EU Lawlessness Law at the EU-Belarusian Border: Torture and Dehumanisation Excused by ‘Instrumentalisation’

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Sarah Ganty, Aleksandra Ancite-Jepifánova, Dimitry V. Kochenov
{"title":"EU Lawlessness Law at the EU-Belarusian Border: Torture and Dehumanisation Excused by ‘Instrumentalisation’","authors":"Sarah Ganty, Aleksandra Ancite-Jepifánova, Dimitry V. Kochenov","doi":"10.1007/s40803-024-00237-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper engages with the routine normalisation of mass violations of human rights at the EU–Belarusian border. The direct and indirect victimisation of the racialised ‘other’ on the Eastern border of the Union is a direct extension of the EU-sponsored war on the racialised passport-poor in the Mediterranean. Together, the two form one clear and coherent picture of flagrant mass rights abuse. This EU law approach has claimed more than 27,000 lives over the last eight years and left more than 120,000 innocent people captured and imprisoned, or enslaved and sold for ransom by the criminal proxies enlisted by the EU and its Member States. This dramatic situation has not arisen by chance. An array of legal techniques is deployed by the EU, specifically by FRONTEX, the European Commission and, albeit incidentally and to a lesser extent, the European Court of Justice—to make sure that the full brunt of the denial of the right to life and other vital rights of non-citizens is never presented as a violation of EU law. We call these legal techniques ‘EU lawlessness law’. Focusing on the situation at the EU–Belarusian border allows us to zoom in on the bespoke lawlessness solutions crafted and deployed there by the EU and its Member States. The gross violations of the law are rhetorically justified by the alleged instrumentalisation of migrants by the dictatorial Belarusian regime. Paradoxically, the latter emerges as a de facto partner of the EU and its Member States, in torturing numerous people in complete disregard of any of the legal guarantees that the Union professes to provide.</p>","PeriodicalId":45733,"journal":{"name":"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law","volume":"77 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-024-00237-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper engages with the routine normalisation of mass violations of human rights at the EU–Belarusian border. The direct and indirect victimisation of the racialised ‘other’ on the Eastern border of the Union is a direct extension of the EU-sponsored war on the racialised passport-poor in the Mediterranean. Together, the two form one clear and coherent picture of flagrant mass rights abuse. This EU law approach has claimed more than 27,000 lives over the last eight years and left more than 120,000 innocent people captured and imprisoned, or enslaved and sold for ransom by the criminal proxies enlisted by the EU and its Member States. This dramatic situation has not arisen by chance. An array of legal techniques is deployed by the EU, specifically by FRONTEX, the European Commission and, albeit incidentally and to a lesser extent, the European Court of Justice—to make sure that the full brunt of the denial of the right to life and other vital rights of non-citizens is never presented as a violation of EU law. We call these legal techniques ‘EU lawlessness law’. Focusing on the situation at the EU–Belarusian border allows us to zoom in on the bespoke lawlessness solutions crafted and deployed there by the EU and its Member States. The gross violations of the law are rhetorically justified by the alleged instrumentalisation of migrants by the dictatorial Belarusian regime. Paradoxically, the latter emerges as a de facto partner of the EU and its Member States, in torturing numerous people in complete disregard of any of the legal guarantees that the Union professes to provide.

欧盟-白俄罗斯边境的欧盟无法治法:以 "工具化 "为借口的酷刑和非人化
本文探讨了欧盟与白俄罗斯边境大规模侵犯人权行为的日常正常化。欧盟东部边境对种族化 "他者 "的直接和间接伤害是欧盟发起的针对地中海地区种族化护照贫民的战争的直接延伸。两者结合在一起,构成了一幅公然侵犯大规模权利的清晰而连贯的画面。在过去八年中,欧盟的这种法律手段已经夺去了 27 000 多人的生命,使 120 000 多名无辜者被抓获和监禁,或被欧盟及其成员国招募的犯罪代理人奴役和出卖以换取赎金。这一戏剧性局面的出现并非偶然。欧盟,特别是欧盟金融情报局(FRONTEX)、欧盟委员会(European Commission),以及欧洲法院(尽管是偶然的,但程度较轻),使用了一系列法律手段,以确保剥夺非公民生命权和其他重要权利的行为绝不会被视为违反欧盟法律。我们称这些法律手段为 "欧盟无法无天法"。通过关注欧盟-白俄罗斯边境的局势,我们可以放大欧盟及其成员国在那里制定和部署的专门的无法无天解决方案。白俄罗斯独裁政权将移民工具化的说法在言辞上为严重违反法律的行为辩护。矛盾的是,后者成为欧盟及其成员国事实上的伙伴,完全无视欧盟声称提供的任何法律保障,对无数人施以酷刑。
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
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
18.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: The Hague Journal on the Rule of Law (HJRL) is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to deepen and broaden our knowledge and understanding about the rule of law. Its main areas of interest are: current developments in rule of law in domestic, transnational and international contextstheoretical issues related to the conceptualization and implementation of the rule of law in domestic and international contexts;the relation between the rule of law and economic development, democratization and human rights protection;historical analysis of rule of law;significant trends and initiatives in rule of law promotion (practitioner notes).The HJRL is supported by HiiL Innovating Justice, The Hague, the Netherlands and the Paul Scholten Center for Jurisprudence at the Law School of the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Editorial PolicyThe HJRL welcomes contributions from academics and practitioners with expertise in any relevant field, including law, anthropology, economics, history, philosophy, political science and sociology. It publishes two categories of articles: papers (appr. 6,000-10,000 words) and notes (appr. 2500 words). Papers are accepted on the basis of double blind peer-review. Notes are accepted on the basis of review by two or more editors of the journal. Manuscripts submitted to the HJRL must not be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Acceptance of the Editorial Board’s offer to publish, implies that the author agrees to an embargo on publication elsewhere for a period of two years following the date of publication in the HJRL.
×
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