Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Andrea Rea (ULB-GERME, Belgium): "Controlling the Undesirable at the border-network"


Published on

La communication entend présenter les principales approches contemporaines de la notion de frontière. La deuxième partie du document est consacrée à une approche alternative des processus frontièrisation en se concentrant davantage sur la relation entre la frontière et la mobilité plutôt qu’entre frontière et territoire relation rencontrée fréquemment dans la littérature. La frontière est définie comme frontière-réseau composé d’unités d’espace-temps (aéroport, port maritime, l’espace public par exemple) où des humains (bureaucrates dans les consulats, les gardes-frontières, les agents de liaison, des voyageurs, etc.) et de non-humains (bases de données, des lois, des procédures) interagissent pour objectif de produire des pratiques de souveraineté étatique. Une attention particulière est accordée à la relation entre l’Europe et les pays du sud de la Méditerranée dans une troisième partie. Basé sur le concept de frontière-réseau, il est possible d’analyser la politique européenne de la mobilité en ce qui concerne les pays du sud de la Méditerranée, en accordant une attention particulière aux dispositifs de sécurité qui tendent à accélérer la mobilité des voyageurs légitimes, d’une part, et à filtrer et à bloquer les indésirables, les personnes soupçonnées de contourner les lois de l’immigration, d’autre part. Toute personne en mobilité est soumise à la surveillance mais certains sont placés sont contrôle. La dernière partie de la communication est consacrée à l’analyse qui pourrait être faite du contrôle à l’aéroport à partir du concept de frontière-réseau.

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Andrea Rea (ULB-GERME, Belgium): "Controlling the Undesirable at the border-network"

  1. 1. Controlling the Undesirable at the border-network Andrea Rea Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB-GERME) THE ANTI-ATLAS OF BORDERS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE 30 Septembre – 2 Octobre 2013 1
  2. 2. Plan 1) 2) 3) 4) From borders to bordering Three main interpretations The border-network European policy of mobility and bordering processes 5) Controlling the undesirable at the airport Andrea Rea : Controlling the Undesirable at the border-network 2
  3. 3. 1. From borders to bordering • State borders, state sovereignty and territory • In Westphalien state model, border is the container of the state which allows control populations and protection against the exterior • Military conception: Border as a continuous demarcation line between homogenous entities • From spaces of places to spaces of flows (Castells, 1996) • Harvey ‘time-space compression’ (Harvey, 1990) or ‘time-space distanciation’ (Giddens, 1990) • Human mobility has increased and the classic notion of migration has become insufficient • Mobility of elites (entrepreneurs, scientists, advanced service producers, transnational professionals, artists, etc.) and growing consumption-led mobility (tourists) Andrea Rea : Controlling the Undesirable at the border-network 3
  4. 4. 1. From borders to bordering • Debordering-rebordering • “The debordering processes in the world’s states might lead to a “debordering of the world of states” (Albert & Brock 1996). • The first process refers to the increasing permeability of borders and the decreasing capacity of states to curb this trend • while the debordering (or rebordering) of the world of states involves the response of states seeking to adapt to globalisation. • In the literature, at least three processes are distinguished that contribute to debordering. Andrea Rea : Controlling the Undesirable at the border-network 4
  5. 5. 1. From borders to bordering • Three main changes – The first is the expansion of the world economy. The large movement of financial capital and the global strategies implemented by transnational companies constitute the central elements of current economic globalisation. – The second process of debordering is indeed the increase in international regulations, the growing involvement of international organisations and supranational entities (such as the European Union) and the emergence of transnational networks or transnational social movements acting on a global scale. Andrea Rea : Controlling the Undesirable at the border-network 5
  6. 6. 1. From borders to bordering – The third debordering process is linked to the dematerialisation of the border. The most well-known example is the mobility of information and knowledge as a result of the internet (for the economy, especially since the digitalisation of stock exchanges). The dematerialisation of the border also affects the mobility of people. The crossing of the physical border of a state is disconnected from the control of the right to move. Surveillance is no longer mainly localised at the physical borders of states. It operates first through administrative procedures and databases and only later, for some, upon the physical passage of the border Andrea Rea : Controlling the Undesirable at the border-network 6
