Search

Keywords: Civil society; irregular migration; NGOs; migration management; borders; Europe EN Civil society irregular migration NGOs migration management borders Europe 1 11 11 01/20/23 20230201 NES 230201 Introduction This Special Issue considers the role of civil society, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society organizations (CSOs), in contemporary migration and border governance, with a particular focus on its relationship to states and on its involvement in the control of migration. Migration/border governance takes place in very different settings, particular in terms of the nature and role of states, and of the kind of society in which civil society intervenes. This scholarship raises core issues about non-state actors in migration/asylum governance, but focuses mainly on supra- and intergovernmental organizations rather than on civil society per se. This makes for an ambiguous situation, in which civil society is called upon to help states govern migration, but also to protect migrants from some of the consequences of governments' migration policies. [Extracted from the article]

This article analyses the search and rescue (SAR) activities carried out by three NGOs (MOAS, MSF and Sea-Watch) in the Central Mediterranean, and asks whether and in how far non-governmental SAR contributes to the repoliticization of the EU maritime border. The article first introduces the concept of depoliticization/repoliticization, as well as that of humanitarianization. Two sections summarize the development of the SAR regime and the governmentalization of international waters in the Strait of Sicily from the Cap Anamur case to 2016, and from late 2016 to recent days. Against this backdrop, the article analyses the different political positions taken by MOAS, MSF and Sea-Watch, their operational activities, as well as their cooperation and relations with the other actors involved in SAR. The three NGOs react differently to the contradictions that are typical of humanitarian non-state action. MOAS keeps a neutral political profile, whereas MSF and Sea-Watch regard their SAR activities as part of a political, not only humanitarian commitment. While the convergence of delocalized state sovereignty and humanitarian reason leaves hardly any room for manoeuvre, MSF and Sea-Watch try to question and contrast governmental policies and practices, as well as to turn international waters into a political stage from which they can make their voice heard and on which they can play the watchdog role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: By reflecting on both the exclusionary and the inclusionary role of humanitarian migration and border management in the Central Mediterranean, this paper explores the relationship of humanitarianism with the delocalization of the EU border and with human rights. First, the paper analyses the role of human rights in the institutional humanitarian discourse about migration and border management at the Mediterranean EU border. The paper then analyses the Italian operation Mare Nostrum and, more generally, Italian humanitarianized border management in the Central Mediterranean. In doing this, it shows that humanitarianism contributes to the discursive legitimation and spatial delocalization of exclusionary policies and practices. Moreover, humanitarianism contributes to a symbolically and legally subordinate inclusion of migrants in the European space. While such humanitarian inclusion can be more inclusive than what human rights would require, it is posited as an act of grace rather than an enhancement of human rights. In both its exclusionary and inclusionary dimension, humanitarianism transcends and expands territorial boundaries by outsourcing responsibilities and enhancing delocalized border management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 2012 migrants arriving regularly in Italy must sign an integration agreement and declare their agreement with a 'Charter of the values'. Insufficient integration (measured through a point-based system) results in deportation. While the point-based system discriminates against the poor, the less educated and qualified, the subordinate workers, and the nomads, the Charter is inspired by stereotypical and stigmatizing visions of Islam. This paper identifies the cases of discrimination, both legal (freedom of thought, presumption of innocence, principle of non-discrimination, right to an effective remedy, laicism of state) and symbolical, of the integration agreement, and analyses Italian integration measures before the background of the concept of differential inclusion: the incorporation of regular migrants requires them to pass under a symbolic and legal yoke, which increases their hierarchical differentiation. The integration agreement is also analyzed with regard to its relationship with border controls and with the concepts of 'illegalization' and 'deportability'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The island of Lampedusa is known as an EU border hotspot. Its high degree of 'borderness', though, is less the result of its geographical location than the product of a 'borderization' process carried out through specific policies, practices and discourses. The introduction explains what Lampedusa's 'borderness' consists in: irregular landings and the changed anthropic and human landscape have turned the island into an ideal observatory for all major issues of the current debate on migration-related border controls. The first section analyses the main factors of the 'borderization' process. Specific political choices (establishing a detention centre, concentrating migrants, dispatching border guards, employing patrol boats, involving humanitarian workers etc.) suggest that borders are the result of the placing and interaction of 'spatial bodies', as well as of legislative measures and international relations. The paper also regards Italian immigration control policies as a 'political spectacle', and Lampedusa as the theatre of the 'border play'. The second section therefore analyses the two narratives (the securitarian one of the 'tough' and the humanitarian one of the 'humane' border) prevailing in five different acts of the play, and shows that both are strictly connected and serve the same purpose of governing and managing human mobility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]