Anselm Kiefer: Die Argonauten (2017), Galerie Thaddaeus Ropac
Carrier sanctions, by which transport companies are penalised if they do not refuse embarkation to undocumented persons, play a role in perpetuating harms (denial of refugee protection; death) against migrants. They do so because transport companies are obliged to by legislation of destination states in Europe, North America and Australia. The potential accountability and responsibility of carriers for these harms has not been addressed in literature on human rights law. This article fills this gap through the application of Iris Young’s social connection model to address the contemporary harms of carrier sanctions. We propose that, faced with conflicting legal obligations, carriers have moral and legal obligations to remedy, through strategic actions, the harms to which they contribute. We outline a number of possible practices that carriers can use to do so.
Theodore Baird and Thomas Spijkerboer: Carrier Sanctions and the Conflicting Legal Obligations of Carriers- Addressing Human Rights Leakage, to be published in Amsterdam Law Forum 10(2018)
Constant: New Babylon (photo Sylvia Korving)
Since the end of the Cold War, migration law and policy of the global North has been characterised by externalisation, privatisation and securitisation. These developments
have been conceptualised as denying access to migrants and as politics of non-entrée. This article proposes to broaden the analysis, and to analyse unwanted migration as merely one form of international human mobility by relying on the concept of the global mobility infrastructure. The global mobility infrastructure consists of the physical structures, services and laws that enable some people to move across the globe with high speed, low risk, and at low cost. People who have no access to it travel slowly, with high risk and at high cost. Within the global mobility infrastructure, travellers benefit from advanced forms of international law. For the excluded, international law reflects and embodies their exclusion before, during and after their travel to the global North. Exclusion is based on nationality, race, class and gender. The notion of the global mobility infrastructure allows for questioning the way in which international law reproduces these forms of stratification.
The Global Mobility Infrastructure: Reconceptualising the Externalisation of Migration Control, to be published in European Journal of Migration and Law 20(2018), 452-469
Willem Bartel van der Kooi: Het gestoorde pianospel (1813), collectie Rijksmuseum
Annotatie bij de uitspraak van de Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State van 24 augustus 2018, te verschijnen in Jurisprudentie Veemdelingenrecht 2018/163.
The EU crackdown on human smuggling has only served to accelerate the cycle of desperate journeys, making them more perilous than ever – while enriching those who peddle dreams of a new life.
The Guardian, 20 June 2018; a German version was published in der Freitag, 26/2018.
Wijnand Nuijen: Shipwreck on a Rocky Coast (ca 1837), Rijksmuseum Amsterdam
Links en rechts zijn ernstig verdeeld over het migratiebeleid, dat te streng zou zijn of juist niet streng genoeg. Maar over één ding zijn ze het eens: streng beleid leidt tot minder immigratie. Drie recente studies tonen dat die overtuiging op een misvatting berust. De invoering van een restrictief migratiebeleid in 1973 kan wel eens een historische vergissing zijn geweest. Zeven ideeën om de historische vergissing te repareren.
Maak de grens potdicht en je krijgt juist méér migranten, gepubliceerd in Trouw, Letter & Geest, 21 april 2018
Marlene Dumas: Moshekwa (2006)
Onder het Zuid-Afrikaanse Apartheidsregime werd, net als nu in Europa, een situatie geschapen waarin grote aantallen mensen als illegale vreemdelingen werden aangemerkt. Dit artikel brengt in kaart hoe, op basis van de status van illegale vreemdeling, mensen uit hun huizen konden en kunnen worden gezet omdat ze niet mogen wonen waar ze wonen. De hiervoor gegeven rechtvaardigingen worden gegroepeerd in enerzijds binnenlands ruimtelijk beleid (ruimtelijke ordening in het geval van Zuid-Afrika, openbare orde in het hedendaagse Europa), en anderzijds buitenlands ruimtelijk beleid, dat will zeggen migratierecht. Een laatste deel bespreekt waar de vergelijking tussen Zuid-Afrika onder Apartheid en het hedendaagse Europa zinvol is, en waar de parallel haar grenzen bereikt.