  7. 7. 2. Three main interpretation • Borderless World – The expansion of the world economy gave birth to the globalisation of economic activities, what Ohmae (1991) calls The Borderless World, in which the state no longer occupies a central position, giving way to the market and consumer. – The world economy is also fragmented and the continuities and fluidities of economic activities occur mainly between transnationalized regions (Ohmae 1996) and global cities (Sassen 1991). – Other authors like Ohmae (1996) and Guéhenno (1995) claim that we are witnessing not the end of territory but the end of the nation-state and in a certain manner the end of democracy. Andrea Rea : Controlling the Undesirable at the border-network 7
  8. 8. 2. Three main interpretation • Transnational communities – Creation of new dislocated and deterritorialised spaces: transnational communities founded on a strong sense of belonging linked to a common origin (national, ethnic, religious, etc.). (Hannerz 1996, Appadurai, 1996). – Transnational communities and diasporas have emerged as a result of increased transport facilities and telecommunication (Glick-Schiller 1994; Portes 1999; Faist, 2000). – Borders have not dissolved, they are reconfigured. They are no longer linked to geographical borders: their construction is primarily based on boundaries, on ethnic and cultural borders – The globalised upper classes (Sassen 2007) are also transnational communities (transnational professionals). These transnational communities could be perceived as detached from territory and to offer an alternative to the nationstate as a social, economic and political organisation. Andrea Rea : Controlling the Undesirable at the border-network 8
  9. 9. 2. Three main interpretation • Securitization – New approaches in the field of International Relations recognize that the border is an area of demarcation rather than a barrier and that processes of bordering are disconnected from territory. – Since the ‘return of identity’, with reference to identity building as the internal cohesion of states, the border remains a front line to be defended (Huntington 1996). – This conception leads to the development of narratives that state that new threats (organized crime, terrorism, drug trafficking, smuggling, human trafficking, irregular migration) threaten the domestic social cohesion of nationstates and the identities of their people. – “Loss of control" is the dominant border narrative (Sassen 1996; Andreas 1999). This approach is based on the idea that one of the major risks of globalization is the dissolution of borders which threatens the nation-state, its homogeneity and internal cohesion. Andrea Rea : Controlling the Undesirable at the border-network 9
  10. 10. 3. The Border-Network • This approach propose to no longer think in such rigid terms as the separation between inside and outside (Walker 1993). • The border is not as a line which must be defended, a conception still largely dominant in many policy narratives, particularly European narratives on EU external border security. • The border is consider as a porous or broken line that cannot form a closed circle, since it is the exchange with the outside that permits survival. The border ensures communication (Newman, 2003). • Rather than a fixed identity, the border is therefore a meeting place, a site of economic transaction, exchange, construction and re-construction of belonging. Andrea Rea : Controlling the Undesirable at the border-network 10
  11. 11. 3. The Border-Network • Border-network = network of space-time units (checkpoint, square, consulate, airport,etc.) where human (street level bureaucrats at the consulate, border guards, travellers, lawyer, etc.) and non-human (laws, procedure, databases, etc.) interact with the aim to produce pratices which enact state sovereignity. (Rea; 2013) • With this approach globalised world is a propagation of crossing points that together form a border. The border must be seen as fluid or liquid. • Globalisation does not lead to the destruction of borders, quite the opposite. States and supranational or international institutions of order and security continue to play a central role in controlling the border and the border-crossing. Andrea Rea : Controlling the Undesirable at the border-network 11
  12. 12. 3. The Border-Network • At the heart of this outlook: the mobility and not the territoriality : The aim of the border control aim to improve freedom of movement of goods, knowledge, and people. • Security instruments are designed primarily to ensure maximum freedom of movement for the majority, and subsequently to filter and control the minority groups that deviate from certain criteria, defined a priori as dangerous or suspicious. • Surveillance is used to accelerate the mobility of legitimate travelers (Torpey, 2000) and control is used to filter and block undesirable travelers trying to circumvent migration laws (Bigo et al. 2011). There is a necessary continuity which allows for monitoring everyone and controlling some. Andrea Rea : Controlling the Undesirable at the border-network 12
