Migration and Humanitarian Borders; Violation of Human Rights under the Banner of Human Rights in the European Union

Document Type : Original Independent Original Article

Author

Associate Professor, Political Science Department, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Seeking asylum and migration, and their consequent effects and consequences, are among the facts and problems in the contemporary world. In this regard, "humanitarian borders" is a novel concept in the international system that monitors some attempts at alleviating the pain and suffering of migrants on borders, especially those of the European Union. In practice, these attempts have failed to secure the rights of migrants and have been overshadowed by the security interests of the EU. This paper aims to determine to what extent arranging humanitarian borders by the EU has provided migrants and refugees with their basic rights. According to the research hypothesis, humanitarian policies and actions on the EU borders, which should logically mitigate the pain and suffering of migrants and refugees, are overshadowed by political considerations rather than compliance with human right requirements. In fact, these policies and actions have become a part of the tool to justify various acts of violence on the EU borders. Using a normative-descriptive framework, this paper employs a qualitative method based on the literature on humanitarian borders to analyze the abovementioned process. It also aims to indicate that emphasizing the procedures and components of human security rather than those of national security and governmental security can provide a favorable framework for the implementation of humanitarian borders. This security concerns human life and dignity and its ultimate goal is to protect the principal foundations of human life from pervasive threats in addition to providing refugees and migrants with long-term interests.

Highlights

Introduction

In the modern world where there are increasing conflicts, “migration” and “asylum” are no longer considered exceptional situations. According to a report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the number of asylum seekers, refugees, and displaced people reached 100 million people in 2022. However, this figure was nearly 90 million people in 2021, a large percentage of whom consisted of women and children. Although there are conventions and protocols of international laws monitoring the support for the rights of refugees, the concept of humanitarian borders has been overshadowed by the security interests of the EU countries over the past decade.

The concept of humanitarian borders was first developed and introduced by William Walters in a paper entitled Foucault and Frontiers: Notes on the Birth of the Humanitarian Border in 2010. This concept monitors humanitarian attempts at managing the crisis of refugees and migrants to European borders. In addition to reviewing the scientific literature on “humanitarian borders”, this paper aims to both quantitatively and qualitatively analyze the outcomes of implementing this concept in relation to migrants and refugees on the one hand the response and with regard to the interests of the EU on the other hand.

 

Methodology

Within a normative-descriptive framework, this paper employs a qualitative method and focuses on the literature on humanitarian borders to answer the following question: Is the humanitarianism embedded in the concept of humanitarian borders by the EU ethical, unbiased and concerned with mitigating the pain and suffering of migrants and refugees? According to the research hypothesis, humanitarian policies and actions, which should alleviate the pain and suffering of migrants and refugees at least under the concept of humanitarian borders, are sometimes political. In practice, they have become a part of the tool to justify various kinds of violence on the borders. Hence, this paper analyzes the paradoxical dichotomy between humanitarianism and securitization in the concept of humanitarian borders on the EU borders.

Results and Discussion

In recent years, mass media and political players, especially the newly emerged right-wing populist movements, have extensively propagated the panic and fear of severe border crises in Western democracies as a result of a sudden increase in the number of migrants and refugees to their borders since 2015. European countries have raised the concept of humanitarian borders to softly and delicately confront such critical conditions and benefit from the capacity of humanitarian concepts in order to evade media sensitivities and public opinion.

The EU external borders policy in the Mediterranean region is a classic exemplar of humanitarian borders. Apparently, it was developed to address humanitarian needs; however, it was essentially designed based on security interests. In other words, although this legal regime was established to save the lives of refugees and migrants in Europe, it actually put registration and filtering of the migrants who entered Italy irregularly on its agenda. The humanitarian border system, which has turned into the central paradigm of Europe’s border regime, apparently focuses on saving human lives while trying to conceal the violence on the borders. According to the reports published by human right organizations, despite the initial admiration of humanitarian borders, systematic violence is observed on the borders. Furthermore, conditions are extremely inhumane at refugee camps, and refugees face the risk of death on these borders.

Europeans reiterate the humanitarian care and control approach to the world in order that humanitarian concepts can cover their security interests. Control and humanitarianism on humanitarian borders are the two sides of the same coin. Institutionalizing inequality and creating the concept of “the others” in Europeans’ encounter with migrants are the inseparable part of this concept. In the humanitarian management of borders, the waywardness of states is not limited only to the refugee camps. In fact, states dictate a governing logic that penetrates the daily social lives of refugees; therefore, access to the basic human rights is turned into a daily fight for migrants.

 

Conclusion

European humanitarian borders now witness the implementation of a new method for discriminating between “us” and “others” in the framework of humanitarian concepts. In fact, humanitarianism, while increasingly controlling, safeguarding and securitizing the borders, has violated the rights of refugees and asylum seekers more than ever before. Moreover, the vociferously advertised claim of compassion in saving people’s lives has institutionalized a situation of uncontrollable inequality and racism, which manifests itself especially in addressing migrants as “others” and creating extremely inhuman conditions.

