrants arriving by sea while quietly brokering deals with other countries to resettle, thus continuing the public deferral and refusal of direct arrivals.Google Scholar

39 Taylor, Savitri, ‘Sovereign Power at the Border’, Public Law Review, 16: 1 (2005), pp. 5577.Google Scholar

40 Betts, Alexander, ‘The International Relations of the “New” Extraterritorial Approaches to Refugee Protection: Explaining the Policy Initiatives of the UK Government and UNHCR’, Refuge, 22: 1 (2004), pp. 5870,Google Scholar p. 63.

41 Mares, Borderline.Google Scholar

42 Gordon, Freeing Ali.Google Scholar

43 Interview, Canberra, April 2006.Google Scholar

44 DIAC, Managing the Border.Google Scholar

45 Now the largest numbers of detainees are ‘visa overstayers’. DIAC has shifted its resources to aggressive round-ups of people found in non-compliance with the conditions of visas.Google Scholar

46 Commission of the European Communities, ‘Communication to the Council and the European Parliament on Immigration and Asylum Policies’, COM (94) 23 final, Brussels, 23 February 1994.Google Scholar

47 Samers, Michael, ‘An Emerging Geopolitics of “Illegal” Immigration in the European Union’, European Journal of Migration and Law, 6 (2004), pp. 2745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48 Lise Schuster, ‘The Realities of a New Asylum Paradigm’, Centre on Migration, Policy and Society Working Paper 20, 2005, available at http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/publications/Working%20papers/Liza%20Schuster%20wp0520.pdf.Google Scholar

49 Council of the European Union, ‘Note from Presidency to K4 Committee: Strategy Paper on Immigration and Asylum Policy’, CK4 27, ASIM 170, 9809/98 (OR.d) Brussels, 1 July 1998, paragraph 41.Google Scholar

50 Ibid., paragraphs 27 and 37.Google Scholar

51 Ibid., paragraph 41, emphasis added.Google Scholar

52 The 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam created the legal framework for a common European asylum system; for details, see UNHCR, State of the World's Refugees, 2006, p. 34. The Hague Programme of 2004 was a precursor to this; it set out a plan to develop ‘freedom, security and justice’ for the EU but one that underscores the right to seek asylum; see ibid., p. 35.Google Scholar

53 General Affairs Council, press release, 6/12/1998 (Press:431 Nr: 13677/98), 5–6 December 1998.Google Scholar

54 Boswell, Christine, ‘The External Dimension of EU Immigration and Asylum Policy’, International Affairs, 79: 3 (2003), pp. 619–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55 European Council, Presidency Conclusions, 15 and 16 October 1999.Google Scholar

56 Council of the European Union, Presidency Conclusions, Seville, 21 and 22 June 2002.Google Scholar

57 See for example press conference between Prime Minister Tony Blair and Prime Minister José Maria Aznar, 19 June 2002, available at http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page1718.asp.Google Scholar

58 Ben Hayes and T. Bunyan, ‘Migration, Development and the EU Security Agenda’, Statewatch, 2003, available at http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/sep/bhtb.pdf.Google Scholar

59 Cited in Betts, ‘The International Relations of the “New” Extraterritorial Approaches to Refugee Protection’, p. 59.Google Scholar

60 UNHCR, State of the World's Refugees, 2006, p. 40.Google Scholar

61 Council of the European Union, Presidency Conclusions, Thessaloniki, 19–20 June, 2003.Google Scholar

62 Cited in Betts, ‘The International Relations of the “New” Extraterritorial Approaches to Refugee Protection’, p. 63.Google Scholar

63 Ibid.Google Scholar

64 Cited in Samers, ‘An Emerging Geopolitics of “Illegal” Immigration’, p. 43, emphasis added.Google Scholar

65 Cited in UNHCR, State of the World's Refugees, 2006 SOWR, pp. 60–1.Google Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Another Brick in the Wall? Neo-Refoulement and the Externalization of Asylum by Australia and Europe 1
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Another Brick in the Wall? Neo-Refoulement and the Externalization of Asylum by Australia and Europe 1
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Another Brick in the Wall? Neo-Refoulement and the Externalization of Asylum by Australia and Europe 1
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *