The number of pages within the document is: 22
The self-declared author(s) is/are:
Arne Niemann and Natascha Zaun
The subject is as follows:
Original authors did not specify.
The original URL is: LINK
The access date was:
2019-02-09 19:02:24.175298
Please be aware that this may be under copyright restrictions. Please send an email to admin@pharmacoengineering.com for any AI-generated issues.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab The content is as follows:
TheEUHumanitarianBorderandtheSecuritizationofHuman Rights:The ‚Rescue-Through-Interdiction/Rescue-Without-Protection™Paradigm*VIOLETAMORENO-LAX QueenMaryUniversityofLondon AbstractThisarticlelooksatsecuritization/humanitarianizationdynamicsintheEUexternalseabordersto trackandcritiquethesubstantialtransformationoftheroleplayedbyhumanrightsintheMediter- ranean.Mappingtheevolutionofmaritimeengagementuptothe ‚refugeecrisis ™,itisrevealed howtheinvocationofhumanrightsservesparadoxicallytocurtail(migrants ™)humanrights,jus- tifyinginterdiction( ‚tosavelives ™),andimpedingaccesstosafetyinEurope.Theresultisadouble reicationof ‚boatmigrants ™asthreatstobordersecurityandasvictimsofsmuggling/traf cking.Throughanarrativeof ‚rescue™,interdictionislaunderedintoanethicallysustainablestrategyof bordergovernance.Insteadofbeingconsideredaproblematic(potentiallylethal)meansofcontrol, itisre-de nedintoalife-savingdevice.Theensuing ‚rescue-through-interdiction ™/‚rescue-with-out-protection™paradigmaltersthenatureofhumanrights,which,ratherthanfunctioningasa checkoninterdiction,endupco-optedasanothersecuritization/humanitarianizationtool. Keywords: securitization;humanitarianborder;humanitarianization;Frontex;refugeecrisis Introduction TherehasbeenincreasingrecognitionoftheEU ™ssubjectiontohumanrightswhen interveningatseainsuccessivereformsoftheSchengen/Frontex acquis(Carreraand denHertog,2016a,2016b;Rijpma,2013,2016;RijpmaandVermeulen,2015) Œtakenbysomeasasuccesscaseofcomprehensivecriticismbynon-stateactors(Slominski, 2013).ThishasbeenmirroredbyanevolutionoftherhetoricemployedtojustifyEu- ropeaninvolvementintheMediterranean,accompaniedbyaparalleldevelopmentin theperceptionof ‚boatmigrants ™.Althoughthetoolsemployed(interdiction)and endresult(diversion)remainthesame,EUdiscoursere ectsachangefroma ‚pure™securitizinglogicofrawpre-emptionofunauthorizedmovement,withirregularmovers portrayedasnear-criminals(Guild,2009),towardsanincreasinglyhumanrights- friendlynarrativethatdepictsmigrantsasvictimsandsmugglersasperpetratorsof deathandabuseatsea.Inbothcases,maritimeinterventionispresentedasvital,with interdictionful llingthedoubleroleof ‚combatingillegalimmigration ™and‚savingthelivesofmigrants ™.1Theparadoxthisdualfunctionentailshasbeenresolved throughanimplicitre-conceptualizationofwhat ‚saving™and‚life™mean,viaan approachthatselectsandreduces(migrants ™)humanrights. *IthankSergioCarrera,Jean-FrançoisDurieux,MartinLemberg-Pedersen,ArneNiemann,MarionPanizzon,Daniela Vitiello,NataschaZaunandthejournal ™sanonymousrefereesfortheirhelpfulfeedback.Allremainingerrorsaremyown. 1Arts1 Œ2,EuropeanBorderSurveillanceSystemRegulation1052/2013,[2013] OJL295/11( ‚EUROSUR ™).JCMS2018Volume56.Number1.pp.119 Œ140DOI:10.1111/jcms.12651 ©2017UniversityAssociationforContemporaryEuropeanStudiesandJohnWiley&SonsLtd
Please note all content on this page was automatically generated via our AI-based algorithm (LKxNV49F79MIEUZuVgZ2). Please let us know if you find any errors.