In between humanitarian attempts and securitization of the issue of migrants and asylum seekers, placing human security at the center of EU’s border policy will be the essence of a better political discourse that, if adopted, will secure the rights of migrants.  In this approach, the security of each and every individual should be considered the reference in analyzing the border security in addition to considering migrants and condemning threats against human security. It is also necessary to avoid merely politicizing and securitizing borders. For this purpose, human security can both theoretically and strategically provide a more comprehensive framework for explaining the political processes of securing borders.

Undoubtedly, in response to this situation, the most effective and favorable approach seems to be the prioritization of human security and human rights instead of the inhuman politicization of  the  border regime, which institutionalizes discrimination and inequality by establishing political  and identity borders and separating “us” from “others”. Human security is the genuine realization of true human rights and avoidance of any politicization and profiteering where the belief in human dignity, regardless of any color, race or nationality, considers humans equal and values their access to basic rights.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Albahari, M. (2006). Death and the Modern State: Making Borders and Sovereignty at the Southern Edges of Europe. California: Centre for Comparative Immigration Studies.
  2. Andreas, P., Biersteker, T J. (2003). The Rebordering of North America: Integration and Exclusion in a New Security Context. New York: Routledge
  3. Barnett, M., Weiss, T. (2011). Humanitarianism Contested: Where Angels Fear to Tread. New York: Routledge. doi.org/10.4324/9780203829301
  4. Bendixsen, S. (2020). The Care/Security Nexus of the Humanitarian Border: Assisted Return in Norway. International Migration, 58(6), 108-122. doi.org/10.1111/imig.12630
  5. De Lauri, A. (2018). Humanitarian borders: The merging of rescue with security and control. Bergen: Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI). at: https://9pdf.net/document/y6e0l92n-cmi-briefdecember-number.html
  6. Debono, D. (2019). Narrating The Humanitarian Border: Moral Deliberation of Territorial Border workers at The EU’S Mediterranean Border. Journal of Mediterranean Studies, 28(1), 55-73.
  7. Dijstelbloem, H., Van der Veer, L. (2019). The Multiple Movements of the Humanitarian Border: The Portable Provision of Care and Control at the Aegean Islands. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 36(1), 425-442. doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2019.1567371
  8. Fassin, D. (2007). Humanitarianism as a Politics of Life. Public Culture, 19(3), 499-521.
  9. Fassin, D. (2012). Humanitarian Reason. A Moral History of the Present. California: University of California Press.
  10. Hart, M., Negri, A. (2018). Empire; Genealogy of Globalization. translated by Reza Najafzadeh. Tehran: Qhaseida Sara Publishing. (In Persian)
  11. Jamshidi, M. (2015). Levinas and the Infinite: Phenomenology of Moral Experience. Journal of Existence and Knowledge, 3(1). (In Persian)
  12. Kallio, K P., Häkli, J., Pascucci, E. (2019). Refugeeness as political subjectivity: Experiencing the humanitarian border. Environment and Planning C Politics and Space, 37(7), 1258-1276. doi.org/10.1177/2399654418820915
  13. Kayhanlou, F. (2011). Asylum of theories and practices. Tehran: jangal Javidaneh. (In Persian)
  14. Khosravi, H., Kholusi, T. (2016). Human security in the light of John Rawls's theory of justice, bi-quarterly journal of constitutional rights, 14(28). (In Persian)
  15. Moreno-Lax, V. (2017). Accessing Asylum in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  16. Moreno-Lax, V. (2018). He EU Humanitarian Border and the Securitization of Human Rights: The Rescue-Through-Interdiction/Rescue-Without-Protection Paradigm. Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(1), January, 119-140. doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12651
  17. Novak, P. (2022). Re-producing the Humanitarian Border. Geopolitics, 1-23. doi: 10.1080/14650045.2022.2105699
  18. Panebianco, S. (2022). Human security at the Mediterranean borders: humanitarian discourse in the EU periphery. International Politics. volume 59(3), 428–448
  19. Perkowski, N. (2016). Deaths, Interventions, Humanitarianism and Human Rights in the Mediterranean Migration Crisis. Mediterranean Politics, 21(2), 331-5. doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2016.1145827
  20. Raie, M. (2003). Humanitarian interventions and human rights. Marifat, 12(70), 68-59. (In Persian)
  21. Rashidinejad, Z. (2007). Standards and limits of humanitarian intervention in the procedure of the Security Council. International legal journal, 24(37), 63-102. (In Persian)
  22. Schmelter, S. (2020). Migration Struggles Along the Humanitarian Border: Syrian Displacement in Lebanon and Ways to Travel to Europe. Ethnologia Europaea, 50(2), 91-108. doi.org/10.16995/ee.1182
  23. Ticktin, M. (2016). Thinking Beyond Humanitarian Borders. Social Research, 83(2), 255-271.
  24. (2022). A record 100 million people forcibly displaced worldwide. UN News, at: https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/05/1118772
  25. Walters, W. (2010). Foucault and frontiers: notes on the birth of the humanitarian border. at Ulrich Bröckling, Susanne Krasmann, T.L. (eds.). Governmentality: Current Issues and Future Challenges. New York: Routledge.

 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics