Suchergebnisse

While the management of the frontier separating Gibraltar from Spain is frequently contested by the inhabitants and the tiny British Overseas Territory and stays at the core of a tense international dispute between the United Kingdom and Spain, this work subverts views of the border as a threat or an obstacle to the normalization of political life in the tiny (post)colonial enclave. Here, Gibraltar is analysed as a micro state whose inhabitants' identity and practices of self-government generate from the border – rather than in opposition to it. As such, we show how the tightening of the frontier allows the discursive production of a Gibraltarian national identity as distinct from that of the Spanish neighbours that is central to maintain British control on the enclave.

While the management of the frontier separating Gibraltar from Spain is frequently contested by the inhabitants and the tiny British Overseas Territory and stays at the core of a tense international dispute between the United Kingdom and Spain, this work subverts views of the border as a threat or an obstacle to the normalization of political life in the tiny (post)colonial enclave. Here, Gibraltar is analysed as a micro state whose inhabitants' identity and practices of self-government generate from the border – rather than in opposition to it. As such, we show how the tightening of the frontier allows the discursive production of a Gibraltarian national identity as distinct from that of the Spanish neighbours that is central to maintain British control on the enclave.

Since years, European politics is monopolized by a sort of permanent migration crisis. Regardless of the actual size and modes of regular and irregular migration, the extremely mediatized images of arrivals projected from otherwise invisible border(is)lands are central to construct and sustain this everlasting emergency. Beyond any statistical consideration, illegal migration is almost unanimously associated with the disembarking of undocumented people in remote spots of the European border. There, academics concentrate their efforts to study the European governance of migration, at times (re)producing such political and media disproportionate attention. By critically engaging with my own research experiences along the European border, here I provide a view of the analytical dangers scholars might run when collecting data in those places. Concurrently, I also offer a number of strategies to overcome such dangers. ; Since years, European politics is monopolized by a sort of permanent migration crisis. Regardless of the actual size and modes of regular and irregular migration, the extremely mediatized images of arrivals projected from otherwise invisible border(is)lands are central to construct and sustain this everlasting emergency. Beyond any statistical consideration, illegal migration is almost unanimously associated with the disembarking of undocumented people in remote spots of the European border. There, academics concentrate their efforts to study the European governance of migration, at times (re)producing such political and media disproportionate attention. By critically engaging with my own research experiences along the European border, here I provide a view of the analytical dangers scholars might run when collecting data in those places. Concurrently, I also offer a number of strategies to overcome such dangers.

Since years, European politics is monopolized by a sort of permanent migration crisis. Regardless of the actual size and modes of regular and irregular migration, the extremely mediatized images of arrivals projected from otherwise invisible border(is)lands are central to construct and sustain this everlasting emergency. Beyond any statistical consideration, illegal migration is almost unanimously associated with the disembarking of undocumented people in remote spots of the European border. There, academics concentrate their efforts to study the European governance of migration, at times (re)producing such political and media disproportionate attention. By critically engaging with my own research experiences along the European border, here I provide a view of the analytical dangers scholars might run when collecting data in those places. Concurrently, I also offer a number of strategies to overcome such dangers. ; Since years, European politics is monopolized by a sort of permanent migration crisis. Regardless of the actual size and modes of regular and irregular migration, the extremely mediatized images of arrivals projected from otherwise invisible border(is)lands are central to construct and sustain this everlasting emergency. Beyond any statistical consideration, illegal migration is almost unanimously associated with the disembarking of undocumented people in remote spots of the European border. There, academics concentrate their efforts to study the European governance of migration, at times (re)producing such political and media disproportionate attention. By critically engaging with my own research experiences along the European border, here I provide a view of the analytical dangers scholars might run when collecting data in those places. Concurrently, I also offer a number of strategies to overcome such dangers.

Giacomo Orsini et al.'s chapter places the Gibraltar/Spanish border in a broader comparative perspective by including the island of Lampedusa and Melilla into the frame. All three examples point to the speed with which periods where people's common culture and humanity gets trumped by political turns, where bridges rapidly become barriers. The comparative framework is instructive because it places Gibraltar in the context of a broader set of phenomena.

While studies on gated communities and nationalism abound, almost no works exist that combine the analysis of both forms of socio-spatial organization. However, nation states and gated communities have much in common. Both national borders and the fences of gated communities symbolically and physically produce and reproduce otherness – against those from the other side – and sameness – amongst those from the same side. Here, Gibraltar constitutes an extremely interesting case study to combine the analysis of both nations and gated communities. With a population of about 30,000, until half a century ago most of the inhabitant of this tiny British Overseas Territory experienced cultural and social symbiosis with the inhabitants of the surrounding Spanish area of the Campo de Gibraltar. Yet, today the people of this tiny (post-)colonial peninsula identify themselves as a distinct nation whose collective identity is constructed in opposition to Spain and everything Spanish. Nevertheless, our research - an oral history project interviewing over 300 people - shows that the key difference between Gibraltarians and Spaniards has been economic and political security – with the border and its complete closure between 1969 and 1982 playing a key role in cementing those differences. As such, the border functions as those fences that mark gated communities, so that one way of understanding Gibraltar, then, is as a large gated community.

