Behind Office Doors: Constructing Threats, Campaigns, and Identities

Ambiguous spaces, empirical traces: Accounting for ignorance when researching around the illicit

“…Ignorance around the illicit has material consequences, often making development and conservation efforts in drug trafficking regions out of touch and counterproductive. Alternative development projects and crime mitigation policy are particularly prone to perverse outcomes or failure when it is poorly understood how illicit activities shape everyday decisions (e.g., Dávalos et al, 2016; Gilmer, 2014; Salisbury and Fagan, 2013; Sears and Pinedo–Vasquez, 2011). Similarly, conservation efforts are vulnerable to environmental damage (e.g., “narco-deforestation”) and local conflict when cartels and paramilitaries establish operations in protected areas due to the relative lack of population and surveillance (e.g., Devine et al, 2020; Greenough, 2004; Kelly and Ybarra, 2016; McSweeney et al, 2014; Sesnie et al, 2017; Wrathall et al, 2020; Ybarra, 2012).…”

“…The illicit is a consequential but often overlooked phenomenon in human geography that has gained increasing attention in numerous subfields. These include: the geographies of crime and policing (Evans et al, 2002; Fyfe, 1991; Gilmer, 2014, 2016; Harries, 1971; LeBeau and Leitner, 2011; Lowman, 1986; Moran and Schliehe, 2017; Peet, 1975; Yarwood, 2007); migration, conflict, and security (Peluso and Watts, 2001; Samers, 2004; Zolberg, 1989); resource frontiers and territorialization (Ballvé, 2019b; Kelly and Peluso, 2015; McSweeney et al, 2018; Watts, 2018); natural resource governance and conservation (Bocarejo and Ojeda, 2016; Kelly, 2011; Robbins et al, 2009; Woods and Naimark, 2020; Ybarra, 2012); and economic geography on illicit economies (Brown and Hermann, 2020b; Gregson and Crang, 2017; Hall, 2010; Hudson, 2020). Although other fields (sociology, criminology, anthropology) have more consistently engaged with the illicit, geographical theorizations bring out its socio-spatial and territorial implications.…”

Varied Incident Rates of Global Maritime Piracy: Toward a Model for State Policy Change

“…Somalia lacks trained judges to preside over these cases and prisons to incarcerate suspected pirates (Bahadur, 2011; Boyle, 2015; Massarella, 2011). In recent years, Somalia has addressed some of these shortcomings, including the construction of additional correctional facilities and cooperating with neighboring states (e.g., Kenya, Mauritius, and the Seychelles) who are prosecuting individuals accused of pirating offenses (Bahadur, 2011; Boyle, 2015; Gilmer, 2014; Sterio, 2012).…”

Invisible Pirates: Women and the Gendered Roles of Somali Piracy

“…A study by Gilmer (2016a) found that Somali government officials working in conjunction with UN counter piracy programming agencies deemed piracy a man’s crime that should be addressed by men. Officials feared that focusing on women, as either perpetrators of piracy or part of the counter piracy efforts, would make their programming efforts seem “soft.” Despite UNODC project documents recognizing both men and women as potential pirate recruits, the implementation of past counter piracy programming onshore in Somalia favored the male-biased preferences of the Somali officials (Gilmer, 2014; UNODC, 2012). When Somali women were enlisted to help with onshore counter piracy programming, they fulfilled roles deemed more “culturally appropriate” for women such as singing antipiracy songs or acting in antipiracy skits.…”