元边界与法治:从外部化到非接触式控制系统中的 "责任化

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW
Violeta Moreno-Lax
{"title":"元边界与法治:从外部化到非接触式控制系统中的 \"责任化","authors":"Violeta Moreno-Lax","doi":"10.1007/s40802-024-00257-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article contests the strategic use of what I have called meta-borders. These are the array of border enforcement mechanisms implemented beyond the physical frontiers of States through different means and by different actors, for the purpose or with the effect of denying human rights protection to (unwanted) non-citizens. The ensuing ‘irresponsibilisation’ of States of destination, on whose behalf or for whose benefit the measures are executed, is anathema to the Rule of Law. My main contention is that prevailing understandings of jurisdiction and responsibility, as applied to externalised migration controls (the core feature of meta-borders), need to be revised. Currently, they allow for the emergence of a double standard, solely dependent on location, whereby the State may act abroad with impunity in relation to the human rights consequences of its conduct, exploiting geographical distance to create and legitimate ethical and legal detachment from its own wrongdoing. This article proposes an alternative model of ‘responsibilisation’ that tallies with the flexible spatiality of migration governance. The functional configuration of the meta-border is matched with an equally functional conceptualisation of jurisdiction that rejects unaccountable forms of power. The article thus problematises the localisation of the meta-border, mapping its multiple roles, modes, and dimensions, highlighting the significance of its legal manifestations, before exploring the impact of law on the de-territorialisation of the sovereign exercises of demarcation, delimitation, and exclusion that it implies. The meta-border, crafted by legal fiat, actively (re)orders space, curtailing the reach of human rights and disclaiming responsibility for related violations. To reconcile power with accountability, I advance the ‘responsibilisation’ model, premised on the acceptance that human rights, as fundamental components of the Rule of Law, track and constrain all exercises of State authority.</p>","PeriodicalId":43288,"journal":{"name":"Netherlands International Law Review","volume":"98 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meta-Borders and the Rule of Law: From Externalisation to ‘Responsibilisation’ in Systems of Contactless Control\",\"authors\":\"Violeta Moreno-Lax\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40802-024-00257-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This article contests the strategic use of what I have called meta-borders. These are the array of border enforcement mechanisms implemented beyond the physical frontiers of States through different means and by different actors, for the purpose or with the effect of denying human rights protection to (unwanted) non-citizens. The ensuing ‘irresponsibilisation’ of States of destination, on whose behalf or for whose benefit the measures are executed, is anathema to the Rule of Law. My main contention is that prevailing understandings of jurisdiction and responsibility, as applied to externalised migration controls (the core feature of meta-borders), need to be revised. Currently, they allow for the emergence of a double standard, solely dependent on location, whereby the State may act abroad with impunity in relation to the human rights consequences of its conduct, exploiting geographical distance to create and legitimate ethical and legal detachment from its own wrongdoing. This article proposes an alternative model of ‘responsibilisation’ that tallies with the flexible spatiality of migration governance. The functional configuration of the meta-border is matched with an equally functional conceptualisation of jurisdiction that rejects unaccountable forms of power. The article thus problematises the localisation of the meta-border, mapping its multiple roles, modes, and dimensions, highlighting the significance of its legal manifestations, before exploring the impact of law on the de-territorialisation of the sovereign exercises of demarcation, delimitation, and exclusion that it implies. The meta-border, crafted by legal fiat, actively (re)orders space, curtailing the reach of human rights and disclaiming responsibility for related violations. To reconcile power with accountability, I advance the ‘responsibilisation’ model, premised on the acceptance that human rights, as fundamental components of the Rule of Law, track and constrain all exercises of State authority.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43288,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Netherlands International Law Review\",\"volume\":\"98 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Netherlands International Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-024-00257-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Netherlands International Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-024-00257-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文对我所称的元边界的战略性使用提出质疑。这是在国家实际边界之外,由不同的行为者通过不同的手段实施的一系列边境执法机制,其目的或效果是拒绝为(不受欢迎的)非公民提供人权保护。随之而来的是目的地国的 "不负责任化",而这些措施是代表目的地国或为其利益而执行的,这是对法治的诅咒。我的主要论点是,需要对适用于外部化移民控制(元边界的核心特征)的现行管辖权和责任理解进行修订。目前,它们允许出现一种完全取决于地点的双重标准,根据这种标准,国家可以在国外采取行动,而对其行为造成的人权后果逍遥法外,利用地理上的距离,从道德和法律上合法地脱离其自身的不法行为。本文提出了另一种 "责任化 "模式,与灵活的移民治理空间相吻合。元边界的功能性配置与同样功能性的管辖权概念相匹配,后者摒弃了不负责任的权力形式。因此,文章对元边界的本土化提出了质疑,描绘了其多重角色、模式和维度,强调了其法律表现形式的重要性,然后探讨了法律对元边界所暗示的主权划界、划界和排斥行为的去领土化的影响。元边界是由法律规定的,它积极地(重新)规定了空间秩序,限制了人权的影响范围,并拒绝对相关的侵权行为承担责任。为了调和权力与责任,我提出了 "责任化 "模式,其前提是承认人权作为法治的基本组成部分,可以跟踪和制约国家权力的所有行使。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Meta-Borders and the Rule of Law: From Externalisation to ‘Responsibilisation’ in Systems of Contactless Control

This article contests the strategic use of what I have called meta-borders. These are the array of border enforcement mechanisms implemented beyond the physical frontiers of States through different means and by different actors, for the purpose or with the effect of denying human rights protection to (unwanted) non-citizens. The ensuing ‘irresponsibilisation’ of States of destination, on whose behalf or for whose benefit the measures are executed, is anathema to the Rule of Law. My main contention is that prevailing understandings of jurisdiction and responsibility, as applied to externalised migration controls (the core feature of meta-borders), need to be revised. Currently, they allow for the emergence of a double standard, solely dependent on location, whereby the State may act abroad with impunity in relation to the human rights consequences of its conduct, exploiting geographical distance to create and legitimate ethical and legal detachment from its own wrongdoing. This article proposes an alternative model of ‘responsibilisation’ that tallies with the flexible spatiality of migration governance. The functional configuration of the meta-border is matched with an equally functional conceptualisation of jurisdiction that rejects unaccountable forms of power. The article thus problematises the localisation of the meta-border, mapping its multiple roles, modes, and dimensions, highlighting the significance of its legal manifestations, before exploring the impact of law on the de-territorialisation of the sovereign exercises of demarcation, delimitation, and exclusion that it implies. The meta-border, crafted by legal fiat, actively (re)orders space, curtailing the reach of human rights and disclaiming responsibility for related violations. To reconcile power with accountability, I advance the ‘responsibilisation’ model, premised on the acceptance that human rights, as fundamental components of the Rule of Law, track and constrain all exercises of State authority.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
11.10%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) is one of the world’s leading journals in the fields of public and private international law. It is published three times a year, and features peer-reviewed, innovative, and challenging articles, case notes, commentaries, book reviews and overviews of the latest legal developments in The Hague. The NILR was established in 1953 and has since become a valuable source of information for scholars, practitioners and anyone who wants to stay up-to-date of the most important developments in these fields. In the subscription to the Netherlands International Law Review the Netherlands Yearbook of International Law (NYIL) is included. The NILR is published by T.M.C. Asser Press, in cooperation with the T.M.C. Asser Instituut, and is distributed by Springer International Publishing. T.M.C. Asser Instituut, an inter-university institute for Private and Public International Law and European Law, was founded in 1965 by the law faculties of the Dutch universities. The Institute is responsible for the promotion of education and research in international law.
×
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