Borders, Fences and Walls

State of Insecurity?

Elisabeth Vallet

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317173076
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Geopolitics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the question remains 'Do good fences still make good neighbours'? Since the Great Wall of China, the Antonine Wall, built in Scotland to support Hadrian's Wall, the Roman 'Limes' or the Danevirk fence, the 'wall' has been a constant in the protection of defined entities claiming sovereignty, East and West. But is the wall more than an historical relict for the management of borders? In recent years, the wall has been given renewed vigour in North America, particularly along the U.S.-Mexico border, and in Israel-Palestine. But the success of these new walls in the development of friendly and orderly relations between nations (or indeed, within nations) remains unclear. What role does the wall play in the development of security and insecurity? Do walls contribute to a sense of insecurity as much as they assuage fears and create a sense of security for those 'behind the line'? Exactly what kind of security is associated with border walls? This book explores the issue of how the return of the border fences and walls as a political tool may be symptomatic of a new era in border studies and international relations. Taking a multidisciplinary approach, this volume examines problems that include security issues; the recurrence and/or decline of the wall; wall discourses; legal approaches to the wall; the 'wall industry' and border technology, as well as their symbolism, role, objectives and efficiency.

PART I
Insecurity and Borders in Europe and North America

Chapter 1
The Mediterranean Sea as a European Border: Trans-Mediterranean Migration, Forced Return and Violation of Fundamental Rights

Maria Chiara Locchi

Immigration Policies in Europe and the Transformation of European Borders

European and particularly Italian immigration policies are a useful point of observation in the transformation of state borders. Many scholars, especially political scientists and legal sociologists and philosophers, have been studying this phenomenon trying to clarify the conceptual categories and the mechanisms of social control that lie underneath the legal regulations of European border control systems (Cuttitta, 2006a, 2007a, 2007b, 2009; Bigo and Guild, 2005a; Bigo and Guild, 2010). State borders can no longer be considered only as lines between spheres within which two or more political entities exercise their constitutional authority and exclude the others’ sovereignty (Lombardi, 1985: 435). This notion of “border” has been inherited from the past, from the long and troubled process of formation and consolidation of territorial and national States in Europe, with the transition between the “personal State”, which was based on personal ties, and the “territorial State”, which was defined by spatial control as an essential feature of sovereign power (Tilly, 1993; Maçzak, 1995: 125). The institution of rigid and well-controlled borders and the consequent transition from private to public control of human mobility have played a key role in facilitating the shift from feudalism to modern capitalism. In this regard, John Torpey’s work (Torpey, 2000) represents a remarkable contribution, since it points out the importance of improving personal identification techniques in order to control people’s movements. Using new registration systems, population census, identity and travel documents, states were more easily able to identify and distinguish between “their” members and the “others”, which was an essential step to “penetrate” society and gain control over it.

Geopolitical and legal structures that were built upon the pillars of territorial and national States have been subjected to processes of deep erosion that can be labelled as “globalization” for a significant period of time. In such a framework international migration is an important causal factor and a privileged perspective for the comprehension of the erosion phenomena implied by globalization. Furthermore, in the context of immigration policies, the tensions that are shaking nation-states should not be associated too simplistically with the dissolution of the State and the superimposition of supranational political entities. In the domain of immigration policy, States continue to be the dominant players and their weight on the international scene is heavily influenced by the political and economic balance of power, with the result that among all sovereign states, which are equal on a formal level, some states are “more sovereign” than others.

With regard to the transformation of the “border”, European immigration policies represent an interesting case study. The process of European integration and the consolidation of the right to free circulation within the EU has changed the notion of what constitutes a border. The 1985 Schengen Agreement established an area of free movement through the abolition of “internal” borders, or the borders of Schengen member States.¹ The Schengen Agreement and the subsequent 1992 Maastricht Treaty produced an “Europeanization” of the notion of “citizen”, who is entitled to free entry and circulation, as well as of the concept of “alien”. After Schengen the conceptualization of the “alien” was no longer based on an exclusively national perspective, since nationals of a State that does not join the Schengen area are considered to be “aliens”.

Therefore the abolition of internal borders has not only resulted in the improvement of the freedom of movement; it has also caused the strengthening of “external” frontiers, making Europe a “fortress” to people who wish to enter it. The features of European border policy poses the question of whether the transformation of European State-borders has meant the overcoming of a “State logic” or if there has been an intensification of national paradigms in the exclusion of the “others”.