In Gibraltar one often hears that it is "an example to the world" because a good harmony prevails among the great variety of ethnic and religious groups coexisting in this tiny British Overseas Territory on the southern tip of the Iberian Peninsula. Over the last century, religious tolerance and ethnic diversity became two important identity markers of Gibraltar's nationhood. This paper analyses the political origins and instrumentalisation of this multicultural discourse, which emerged in the shadows of the diplomatic dispute between the UK and Spain over Gibraltar's sovereignty. We argue that, from the 1940s onwards, Gibraltar's political authorities have emphasised the multi-ethnic composition of the population to demonstrate a unique national identity, while simultaneously downplaying Spanish cultural influence over the territory. Today, many Gibraltarians have embraced this multicultural discourse as a key component of the national narrative. This paper concludes that multiculturalism in Gibraltar, although largely internalised, is not sui generis but part of a conscious effort since World War II to create an identity that it is different to a Spanish one.

Giacomo Orsini et al.'s chapter places the Gibraltar/Spanish border in a broader comparative perspective by including the island of Lampedusa and Melilla into the frame. All three examples point to the speed with which periods where people's common culture and humanity gets trumped by political turns, where bridges rapidly become barriers. The comparative framework is instructive because it places Gibraltar in the context of a broader set of phenomena.

In Gibraltar one often hears that it is "an example to the world" because a good harmony prevails among the great variety of ethnic and religious groups coexisting in this tiny British Overseas Territory on the southern tip of the Iberian Peninsula. Over the last century, religious tolerance and ethnic diversity became two important identity markers of Gibraltar's nationhood. This paper analyses the political origins and instrumentalisation of this multicultural discourse, which emerged in the shadows of the diplomatic dispute between the UK and Spain over Gibraltar's sovereignty. We argue that, from the 1940s onwards, Gibraltar's political authorities have emphasised the multi-ethnic composition of the population to demonstrate a unique national identity, while simultaneously downplaying Spanish cultural influence over the territory. Today, many Gibraltarians have embraced this multicultural discourse as a key component of the national narrative. This paper concludes that multiculturalism in Gibraltar, although largely internalised, is not sui generis but part of a conscious effort since World War II to create an identity that it is different to a Spanish one.

While studies on gated communities and nationalism abound, almost no works exist that combine the analysis of both forms of socio-spatial organization. However, nation states and gated communities have much in common. Both national borders and the fences of gated communities symbolically and physically produce and reproduce otherness – against those from the other side – and sameness – amongst those from the same side. Here, Gibraltar constitutes an extremely interesting case study to combine the analysis of both nations and gated communities. With a population of about 30,000, until half a century ago most of the inhabitant of this tiny British Overseas Territory experienced cultural and social symbiosis with the inhabitants of the surrounding Spanish area of the Campo de Gibraltar. Yet, today the people of this tiny (post-)colonial peninsula identify themselves as a distinct nation whose collective identity is constructed in opposition to Spain and everything Spanish. Nevertheless, our research - an oral history project interviewing over 300 people - shows that the key difference between Gibraltarians and Spaniards has been economic and political security – with the border and its complete closure between 1969 and 1982 playing a key role in cementing those differences. As such, the border functions as those fences that mark gated communities, so that one way of understanding Gibraltar, then, is as a large gated community.

AbstractImmigration to Europe increasingly emerges as a core security concern. In response to these growing anxieties the external border of Schengen space of free movement of people was established to limit uncontrolled immigration to the European Union. Yet, looking closely at how this border works in Lampedusa and its surrounding seawaters, one realizes the functioning of the European external border works to undermine the legitimacy of institutions on the island, de facto challenging law enforcement both on the island as well as at sea. Based on the data collected during the six‐months‐long fieldwork that I conducted on the island, this paper disentangles the complex machinery of the border as it structures in Lampedusa, and presents how such complex governing technology works through authorities' strategic use of local land and seawaters and their simultaneous neglect for the concerns of the population inhabiting them – representing a major source of insecurity for islanders.

European Union (EU) responses to maritime boundary disputes reveal certain paradoxes of governance. The increasing interest of EU states in controlling larger maritime areas and the public and private exploitation of marine and seabed resources are enhancing the territorialization of the sea. The EU as a political project claims to transcend state-vested interests, promoting peaceful dispute resolution when it comes to maritime boundary disputes. This article highlights common drivers of maritime boundary disputes involving member states and the role played by the EU in solving them (or not). The purpose is to provide an investigative introduction that can aid further analyses by showing that EU membership is not in itself sufficient to address historical antagonisms, geographical realities and national/economic interests when it comes to the maritime space. However, the EU does have a positive role to play as a facilitator of diplomatic negotiation, potentially holding both stick and carrot. The current Blue Growth agenda naturally calls for the settlement of disputes and the peaceful use of the oceans, but it can also play a role in feeding them via the incentivization of actors involved in profit-generating activities at sea.