Jurisdiction, Sovereignties and Akwesasne: Shiprider and the Re-Crafting of Canada-US Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement

Pratt, Anna; Templeman, Jessica

doi:10.1017/cls.2018.26

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(64 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, a danger is inherent in the valorization of border renaissance without consideration of how entangled state borders fashioned through cross-border cooperation and many forms of integration actually create layers of law and practice that are frequently manipulated by the most powerful actors, usually the nation-state, to enact violence, evade human rights, detain people, and then deny accountability. Anna C. Pratt and Jessica Templeman (2018) Can we advance beyond the separable to the entangled? What constitutes the active boundary between these states?…”

Section: Borders In Globalization Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Border Renaissance in a Time of Border Perplexity? The Question of Renaissance/Renascence in a Post-Globalization World

Konrad

2024

BIG_Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay explores questions of why and how there can be a border renaissance in a time of border profusion and confusion. Are we simply witnessing border renascence, a revival of the statist boundary, despite globalization? Or is the renaissance of the border new growth arising from incomprehension of the border in the 21st century? With reference to research in North America, Southeast Asia, and Europe, this article examines the entangled state of the border to discern what is unaccountable from what is complicated and to differentiate rebirth and revival of classical border thinking from that which addresses the perplexity of borders. In my view, a renaissance in border studies flirts with a return to the archaic through definition and explication of borders everywhere. A true renaissance in border studies must confront the entangled state as process, spirit, style, form, and other influences at once rooted in the classical and portrayed and performed in a post-globalization era of border rediscovery. The goal of this essay is to confront the notion of border renaissance, not to diminish the concept, but to reveal the fuller meaning and impact of border rebirth and revival.

show abstract

Section: Borders In Globalization Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Border Renaissance in a Time of Border Perplexity? The Question of Renaissance/Renascence in a Post-Globalization World

Konrad

2024

BIG_Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Maritime operations regularly involve shared coercion over travellers' movement. Since the early 1990s, the United States has signed numerous bilateral agreements providing for shipriders from other countries to be stationed on U.S. vessels and authorise entering those countries' territorial waters to intercept irregular migrants and smugglers (Robinson 2009;Pratt and Templeman 2018). Similarly, Mauritanian officials act as shipriders on Spanish vessels (Casas-Cortes, Cobarrubias, and Pickles 2014).…”

Section: Moatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Remote control of migration: theorising territoriality, shared coercion, and deterrence

Fitzgerald

2019

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

'Remote control' has been a radical innovation that projects many aspects of migration and border enforcement beyond a state's territory. Scholars across multiple disciplines make distinctive and sometimes contradictory claims about the extent to which state control over space and geographic borders is of declining significance. Drawing on a study of remote control policies in the United States, Canada, the EU, and Australia since the 1930s, this paper argues that states push much of their migration control out from their territorial boundaries though a process of extraterritorialisation. However, these liberal states simultaneously ratchet up controls at a finely calibrated border line in a process of hyper-territorialisation. The goal of restricting migrants' access to territorialised human and civil rights drives both of these manipulations of territoriality. A taxonomy of controls based on the metaphor of an 'architecture of repulsion' describes their logic and practice. Many of these practices involve states sharing the legitimate means of coercion over movement in a way that challenges a core assumption about modern states. The degree to which remote control deters unauthorised migration remains a critical research question, but there is more deterrence than found in standard measures of border enforcement efficacy.

show abstract

By What Jurisdiction? Law, Settler Colonialism, and the Geographical Assumptions of IR Theory

Irani

2024

International Political Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I consider critical writings on territory in International Relations, focusing on recent work on U.S. practices of extraterritorial jurisdiction. I suggest that, while such work has importantly traced the multiple ways in which U.S. authority often exceeds the supposed territorial boundaries of the United States, it has nonetheless failed to reckon with the contested and uneven nature of U.S. authority within such supposed boundaries. In particular, IR scholarship has failed to engage with the ways in which U.S. authority has been, and continued to be, contested by Indigenous people and nations. This failure is the product of an assumption that lies at the heart of the discipline—the assumption that Indigenous people are internal to colonizing or settler states. I suggest that the internalization of Indigenous people and Indigenous political organization that is at play in much IR scholarship is not simply a product of a generalized “state-centrism” or a product of histories of settler colonialism, writ large. Rather, at the heart of the territorial assignations and allotments of IR scholarship are assumptions about legal authority or jurisdiction—about who has jurisdiction to define and assign land, about who does not, and what law means at all. Critiquing these assumptions and their political implications, I show the importance of asking: “by what jurisdiction”? That is, what is the legal authority that we implicitly accept and assert when we designate territory in particular ways? The question insists that there are multiple laws (including multiple international laws) at play in global politics and opens up space for critical and postcolonial IR scholars to better take responsibility for their (often implicit) choices between multiple laws.

show abstract

Jurisdiction, Sovereignties and Akwesasne: Shiprider and the Re-Crafting of Canada-US Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement

Cited by 5 publications

References 37 publications

Border Renaissance in a Time of Border Perplexity? The Question of Renaissance/Renascence in a Post-Globalization World

Border Renaissance in a Time of Border Perplexity? The Question of Renaissance/Renascence in a Post-Globalization World

Remote control of migration: theorising territoriality, shared coercion, and deterrence

By What Jurisdiction? Law, Settler Colonialism, and the Geographical Assumptions of IR Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About