An “Anticipated” European Border: The Application for a Schengen Visa

Didier Bigo and Elspeth Guild have explained the process of “anticipation” and delocalization of European borders into immigrant-sending countries, where borders “contact” individuals prior to their departures for Europe (Bigo and Guild, 2005b). An alien who wishes to enter Europe has to apply for a visa to the diplomatic representative of the European destination country if he or she is a national of a State subject to a visa requirement.² The application for an entry visa can be viewed as a “first European border” considering that entry visas have turned into important tools for the prevention of and fight against illegal immigration. Diplomatic officers carry out what has been defined as “policing at a distance”, consisting of different forms of controls and investigations implemented through sophisticated technological devices (SIS, VIS, Interpol) and typical police procedures and means. The dominant logic is such that suspicion towards a “country” or a “nationality” makes “the granting of a visa […] an exception to the exclusion” (Bigo and Guild, 2005b: 236). Checks carried out by diplomatic representatives aim to verify whether aliens respect general and specific entry conditions to the Schengen area and to assess if he or she represents a “threat” to public policy, national security or international relations. The implementation of this activity on the part of diplomatic officers cannot be considered only from a legal and formal perspective, referring to their duty to verify sufficient means of support, medical insurance, SIS report or other risks to public order. Diplomatic authorities themselves become de facto immigration policy makers implementing legal rules by highly-discretionary practices (Infantino, 2010).³ In checking whether the foreign citizen is reported on the SIS or is a threat to public policy, internal security or public health in any way, diplomatic officers use the concepts of “threat” and “security”, which have developed by the accumulation of the different notions and criteria elaborated in European countries (Rigo, 2007: 128). Therefore, each Schengen State has to take on the responsibility of issuing of Schengen visas on behalf of the other member States.

The Countries of Origin and Transit of Migrants as “Europe Gatekeepers”

European countries and the European Union as a subject of international law actively involve North African countries in preventing and fighting against irregular immigration, even more so since 9/11. This involvement is carried out by several instruments, such as: readmission agreements, through which the countries of origin and transit of immigrants commit to the readmission of undocumented aliens pushed back by European countries;⁴ police cooperation agreements, which can provide for joint surveillance to patrol the Mediterranean Sea, joint investigative and formative activities, liaison officers dispatched from one country to another in order to coordinate cooperation activities; and the construction of detention centres and the reinforcement of the deportation of illegal immigrants from North African countries. This kind of involvement in the fight against irregular immigration raises several economic and political problems for those countries, since it is the result of a cooperation that is formally bilateral but is basically dominated by European States. Europe succeeds in gaining this “assistance” by offering some “incentives”, such as: financial contributions in order to buy border surveillance equipment or to build detention centres; special funds in the framework of development cooperation; reservation of shares of the yearly legal immigration quotas; and facilitations for nationals of the cooperating countries who reside in the European destination country (Cuttitta, 2006b: 116).

A key point of this cooperation is the legal adjustment of North African countries to restrictive European paradigms on immigration and the legal condition of aliens. Most North African countries have passed “Euro-style” legislation in the last 12 years, improving and strengthening legal devices which are typical of the Western and European immigration model: entry visa restrictions; the strict connection between employment contract, entry visa and residence permit; the multiplication of detention centres; and forced deportations (see Perrin, 2005: 70; Perrin, 2009: 19).⁵

The hallmark of these legislative acts and related administrative practices is the consolidation of the idea of national citizenship as a “border”, as a line between an “inside” and an “outside”. With the rise of national States in the Arab world, Western legal institutions, such as territorial and national States as well as nationality as the right to belong to a nation State, have already been transplanted to a different legal system. This transplant had caused an irreversible change in the political and legal conceptions of “belonging” in terms of being a “legitimate member” or an “alien”, in the Islamic world. In fact, in the Islamic State the conception of belonging to the political community was defined by different connection criteria. On the one hand, there was the common religious “matrix” under which non-Muslims were regarded as aliens; on the other hand, there was the mosaic of affiliations to families, tribes, and Islamic schools of thought (Lewis, 1999; Chabel, 2002; Vercellin, 2002; Parolin, 2007; Perrin, 2011). The incorporation of the Western national citizenship model into the Arab world has not definitively neutralized multiple belongings but the contact with European political and economic necessities and legal rules has been producing major transformations of social and legal categories relating to the condition of aliens, migrants, nomads and stall holders. In this regard the contemporary case of the traditional trans-Saharan migration routes is significant (see Pliez, 2006, who studied the Libyan region of Fezzan). Transit economies have been developing over centuries along ancient routes and the repressive approach of European immigration policies has had a negative impact on the configuration of trans-Saharan mobility, which is now regarded as “trans-Mediterranean” migration.

The Italian Policy of Returning “Boat People” and the Violation of Fundamental Rights

The Italian measures of readmission and forcible return of irregular migrants in the Mediterranean has to be situated within the wider context of European policy to fight illegal immigration. In addition to the increasing cooperation between Europe and transit countries, the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States, called Frontex, was instituted in 2004. The aim of Frontex is to improve the integrated management of the external borders of EU member States by facilitating and rendering more effectively the application of European Union measures related to the management of external borders.

