Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
- Part of a Book (1)
- Review (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (7)
This article investigates refugee categorisations in humanitarian admission programmes. Official selection categories and the way they are enacted at the frontline have significant implications for refugees’ unequal (im)mobility and (in)security as they determine who can safely and legally travel to Europe. Based on original ethnographic data, the analysis examines how different political actors mobilise humanitarian and security ‘orders of worth’ to justify how selection categories prioritise some refugees’ security and mobility over others’ in times of perceived crisis. Contrasting Germany’s admission programmes from Lebanon (2013-2015) to those from Turkey (2016-) demonstrates a shift from an overall humanitarian, to a combination of humanitarian and state security orders of worth. The focus on categorisation and justification practices advances a grounded understanding of how inequalities in refugees’ (in)security and (im)mobility emerge and shift in the course of changing crisis definitions.
Two years after the presentation of the New Pact on Asylum and Migration, this policy brief takes stock of the negotiations. Although there has recently been some movement in the efforts to reform the EU asylum system, which have been stuck for years, little has remained of the promised "fresh start". The authors argue that the proposed reforms and the reference to individual progress in the negotiations seem increasingly out of touch with reality given the ongoing grievances at the EU's external borders. In view of the Council's and the European Parliament's (EP) goal of concluding negotiations by April 2024, the progressive forces in both institutions should use the remaining time to make access to a fair asylum procedure and respect for fundamental rights at the EU's external borders central building blocks of the reformed asylum system.
Dieser Beitrag beleuchtet die Frage, wie politische und soziale Kategorisierungen den Zugang zu Aufnahmeprogrammen regulieren und wie entstehende Ungleichheiten gerechtfertigt werden. Über humanitäre Aufnahmeprogramme nehmen europäische und andere sichere Länder eine begrenzet Zahl Schutzsuchender aus Erstzufluchtsländern auf. Auf Basis von Herkunft, Geschlecht, Alter und anderen Kategorien wird entschieden, wer ›am schutzbedürftigsten‹ ist und entsprechend umgesiedelt werden soll. Anhand der deutschen humanitären Aufnahmeprogramme für syrische Geflüchtete untersucht der Beitrag Kategorisierungspraktiken aus praxistheoretischer und intersektionaler Perspektive entlang des gesamten Aufnahmeprozesses. Dadurch wird einerseits die Verwobenheit verschiedener Kategorisierungspraktiken unterschiedlicher Akteur:innen und andererseits die Hierarchisierung von Schutzbedarf deutlich.
Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is a form of expert knowledge that is central to migration governance. This article analyses M&E of the EU Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF), created in 2015 to ‘fight the root causes of migration’. Combining institutionalist accounts with practice theory, we examine whether M&E knowledge production served the instrumental purpose of assessing policy impact or mainly legitimated particular policy actors and positions. We find that M&E did not produce evidence on whether the EUTF met its objectives. However, in the context of the EU's multiple crises, M&E knowledge production served to seek legitimacy not only for the EUTF, but also for the further fusion of development and migration policies, and for the EU as a competent and transparent actor. Our analysis highlights that knowledge use and knowledge production are connected, and that M&E knowledge politics allow for the legitimation of both actors and policies.
Resettlement
(2023)
Building on feminist and postcolonial theoretical approaches across International Relations (IR) and security studies, this Special Issue advances an emerging research agenda within EU studies by shedding light on the gendered and racialised logics of EU security and their links to colonial histories and practices. Together, the contributions to this Special Issue demonstrate how EU security is intrinsically connected to and constituted by histories of colonialism, racism and patriarchy. At the same time, they also highlight how the colonial, racialised and gendered dynamics that underpin EU security and that are mobilised by the EU, its institutions and member states are always complex and shifting. Importantly, they do so by decentring our analysis of EU security moving our focus often away from the EU and towards different, somewhat unexpected sites and geographical locations of EU security. The current war in Ukraine underwrites the need for more historical, contextual and decentred work on EU security, while also highlighting the necessity to reflect on dominant practices of knowledge production and the experiences of people living in and with war through a feminist and postcolonial lens