Legitimatie van ontruimingen in het hedendaagse Europa en Zuid-Afrika onder Apartheid, Nederlands Juristenblad 2018, p. 856-864
On 29 March, 2018, a group of leading international law academics called for Italy to cease its policy of promoting, directing and enforcing returns to Libya with immediate effect after Italian authorities recently seized the Spanish NGO rescue boat ‘Open Arms’. The academics also called on Italy to cease prosecuting actors who deliver people rescued at sea to a place of safety. They argue that Italy is acting in violation of international law.
On March 18, 2018, the ‘Open Arms’ refused to hand over to the Libyan coast guard 218 people it had rescued in international waters. The Italian authorities initiated criminal investigations against the NGO coordinator and the captain of the boat. And Italy claims that they were obliged to do so, on the basis of the Italian NGO Code of Conduct. Instead, the ‘Open Arms’ brought two rescued persons to Malta (where a mother and child were hospitalized in critical condition), and the remaining to Italy. The NGO people face prosecution on account of taking part in human smuggling (Le Monde, 22 March 2018).
Under international law, shipmasters are under the obligation to assist people in distress at sea, and to bring them to a place of safety. The captain of the ‘Open Arms’ has complied with this requirement by rescuing the 218 people and subsequently refusing to hand them over to the Libyan coast guard. On the basis of well documented human rights reports, the captain knew that handing them to the Libyan coast guard would imply the real risk that the 218 people would be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, slavery, or forced or compulsory labour, which constitute grave human rights violations or even crimes against humanity. Libya is not a place of safety as required under international law.
The full text of the statement is avaialble here.
El Anatsui: Bleeding Takari II, 2007 (Museum of Modern Art, New York)
Last year the Court of Justice of the European Union issued two judgments on the Syrian refugee crisis. Both cases concerned Europe’s externalization of migration policy – i.e. the legal and practical measures taken to enforce refugee exclusion outside or at the borders of the territories of EU member states. These policies have been labeled as the politics of non-entrée by Hathaway & Gammeltoft-Hansen. In the judgments, the Court decided that it was not competent to rule on the cases because it had no jurisdiction. As I have argued more extensively in an article published open access in the Journal of Refugee Studies, the result of this is that law is not only an instrument for excluding people from European territory. The exclusion now runs through law itself. Although European fundamental human rights law is still formally neutral, the exclusion of non-Europeans is becoming a core element of European law.
The full blogpost was published on Forced Migration Forum, 19 January 2018.
Calais 2016 (photo Getty)
This paper undertakes to investigate parallels between evictions of irregularized persons in Apartheid South Africa and contemporary Europe. In both cases, people were denied the right to a home (or at least: to the home they were occupying at that moment) because they were considered to be illegal aliens. But how did this situation come about? How did these people become illegal aliens? And while it seems obvious that illegal aliens can be deported from the territory, how did their alien status come to justify the destruction of their homes? Pursuing the association means we will not only identify similarities, but also try to establish where the association meets it limits. The aim of pursuing a visual association across time and space is not primarily to draw exact parallels. In contemporary Europe, the use of violence of a “white” state in order to destroy the housing of “non-whites” is accepted as a normal element in the regulation of “non-white” populations. The association with Apartheid seeks to problematize this normality by pointing to the uneasy pedigree of such practices.
Legitimizing Evictions in Contemporary Europe and Apartheid South Africa , 14 Ameriquests (2017) 1, p. 6-22
Barnett Newman: Catehdra (1951), Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam
The externalization of European migration policy has resulted in a bifurcation of global human mobility, which is divided along a North/South axis. In two judgments, the EU Court of Justice was confronted with cases challenging the exclusion of Syrian refugees from Europe. These cases concern core elements of externalization, being third country agreements (the EU-Turkey Statement of March 2016) and visa requirements for refugees. This article seeks to analyze these judgments in the context of the broader developments in European migration law and policy. The core argument developed here is that the bifurcation of human mobility is reflected in a bifurcation of law. Excluded people are not merely to be excluded from European territory, but also from European law.
Bifurcation of people, bifurcation of law. Externalization of migration policy before the EU Court of Justice, Journal of Refugee Studies 31 (2018), p. 216-239