Due to its geographical position, Italy is one of the southern “gates” of Europe, along with Greece and Spain. Therefore the repressive measures adopted by the Italian government have a key role in fighting against irregular immigration in Europe as they benefit other European countries. Since 2009 the Italian policy has resulted in a dramatic increase in the return and readmission of undocumented migrants, especially through intense cooperation with Libya. From a human rights and ethical perspective, the intensification of this restrictive approach raises many serious questions, particularly concerning the respect of legality and of fundamental principles and liberties. In fact, it is worth noting that since 1988 more than 19,372 migrants have died in the Mediterranean trying to reach European coasts.⁶ In the last two years (2011–2013) alone more than 3,500 migrants have died along the maritime borders of Europe, but the real number could be much larger; in fact, no one really knows how many wrecks have actually occurred in the Mediterranean.

Compliance with the Obligation of Transparency and Respect of Legality in the Italian Legal System

The Italian policy of returning boat people in the Mediterranean raises problems with regard to transparency and the respect of legality because of the way that cooperation with Libya has been implemented over the years. The relationship between the two countries has had a long history, since the Italian colonial enterprise at the beginning of the twentieth century it has been filled with violence, injustice, opportunism, diplomacy and cooperation. The cooperation achieved in recent years is highly ambiguous since it is based on the exchange of assistance in the fight against irregular migration for huge economic support which is officially presented as restitution to Libya for the Italian colonial enterprise.

The cooperation between Italy and Libya on immigration matters began in 2000 through several agreements, signed by both centre-right-wing and centre-left-wing Italian governments without full disclosure of the terms and conditions. The behaviour of Italian authorities invited criticism since it demonstrated utter disregard for the requests of civil society and the role of the parliament. In 2007, a clearer and more detailed protocol “to deal with the phenomenon of illegal immigration” was signed and in 2008 Italy and Libya established the Treaty of Friendship, Partnership and Cooperation (Ronzitti, 2009). This treaty created a partnership between the two countries and made explicit reference to the respect of fundamental human rights and liberties. This important remark was intended to appease those who had been denouncing the gross injustices and human rights violations which were occurring in Libya with regard to the treatment of sub-Saharan immigrants and have been documented in detail in reports by several important organizations (see Human Rights Watch, 2009, 2010; FIDH, 2012; Amnesty International, 2013). The reference to the respect of fundamental rights was indeed limited since it consisted of the specification that “legislations” of both countries should have observed. The chapter on immigration was also broad and vague about the Libyan obligations; neither the treaty nor the following implementation protocol provided a legal basis for intercepting boat people in international waters and returning them to North African coasts (Tondini, 2010: 4). The criticism of legal scholars focused on the implementation protocol. In particular, the protocol was considered to violate the Italian Constitution, which obliges the government to ask for a preventive parliamentary intervention in order to ratify international agreements on political matters or that provide economic burdens.⁷

The 2008 treaty – which was ratified by the Italian parliament – was then “de facto suspended” before the 2011 military attack on Libya due to the troubles and abuses occurring in the African country.⁸

Since the fall of the Gaddafi regime in 2011 the situation of asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants in Libya has worsened considerably. Human rights and the respect of legality are increasingly at risk and violence, racism and xenophobia are on the rise across the country. Despite the institutional chaos and the open violations of human rights of migrants, the collaboration between Italy and Libya on migration issues has continued. After a first agreement with the National Transitional Council of Libya for cooperation in the fight against illegal immigration, including the return of irregular migrants (17 June 2011), the Ministers of Interior of Italy and Libya signed a verbal agreement which set out a number of additional areas of cooperation including border surveillance and voluntary return and repatriation (3 April 2012). Amnesty International expressed serious concern about the contents of the agreement, which have not been disclosed despite repeated requests to the Ministry of the Interior, and is convinced that the operations “against illegal immigration” have not been made in accordance with international standards on human rights (Amnesty International, 2012).

In October 2013 Italy launched “Mare Nostrum”, a highly controversial operation, both military and humanitarian, with the aim of improving search and rescue operations and enhancing the protection of national borders. With the new operation, which includes amphibious ships, unmanned drones and helicopters with infrared equipment, Italy is attempting to deal with the waves of refugees and migrants arriving on its coasts and the risk of further tragic incidents like the capsizing of a boat carrying migrants on 3 October 2013, near Lampedusa.⁹ In November 2013 two additional “technical agreements” between Italy and Libya were signed, with the aim of strengthening the bilateral cooperation on migration; the Italian Ministry of Defense, Mario Mauro, stated that “safe and stable borders are necessary for an appropriate management of migration flows and to protect the fundamental rights of migrants”.¹⁰ Many observers have expressed their concerns about the overall sense of the recent collaboration between the two countries; ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Border Regions Series
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction
• Part I Insecurity and Borders in Europe and North America
• Part II Towards a Theory of Border Walls?
• Part III Fenced Borders in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries
• Index