Homogenous and Extra-territorial Border Regime? Migrations and Control Efforts Across the Eastern EU External Border

Bruns, Bettina

doi:10.1080/08865655.2017.1402194

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With regard to the relations with Libyan and European governmental actors, what has been observed in other EU-neighbouring countries, namely that “[n]ot just the EU, also the third states themselves pass their obligations within the area of the migration policy on to non-state actors” (Bruns, 2019: 13), is not entirely true in Libya. Not only are NGOs/CSOs funded by non-Libyan (mostly European) governmental sources in the first place, but Libyan authorities do not even feel they have any obligations towards migrants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridgeheads of EU border externalisation? NGOs/CSOs and migration in Libya

Cuttitta

2023

Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper analyses the work carried out by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society organisations (CSOs) in Libya from 2009 to 2020 to shed light on its ambivalent relationship to the EU externalisation of migration and border management. While also looking at Libyan organisations, and at initiatives such as EU-funded professionalisation projects, which aim to co-opt the nascent local civil society into the EU border externalisation mechanism, the paper largely focuses on international NGOs, with specific attention being paid to the Italian NGO CIR. The paper shows that even in the difficult Libyan context there is some potential for NGOs/CSOs to radically and effectively oppose EU externalisation, or at least try to do so through activities such as public information and advocacy. However, in a context in which migrants are systematically exposed to a wide range of abuses, and foreign or foreign-funded actors are seen with suspicion, NGOs/CSOs have limited room for manoeuvre. In fact, they mostly end up filling the gaps of the local migration and border management system on behalf of their (European) donors, thus supporting the smooth operation of externalised border management. This is also visible in the way NGOs/CSOs address human rights, interact with donors and local authorities, and perpetuate dichotomies and categorisations that support migration containment policies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridgeheads of EU border externalisation? NGOs/CSOs and migration in Libya

Cuttitta

2023

Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast to the concrete natural or man-made boundaries that separate the peoples between two states, some areas on the globe are characterised by homogenous topography along with identical human behaviour, food habits, similar attire and languages on both the frontiers (Bruns, 2017). For example, the porous border between Nepal and India can be taken as an example.…”

Section: Border Demarcation Diplomacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Diplomacy in the Perspective of Boundaries

Shrestha¹

2021

J. Foreign Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diplomacy is an instrument for negotiation to find mutually acceptable solutions to a common challenge in a non-confrontational and polite manner. In this perspective, border diplomacy refers to the diplomatic approaches to demarcate, manage and resolve the border disputes in a peaceful manner. For Nepal, border diplomacy for demarcation and management should be based on the dynamic equilibrium of both the neighbours, China and India. This paper revisits the crux of diplomacy and border diplomacy for the peaceful settlement of disputes in a peaceful way. The research emphasizes on border demarcation diplomacy, focussing on Nepal-India and Nepal-China borders. The study explains about the border dispute between Nepal and India in the region of Lipulek, Limpiyadhura and Kalapani. Further, the paper suggests border management diplomacy for Nepal-China and Nepal-India, focusing on the Kalapani issue, and alerts about the possible circumstances during the negotiations and recommends Nepal’s potential strategies for border management in the future.

show abstract

“…Although the EU border regime and its externalisation of migration management have been widely analysed and discussed in the academic literature (Afail et al, 2018; Bobić and Šantić, 2019; Bruns, 2019; Casas-Cortes et al, 2019; Crane, 2019), a detailed analysis of the performative role of language remains largely lacking. Indeed, scholars have investigated the role of knowledge production at the border, analysing both expert knowledge (Aradau and Munster, 2007; Amoore and Raley, 2017; Martins and Jumbert, 2020) and the knowledge produced by technology (Glouftsios and Scheel, 2021) and cartography (Cobarrubias, 2019; Van Houtum and Bueno Lacy, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A close look at the EU–Turkey deal: The language of border externalisation

Casaglia

Pacciardi

2022

Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article discusses the language of border externalisation processes by examining the knowledge that stands as the basis of the EU–Turkey deal and reports on its implementation, placing them in the context of the transformation of the EU border regime. It is the result of a study addressing the language and key concepts that organise border externalisation and its geographic and biopolitical episteme. Our interest lies in the production of knowledge emerging from the EU–Turkey deal, and its effects on both the mainstream discourse on migration and the legitimation and acceptance of violent border management practices. To do this, we offer an interpretation of the textual materials composing the deal as promoting a discourse on migrants that strictly categorises territories and peoples, and establishes geographies of control and hierarchies of deserving and undeserving subjects, by asserting new forms of biopolitical control and care over their bodies. The presentation of research results combines the extraction of keywords and sentences from the documents analysed with an interpretation of their epistemic strength in producing and promoting specific biased Eurocentric narratives on migrants and migration. At the core of the agreement’s texts we find the category of the ‘deserving migrant’ as increasingly defining and circumscribing mobility, and realised in the one-for-one swap policy.

show abstract

Homogenous and Extra-territorial Border Regime? Migrations and Control Efforts Across the Eastern EU External Border

Cited by 7 publications

References 17 publications

Bridgeheads of EU border externalisation? NGOs/CSOs and migration in Libya

Bridgeheads of EU border externalisation? NGOs/CSOs and migration in Libya

Diplomacy in the Perspective of Boundaries

A close look at the EU–Turkey deal: The language of border externalisation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About