Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2014
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
24 See for example Hugo, Graeme, ‘From Compassion to Compliance? Trends in Refugee and Humanitarian Migration in Australia’, Geoforum, 55 (2001), pp. 27–37;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
33 Michael Welch, Detained: Immigration Laws and the Expanding I.N.S. Jail Complex, Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 2002.Google 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. 55–77.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. 58–70,Google Scholar p. 63.
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
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
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
56 Council of the European Union, Presidency Conclusions, Seville, 21 and 22 June 2002.Google Scholar
59 Cited in Betts, ‘The International Relations of the “New” Extraterritorial Approaches to Refugee Protection’, p. 59.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
64 Cited in Samers, ‘An Emerging Geopolitics of “Illegal” Immigration’, p. 43, emphasis added.Google Scholar