Search

How do foreign policies and transnational projects become resistant to critique? This article seeks to better understand the legitimation of policies by studying the work involved in justifying public funding of migration and development initiatives. Government expenditures on migration and development have been increasing in recent years, despite widely shared concerns regarding the merits of such initiatives. In this article, we focus our attention on the European Union Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF). The EUTF has been assessed by EU agencies as a successful intervention, while never hiding its inability to achieve demonstrable progress toward its goals of addressing the "root causes" of the 2015–2016 migration "crisis" in the Mediterranean. We argue that this fund was legitimized as a valuable policy intervention through the efforts of European officials and Monitoring and Evaluation experts to, borrowing from Bourdieu, "convert capital": translate one form of power resource into another form. Based on document analysis and 25 key informant interviews, we trace how EUTF officials successfully converted capital by, first, mobilizing political resources to generate economic capital for migration-related projects in Africa; and second, transforming some of this economic capital into more lasting symbolic capital which justifies long-term migration and development initiatives. In short, money becomes legitimacy. We argue that this "conversion work" helps us to better understand the continued growth and upholding of migration and development financing which consists not only of raw funds but also involves continuous efforts to legitimize these expenditures as inherently valuable policy interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To what extent can we infer government objectives from policies on paper? We show that this assumption in migration scholarship is problematic because most states adopt immigration policies that are inconsistent, combining or alternating between contradictory objectives. Further, we develop a measure to track how immigration policy inconsistency varies over time. We use these methods to demonstrate that some of the main theories of policy inconsistency, which focus on variables located at the national scale, find limited empirical support. Based on these findings, we make the case for further research into the local scale of politics, focusing on the agency of street-level bureaucrats and migrants. We then discuss the potential for crossing quantitative and qualitative divides in order to further explore the impact of local factors on national immigration policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human capacity to explore and shape outer space will increase substantially over the next 50 years. Yet, International Relations (IR) theory still treats outer space as an isolated, unique, or inconsequential realm of political life. This paper moves IR beyond its 'terrestrial trap' by theorising planetary politics as inherently embedded in relations with environments and actors that are located beyond Earth. To face the momentous and often alarming political developments taking place in outer space, from space militarisation to space colonisation, we challenge two of IR's terrestrial biases. First, we confront the assumption that developments in international relations take place only or primarily on Earth. We show how the historically constituted ideologies and political economies of colonisation and domination are extended to – but also transformed within – outer space exploration and settlement. Second, we challenge the notion that developments in outer space form a logical extension of politics as it has emerged on the habitable surface of our planet. We move beyond zones of human habitation and explore how the material conditions of space intersect with situated histories of political governance and control. By analysing politics beyond Earth, we retool IR theory to confront an extraterrestrial political future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What sort of political actors are international migrants? This article approaches this question by studying how migrants move between legality and illegality. We have struggled to understand the political content of this behaviour, because we have viewed it as either an attempt to gain the state's acceptance as quasi-citizens or an attempt to autonomously subvert the state. However, migrants are more ambivalent political actors than either of these perspectives suggest. We argue that the political content of migrants' efforts to move between legality and illegality can be better understood as a form of 'hacking': the 'repurposing' of institutionalized forms of political status in ways that compel the 'reprogramming' of systems of control. In order to develop this argument empirically, we draw on ethnographic research on the governance of migration between Myanmar and Malaysia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our understanding of contemporary international relations rests on flawed images of the past. One of the most problematic dimensions of this history is the idea that the core institutions and practices of modern territorial sovereignty originated in Europe before being gradually extended to other parts of the globe. A key dimension of this Euro-centric historiography is the story that the territorial sovereignty norm was invented in Europe in the seventeenth century, before Europeans honed it into a standard technique of state practice in the twentieth. This paper uses original archival research to critically interrogate the consensus position. The paper demonstrates that the dominant narrative significantly misconstrues the way rulers and governments sought to control migration across the longue durée. European rulers were more collectively seeking to transnationally promote migration at the same time as they individually acquired territorial sovereign control over it. Extra-European states were the first to deploy territorial immigration controls, and non-Europeans shaped the forms of mobility promotion Europeans would adopt. The paper uses these findings to make the case for a new chronology of European migration governance and for a critical institutionalist approach to the way we write the history of the global migration regime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]