This paper examines how racial violence underpins the European Union's border regime. Drawing on two case studies, in northern France and the Balkans, we explore how border violence manifests in divergent ways: from the direct physical violence which is routine in Croatia, to more subtle forms of violence evident in the governance of migrants and refugees living informally in Calais, closer to Europe's geopolitical centre. The use of violence against people on the move sits uncomfortably with the liberal, post-racial self-image of the European Union. Drawing upon the work of postcolonial scholars and theories of violence, we argue that the various violent technologies used by EU states against migrants embodies the inherent logics of liberal governance, whilst also reproducing liberalism's tendency to overlook its racial limitations. By interrogating how and why border violence manifests we draw critical attention to the racialised ideologies within which it is predicated. This paper characterises the EU border regime as a form of "liberal violence" that seeks to elide both its violent nature and its racial underpinnings.

emerging across Europe. Informal settlements, where refugees experience 'violent abandonment' of host states (Davies et al 2015:93). Settlements existing outside of formal refugee camps have become an integral part of refugee journeys, but also form a focal point for host states' surveillance and regulatory practices directed at refugees. Whereas formal camps in transit countries act as 'stations' and 'stop over points' on migratory routes to Western and Northern Europe (Tsianos and Karakayali 2010:384), but they produce rationalities and effects which have a direct bearing on the refugees' presence in (or removal from) urban areas, as this paper discusses. This paper examines the urban and spatial politics of refugee journeys through transit countries; specifically, it considers the relationship between urban spaces adapted and used by refugees and solidarity activists, and the biopolitical rationalities of neoliberalism, the state and the EU border regimes. I argue that, for transit states along migratory routes, refugees in urban and public spaces play two converging roles: first, they are seen as bodies occupying commercial areas and second, they are subjects of migration and asylum policies, and as such are subjected to constant intervention, scrutiny, counting and management. I argue that the refugees' dual roles, as 'disruptors' of commercial development and migratory subjects, mean that state authorities are keen to not only push them away from public spaces, but also push them towards camps, for which national governments of transit countries receive EU funding. This differentiates refugee populations from other marginalised groups, such as the homeless: there are no comparable spaces designated for other urban 'undesirables' especially none which are funded by external/international actors. This is especially the case in migratory transit countries such as in South Eastern Europe, where the underdeveloped welfare sectors have poor provision for homelessness and other types of social marginalisation, but where conversely, refugee accommodation is relatively well funded by external actors such as the EU. Using Belgrade as a case study, I show how the state's commercial interests in the city centre property development became intertwined with its implementation of asylum policies requiring all refugees to reside in official, state-run camps, subsequently resulting in constant surveillance, conduct and regulation of refugee bodies in urban areas. The surveillance and regulation of refugee bodies are, in turn, carried out by a constellation of actors at state, city and municipal levels, and includes property developers, business owners, local residents, migration workers and the police. The constellation of actors often engages in seemingly banal practices restricting the use of public space, such as evictions, putting up fences, and demolitions of informal settlements, which are intended to encourage refugees to register themselves for residence in official camps. Refugees in urban areas are attended to by ...

Refugee camps and reception and identification centres (RICs) have long been imagined as ‘the best’ or ‘most suitable’ places for displaced people by states and border management authorities. In contrast, informal housing often provided by activist groups, is frequently framed as a part of the urban ‘badlands’. Drawing on research carried out between 2015 and 2019 in key spaces in Greece and Serbia along the so‐called ‘Balkan Route’, this article engages with the concept of the ‘badlands’ as a lens through which to consider the different types of housing made available for refugees in key urban centres. Following Dikeç (2007), Neely and Samura (2011), and Shabazz (2015), we examine how sites of refugee accommodation are imagined through the lenses of place, space and race and how this shapes policy responses. We ask: what are the main divergences and variations between formal refugee housing and informal sites? Why, given the poor conditions of most refugee camps, are they still viewed as the ‘best’ solution to housing? What role do policy decisions play in ‘othering’ spaces, places, groups and individuals? We examine the spatial effects of multiple policy levels and interventions (EU, national, local, grassroots) on refugee accommodation.

This paper explores the convergences and divergence between transitional justice and peacebuilding, by considering some of the recent developments in scholarship and practice. We examine the notion of 'peace' in transitional justice and the idea of 'justice' in peacebuilding. We highlight that transitional justice and peacebuilding often engage with similar or related ideas, though the scholarship on in each field has developed, largely, in parallel to each other, and often without any significant engagement between the fields of inquiry. We also note that both fields share other commonalities, insofar as they often neglect questions of capital (political, social, economic) and at times, gender. We suggest that trying to locate the nexus in the first place draws attention to where peace and justice have actually got to be produced in order for there not to be conflict and violence. This in turn demonstrates that locally, 'peace' and 'justice' do not always look like the 'peace' and 'justice' drawn up by international donors and peacebuilders; and, despite the 'turn to the local' in international relations, it is surprising just how many local and everyday dynamics are (dis)missed as sources of peace and justice, or potential avenues of addressing the past. Sharp (2013b) notes, around this time, transitional justice emerged out of the peripheries of international politics and became mainstream. The hope amongst international actors intervening in post-conflict spaces, was that transitional justice would help remove perpetrators from the political life, and that the recognition of victims would lead to less grievance in the future, thus preventing another cycle of conflict. However, as this special issue discusses, the relationship between transitional justice and peacebuilding is not only contentious and non-linear, but often, also neglected by scholars of both fields. Transitional justice and peacebuilding are deeply intertwined, both practically and discursively, but the amount of literature connecting these two scholarships and practices is relatively low. Even though Rama Mani called attention to 'the nexus between rebuilding peace and restoring justice' as early as 2002 (Mani 2002: 4), the overlaps between the two fields have been neglected. Furthermore, as Sharp (2013a:195 notes, 'remarkably' similar critiques have been raised against both transitional justice and peacebuilding, even though these fields have 'historically proceeded on separate tracks'. These observations are some of the starting points of discussions raised by this special issue. This introduction first outlines the key literature in both fields, locating 'peace' in transitional justice and 'transitional justice' in peacebuilding, before discussing the implications and outlining the contributions of the papers in this volume. Where is peace in transitional justice? 'Peacebuilding' and 'transitional justice', like any other analytical concepts, exist because institutions and scholars have constructed them as objects that can be known about. T...

No abstract