Suchergebnisse

This paper was accepted for publication in the journal Millennium: Journal of International Studies and the definitive published version is available at https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829817708812. ; Migration Management, a regime of radical differentiation and exclusion, renders many people illegal because they violate the laws of access across geopolitical borders. Migration Management further disappears some of these illegal people outside of the external boundaries of the Global North. Recently, however, discursive moves to mobilise the concept of the 'missing person' in the context of illegal migration have been introduced when discussing Mediterranean migration in particular. This article offers an ethico-political evaluation of conceptual innovations. It asks if a reconceptualisation of the illegal migrant as 'missing person' is able to destabilise Migration Management and concludes that this is unlikely. The article illustrates how this reconceptualisation cements the more radical practices of exclusion whilst the boundary drawing is reformulated as one between dead and living migrants.

This is an Accepted Manuscript of a book chapter [introductory chapter] published by Routledge in The Evolution of Migration Management in the Global North on 7 March 2017, available online: http://www.routledge.com/9781138185340 ; The Evolution of Migration Management in the Global North explores how the radically violent migration management paradigm that dominates today's international migration has been assembled. Drawing on unique archive material, it shows how a forum of diplomats and civil servants constructed the 'transit country' as a site in which the illegal migrant became the main actor to be vilified. Policy-makers are divided between those who oppose migration, and those who support it, so long as it is properly managed. Any other position is generally seen at best as utopian. This volume advances a new way of conceptualizing policy-making in international migration at the regional and international level. Introducing the concept of 'informal plurilateralism', Oelgemöller explores how the Inter-Governmental Consultations on Asylum, Migration and Refugees (IGC), created the hegemonic paradigm of 'Migration Management', thus enabling today's specific ways the 'migrant' has their juridico-political status violently denied. This raises crucial questions about what democracy is and about the way in which the value of a human being is established, granted or denied.

This paper was accepted for publication in the journal International Journal of Migration and Border Studies and the definitive published version is available at https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMBS.2017.083218 ; Is it possible to make illegal migrants intelligible as a force creating social space? What is transit space? Many migration experts seem to ignore the transit space beyond managing geopolitical borders. Much academic literature analyses this space in terms of the migrant's (in)capacity to act. Drawing on this literature, I argue that transit space policies are on the one hand the condition of possibility for a particular kind of illegality of the transit space and the condition of possibility for ephemeral spaces of solidarity/creativity quite different from the places of citizenship (accorded or denied). Geopolitical transit space is intrinsically important to understanding how contradictory mobility practices are constructed. My speculation is informed by a postanarchist perspective and draws on selected ethnographic studies for illustration. Approaching transit space as contradictory constellation makes it political in that abstract logics imposed by the European discursive order interact with ephemeral practices producing violence and solidarity in such a way that what is licit and illicit is thrown open to radical questioning.

This article introduces the idea of informal plurilateralism as a form of policy-making. I show how ideas are mooted and moulded and then filter into technocratic systems of governance at the national level, where these are normalised into the formal, public discourse. I draw on archival material to show how informal plurilateralism has crept into policy-making in international fora on migration, pushing aside more transparent processes, particularly the more openly negotiated multilateral agenda. Informal plurilateralism tends to be portrayed as a welcome addition to formal and informal multilateralism, suggesting that, on the basis of ideational affiliation, policy-makers move to extra-institutional and opaque fora to consult on problems they commonly identify, such as the perceived loss of control over immigration into Europe. Such a benign presentation obscures the closed and non-transparent nature of these negotiations. Adapted from the source document.