Humanitarian Rescue/Sovereign Capture and the Policing of Possible Responses to Violent Borders

Abstract

Practices of rescue and assistance based on humanitarian concerns for life have increasingly come to shape both state and non-state action that responds to the mobility of people on the move at the borders of Europe. These processes of rescue are presented as counter to processes of border control concerned with preventing and policing migratory flows. Presented and articulated as an alternative response to the increasingly restrictive and militarised practices that make-up 'Fortress Europe', this humanitarian intervention concerned with saving lives both masks the violence of the border that renders people vulnerable in the first instance and masks the intimate relationship practices of rescue have with processes of capture more traditionally associated with border policing. The ascendancy of rescue as the primary response to irregular mobility also works to police the boundaries of what is considered ethical politics and the possible responses that result. Rescue does this through framing such events as unforeseen tragedies, erasing the structures of the violent border in the process and rendering counter-narratives mute.

Hotspots and the geographies of humanitarianism

“…Furthermore, the work of border control, in which the hotspot approach claims to be a part, is concerned with maintaining this distinction between self and other, between citizens and those excluded from the full-rights of citizenship. And in recent years, there has been a growth of humanitarianism in border control practices (see Pallister-Wilkins, 2015a, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c whereby humanitarianism enacts what Laleh Khalili and Lisa Hajjar describe as an ethical commitment towards others who are not quite regarded as equal (2013).…”

“…Meanwhile women in Moria are reported to be wearing adult nappies overnight rather than use the unsafe and unsanitary toilet facilities. 4 This catalogue of suffering seems to stand in stark contrast to the growth of the 'humanitarian border' (Walters, 2011) where practices of border control and border policing elide with or use humanitarian concerns for life in the policing of mobility (Pallister-Wilkins, 2015a, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c. Academic work focusing on the growth of the humanitarian border has shown how humanitarian concerns for saving lives and providing basic relief for life seekers as they encounter violent borders (Jones, 2016) works to expand borders and borderwork (Jones et al, 2017).…”

Humanitarian militarism and the production of humanity

“…A key issue is the convergence between practices of humanitarian rescue and processes of sovereign capture more traditionally associated with border policing (Pallister‐Wilkins ), with the consequent convergence of state agents and humanitarian workers. What are now ‘humanitarian borders’ (Ticktin ; Walters ) reflect the political and legal shift whereby policing operations become articulations of politics of compassion and repatriation.…”

The EU Humanitarian Border and the Securitization of Human Rights: The ‘Rescue‐Through‐Interdiction/Rescue‐Without‐Protection’ Paradigm

“…By turning border crossing into a humanitarian issue, border interventions can be substantiated on compassionate grounds. However, as Pallister‐Wilkins and others have demonstrated, instead of opposing the securitization logic, ‘humanitarianized’ controls intertwine with it, engendering a new form of ‘ethical policing’ that simultaneously ‘cares and controls’ (Pallister‐Wilkins, , ; Ticktin, ). Humanitarianism (re‐)presents interdiction as benign and performed in the interest of migrants.…”

“…The reduction of unauthorized arrivals remains the constant goal, and interdiction the constant tool to attain it (European Council, ; Niemann and Speyer, ). What has changed is the way in which ‘interdiction’ has been configured and portrayed, from the prime border/migration control mechanism into a ‘necessary’ life‐saving device (Pallister‐Wilkins, ). In the background, a humanitarianized ‘rescue‐without‐protection’ model legitimizes action, sparing migrants the instant dangers of irregular voyages, but without (real) opportunities to action their rights.…”