  13. 13. 4. European policy of mobility and bordering processes • Dispositifs of security : are there to accelerate mobility for certain people, while filtering and blocking others with migratory risk and migratory profile. • Irregular migration as a crime • Migration and new penology (Feeley & Simon, 1992) • New penology = passing from an individualised penalty to one targeting and controlling populations at risk. This type of policy is basically founded on both an economic and managerial legitimacy. It is preferable to prevent rather than punish, to minimise risk than to ensure punitive justice. • The security dispositifs managing migration flows that are used to ensure border control, for instance, between Europe and the countries south of the Mediterranean, are composed of four elements. Andrea Rea : Controlling the Undesirable at the border-network 13
  14. 14. 4. European policy of mobility and bordering processes A)From Travellers to Groups at risk • The first surveillance tool defines legitimate travellers and the groups at risk for security and migration reason (Bigo & Guild, 2005). • Countries subjected to the obligation of obtaining Schengen Visa (short stay) as a condition to enter into the territory is a way of creating countries at risk where nationals are considered to be a risk (Infantino, 2013, Infantino & Rea, 2012). • As to asylum, the European institutions establish lists of safe countries, which annihilate the right to asylum for their nationals. • The beneficiaries of the right to family reunification are subject to massive restrictions. The instrumental logic of immigration tends to reduce the legitimacy of travellers who do not contribute to the economic and financial activities and to privilege the social and economic utility of foreigners considered worthy (entrepreneurs, merchants, businessmen, political, cultural and artistic elites, etc.). Andrea Rea : Controlling the Undesirable at the border-network 14
  15. 15. 4. European policy of mobility and bordering processes B) Technological apparatus of surveillance • Preventive policies of remote control • Migration control constitutes an excellent laboratory for the technologisation of surveillance (smart borders) • Three main surveillance tools – Accumulation of information on individuals and of the constant resort to biometry during the crossing of European borders + Data bases • For accelerating mobility (Parafes and Previum) or sorting and blocking (SIS, VIS, EURODAC). – Displacement of controls on people intending to cross external borders of the EU from the physical spaces of the border to the territories of departure of travellers. At the border (airport): body + data double Andrea Rea : Controlling the Undesirable at the border-network 15
  16. 16. 4. European policy of mobility and bordering processes – Technologies of control at the point of departure: • SIVE (Sistema Integrado de Vigilancia Exterior), which is an electronic surveillance system that polices the coasts using boats, infrared cameras, satellites, etc. This system has limited the arrival of irregular migrants using “pateras” in Andalusia. • In 2011, EUROSUR (European Border Surveillance System) was launched to reinforce the management of the southern and eastern maritime borders of Europe using satellite images and sensors. • The AMASS (autonomous maritime surveillance system) project uses buoys equipped with infra-red cameras and hydrophones in order to detect subaqueous sounds. When a suspicious vessel is detected, images are directly transmitted to a control centre on the shore. Compared to SIVE, AMASS seeks to improve the control of the European coasts through the early warning of suspicious vessels. Andrea Rea : Controlling the Undesirable at the border-network 16
  17. 17. 4. European policy of mobility and bordering processes • FRONTEX plays a crucial role in the preventive fight against irregular immigration by trying to send back to the coasts whence the migration candidates came. (Militarisation approach of the border) C) Operating in the countries of departure and focussing on a target public • • • • Government at distance (Rose & Miller, 1992) The cooperation agreements for police The readmission of irregular migrants, deportation The strengthening of intervention capacities at land and sea borders • Securing travel documents and training of officials • Creation of “buffer zones” with the The Neighbourhood Policy Andrea Rea : Controlling the Undesirable at the border-network 17
  18. 18. 4. European policy of mobility and bordering processes D) Ultima ratio = Detention • Detention and expulsion of irregular migrants • The extension of detention in detention centres, including in the country of transit, the increase of expulsions and the European coordination of readmissions by charter flights, bear witness of the rationalisation of the removal procedures. • The adoption of the “return” directive in June 2008, constitutes a sort of harmonisation based on minimum standards, in casu long detention (up to 18 months), which is a removal measure accompanied by the prohibition to subsequently enter the territory and but a feeble protection against removal and expulsion. Andrea Rea : Controlling the Undesirable at the border-network 18
