“Safe Legal Pathways” or New Colonial Frontiers? A Critical Analysis of European Intervention in the Sahel and the Creation of Anomalous Legal Zones

IF 1.4 Q3 DEMOGRAPHY
Matthew Zagor
{"title":"“Safe Legal Pathways” or New Colonial Frontiers? A Critical Analysis of European Intervention in the Sahel and the Creation of Anomalous Legal Zones","authors":"Matthew Zagor","doi":"10.1093/rsq/hdad021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article critiques the increasingly popular concept of the “safe legal pathway” in refugee politics, policy and law, using European engagement and intervention in the Sahel as its primary case study. It draws upon neo-colonial studies, necropolitics, border studies and the legal literature on sovereignty and extraterritoriality to explore the function, structure, and import of the “safe legal pathway”, and its compatibility with contemporary understandings of international legal history and argumentation. Divided into four sections, the article focuses on the drivers behind Europe’s migration-development-security objectives in the Sahelout of which the pathways discourse emerges, the EU’s concomitant insistence on criminalising the illusive “people smuggling business model”, and the role which the traditional tropes of sovereignty, territory, and civilisation play in determining policy parameters. Noting the multidirectional nature and multifunctional purposes of pathways, and focusing on the policing of migrant communities both within and outside Europe, this article provides a comprehensive and critical overview of the nature, structure, function, and regulation of the pathway, its susceptibility to being leveraged for the commodification, extraction, discipline and transformation of non-European bodies and narratives, and its place in the creation of differentiated, suspended, and anomalous legal zones for the transfer and manipulation of global norms.","PeriodicalId":39907,"journal":{"name":"Refugee Survey Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Refugee Survey Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdad021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This article critiques the increasingly popular concept of the “safe legal pathway” in refugee politics, policy and law, using European engagement and intervention in the Sahel as its primary case study. It draws upon neo-colonial studies, necropolitics, border studies and the legal literature on sovereignty and extraterritoriality to explore the function, structure, and import of the “safe legal pathway”, and its compatibility with contemporary understandings of international legal history and argumentation. Divided into four sections, the article focuses on the drivers behind Europe’s migration-development-security objectives in the Sahelout of which the pathways discourse emerges, the EU’s concomitant insistence on criminalising the illusive “people smuggling business model”, and the role which the traditional tropes of sovereignty, territory, and civilisation play in determining policy parameters. Noting the multidirectional nature and multifunctional purposes of pathways, and focusing on the policing of migrant communities both within and outside Europe, this article provides a comprehensive and critical overview of the nature, structure, function, and regulation of the pathway, its susceptibility to being leveraged for the commodification, extraction, discipline and transformation of non-European bodies and narratives, and its place in the creation of differentiated, suspended, and anomalous legal zones for the transfer and manipulation of global norms.
“安全的法律途径”还是新的殖民边界?对欧洲在萨赫勒地区的干预和异常法律区建立的批判性分析
本文以欧洲在萨赫勒地区的参与和干预为主要案例,对难民政治、政策和法律中日益流行的“安全法律途径”概念进行了批判。它借鉴了新殖民主义研究、亡国政治、边界研究和关于主权和治外法权的法律文献,探讨了“安全法律途径”的功能、结构和重要性,以及它与当代对国际法律历史和论证的理解的兼容性。本文分为四个部分,重点关注欧洲在萨赫勒地区的移民-发展-安全目标背后的驱动因素,其中路径话语出现了,欧盟坚持将虚幻的“人口走私商业模式”定为刑事犯罪,以及主权,领土和文明的传统隐喻在确定政策参数方面所起的作用。注意到路径的多向性和多功能目的,并将重点放在欧洲内外移民社区的治安上,本文对路径的性质、结构、功能和监管进行了全面而批判性的概述,它对非欧洲实体和叙事的商品化、提取、纪律和转型的易感性,以及它在创造差异化、暂停、以及转移和操纵全球规范的异常法律区域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Refugee Survey Quarterly
Refugee Survey Quarterly Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: The Refugee Survey Quarterly is published four times a year and serves as an authoritative source on current refugee and international protection issues. Each issue contains a selection of articles and documents on a specific theme, as well as book reviews on refugee-related literature. With this distinctive thematic approach, the journal crosses in each issue the entire range of refugee research on a particular key challenge to forced migration. The journal seeks to act as a link between scholars and practitioners by highlighting the evolving nature of refugee protection as reflected in the practice of UNHCR and other major actors in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信