The saved and the drowned: Governing indifference in the name of security

Abstract

The duty to render assistance at sea appears to be a well-established humanitarian norm; nonetheless, in 2011 alone more than 1500 people drowned in the Mediterranean. Witnesses recount that many could have been rescued if fellow seafarers had not ignored their pleas for help. Struggling to understand failures to rescue, many seek to portray indifference as individual failure from the norm. In contrast hereto, this article provides an insight into the governing of indifference in contemporary liberal societies -that is, how people are guided towards becoming indifferent to the lives and sufferings of particular populations. Thus, my focus will be on the workings of law and its potential to produce collective indifference. The drowned, I argue, are not casualties of individual immoral behaviour; through a system of sanctions, fellow human beings are encouraged to look away and even to let people die at borders in the name of security. This not only dilutes the legal duty to rescue but has also had a detrimental impact upon the normative landscape, leading to a distinction between worthy lives that fall within the duty to rescue and charitable lives becoming a question of benevolence.

Europe's failed ‘fight’ against irregular migration: ethnographic notes on a counterproductive industry

“…Andreas and Snyder 2000;Bigo and Guild 2005). Many such studies have focused on the repressive aspects of controls, for instance as regards the deadly politics of the high seas (Albahari 2006;Basaran 2015); the perils of encampment (Agier 2014); or the biopolitics of controls (De Genova and Peutz 2010;Fassin 2001). While building on these important findings, this article will focus not on the repressive but on the 'productive' aspects of border controls.…”

From Zero to Hero? An analysis of the human rights protections within the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM)

“…It is weaker than the original version in adding the word “exclusively”, and more encompassing by moving from “never criminalized” to “not considered unlawful”. Objective 9 on migrant smuggling, however, lacks any references to the need to protect humanitarian acts and actors (encompassing individuals, NGOs and commercial vessels) from investigation and prosecution under anti‐smuggling laws, an issue that has arisen on multiple occasions in various countries (Basaran, ). Equally in objective 11 on borders and objective 12 on migration procedures, civil society presence, but also access to legal representation, legal aid, interpreters and procedural rights at the border are not even mentioned.…”

Repoliticization Through Search and Rescue? Humanitarian NGOs and Migration Management in the Central Mediterranean

“…42 However, in the case of the Cap Anamur the attempt to turn a rescue intervention into a political act of contestation was arguably crucial in determining that particular reaction of the Italian authorities: for the first time, rescuing lives resulted in legal prosecution. The Cap Anamur, much more than fishing boats and cargo vessels, posed a challenge to the monopoly of the state in matters of life and death.…”