  19. 19. 5. Control at the airport • Central activities at the border (airport) are sorting, categorizing and profiling (Lyon 2003) travelers • Sorting is based on the use of surveillance tools: – Traditional: passport, visa – Biometric technologies (fingers prints, retina patterns, etc.), various databases (SIS, VIS, EURODAC) (Adey, 2002) • At the airport, the body is condensed in databases (smart borders) (data double) moving separatly from the physical one • What happened at – The first line check – The second line check (confessional, Salter, 2007) – Detention center Andrea Rea : Controlling the Undesirable at the border-network 19
  20. 20. 5. Control at the airport Questions on governance • Bureaucratic governance based on bureaucratic rules • Network governance based on trust (databases) (Flemming & Rhodes, 2005) Questions on implementation policy and street level bureaucrats • Degree of interpretation of European regulations • Division of labor and organization of border guard organization • Border guard, as street level bureaucrats, can use discretionary power (Lipsky, 1981) Andrea Rea : Controlling the Undesirable at the border-network 20
  21. 21. Bibliography • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Albert, Mathia, and Lothar Brock. 1996. “Debordering the World of States: New Spaces in International Relations”. New Political Science, 35 (Spring): 69-106. Andreas, Peter. 1999. “Border Games: Policing the U.S.-Mexico Divide”. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. “Modernity at Large. Cultural Dimensions of Globalization”. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Bigo, Didier, and Elspeth Guild. 2005. Controlling frontiers : free movement into and within Europe. Aldershot Hants England, Burlington Vt: Ashgate. Bigo, Didier, Julien Jeandesboz, Francesco Ragazzi, and Philippe Bonditti. 2011. “Borders and security: the different logics of surveillance in Europe”. In The Others in Europe, edited by Saskia Bonjour, Andrea Rea, and Dirk Jacobs, 77-86. Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles. Bigo, Didier, Sergio Carrera, Elspeth Guild, and Rob Walker. 2010. Europe's 21st Century Challenge: Delivering Liberty and Security. London: Ashgate. Castells, Manuel. 1996. The Rise of Network Society. London: Blackwell. Faist, Thomas. 2000. The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational Social Spaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Feeley, Malcolm, and Jonathan Simon. 1992. « The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and its Applications », Criminology 30: 449-474 Fleming, J. and. Rhodes R. (2005). “ Bureaucracy, contracts and networks: The unholy trinity and the police”. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology. 38: 192—205 Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity. Guéhenno, Jean-Marie. 1995. End of the nation-state. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press Hannerz, Ulf. 1996. Transnational Connections: Culture, People, Places. London: Routledge. Harvey, David. 1990. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Andrea Rea : Controlling the Undesirable at the border-network 21
  22. 22. • Infantino, Federica, and Andrea Rea. 2012. « La mobilisation d'un savoir pratique local: attribution des visas Shengen au Consulat général de Belgique à Casablanca », Sociologies Pratiques 24: 67-78. • Infantino, Federica. 2013. “Bordering at the Window: the Allocation of Schengen visa at the Italian Embassy and Consulate in Morocco.” In Foreigners, Refugees or Minorities? Rethinking People in the Context of Border Controls and Visas, edited by Didier Bigo, Sergio Carrera and Elspeth Guild, 227-240. Aldershot: Ashgate. • Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russel Sage Foundation. • Lyon, David. (2003). Surveillance as Social Sorting: Privacy, Risk and Digital Discrimination. London and New York: Routledge. • Newman, David. (2003). “On borders and power: A Theoretical Framework”, Journal of Borderland Studies, Vol 18 (1), 13-25. • Ohmae, Kenechi. 1996. The End of the Nation State: The rise of Regional Economies. New York: Free Press. • Ohmae, Kenichi. 1991. The Borderless World. New York: Harper & Row. • Portes, Alejandro. 1999. Transnational communities, vol. 22, 2. London: Routledge. • Rea A. (2014), “Processes of bordering in the Age of Mobility”, In Hassan Bousetta, Caroline Zickgraf & Laure-Anne Bernes (Eds). Migration, Mobility and Borders in the Western Mediterranean: Enduring and emerging issues in the context of the Arab Spring. London: Routledge, forthcoming • Rose, Nikolas, and Peter Miller. 1992. “Political Power Beyond the State: Problematics of Government’. British Journal of Sociology 43(2): 173-205. • Salter, Mark. 2007. “Governmentalities of an Airport: Heterotopia and Confession”. International Political Sociology 1: 49-66. • Sassen, Saskia. 1996. Losing control? Sovereignty in An Age of Globalization. New York: Columbia University Press. • Sassen, Saskia. 2007. A Sociology of globalisation. W. W. Norton & Company Inc. • Torpey John. (2000), The Invention of the Passport. Surveillance, Citizenship and the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Walker, Roger. 1993. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Andrea Rea : Controlling the Undesirable at the border-network 22