William Walters

Deportation, Expulsion, and the International Police of Aliens

Compared with refugee or immigration policy, the historical and political analysis of deportation is poorly developed. This paper suggests some lines along which critical studies of deportation might proceed. First, it argues that we can historicize and denaturalize deportation by setting it within a wider field of political and administrative practices. This is done by comparing modern deportation practice with other historical forms of expulsion. Second, the paper interrogates the forms of governmentality which invest the practice of deportation, and asks what they might tell us about modern citizenship. It argues that deportation can be seen as one key element in the international police of aliens.

Secure borders, safe haven, domopolitics

What implications do emerging spaces, concepts and identities of security have for the practice of citizenship? This article examines security and citizenship in the UK. As its focus it takes a recent White Paper published by the British government called Secure Borders, Safe Haven (2002). Two arguments are developed. First, it is argued that with this document, and the reforms it proposes for immigration, asylum and citizenship in the UK, we are in the presence of ‘domopolitics’. Whereas political economy is descended from the will to govern the state as a household, domopolitics aspires to govern the state like a home. Consequently, domopolitics and liberal political economy exist in tension with one another. Second, we need new forms of comparison if we are to adequately map domopolitics. To this end, the article compares the domopolitics of the homeland and similar securitizations not with the interstate security games of the Cold War, but with the governmentality of social security.

Mapping Schengenland: Denaturalizing the Border:

In this paper I examine the reorganization of border controls associated with the Schengen process in the European Union and some of its close neighbours. Rather than asking the political science question of why states are committed to Schengen (or not, in the case of the United Kingdom and Ireland), I interpret Schengen as a political moment for genealogical reflection and analysis. The purpose is to contribute to a more historicized understanding of borders. Schengen is analyzed in terms of three trajectories, each of which allows us to denaturalize certain key aspects of the border, such as its identity, function, rationality, and contingency. Schengen is theorized in relation to the geopolitical border, the national border, and the biopolitical border. Other possibilities for genealogies of the border are also canvassed.

The Frontiers of the European Union: A Geostrategic Perspective

While state borders remain the pre-eminent frontiers within geopolitics, regional blocs are also acquiring frontier characteristics. How might we understand the function and identity of such frontiers? Taking the European Union as its focus, this article offers answers to these questions by developing the idea of geostrategy. Four geostrategies are identified: networked (non)borders, march, colonial frontiers and limes. Each corresponds with a particular way of territorialising the space of the border, as well as a certain idea of ‘inside’ and ‘outside’, and of the risks and problems that the border is to govern. A geostrategic perspective uses contemporary social forms (such as networks) but also historical forms of borders (march, limes) in order to enhance the intelligibility of the frontiers of the EU. As such, this approach seeks to capture the multiplicity and plurality of borders.

The International Organization for Migration and the International Government of Borders

Early debates often read globalisation as a powerful tendency destined to make state borders less pertinent. Recent research has challenged this view by suggesting that globalisation and (re)bordering frequently advance hand-in-hand, culminating in a condition that might be described as ‘gated globalism’. But somewhat neglected in this recent wave of research is the role that particular international agencies are playing in shaping the norms and forms that pertain to emergent regimes of border control—what we call the international government of borders. Focusing on the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and its involvement in the promotion of what it calls better ‘border management’, this paper aims to partially redress this oversight. The IOM is interesting because it illustrates how the control of borders has become constituted as an object of technical expertise and intervention within programmes and schemes of international authority. Two themes are pursued. First, recent work on neoliberal governmentality is useful for illuminating the forms of power and subtle mechanisms of influence that characterise the IOMs attempt to managerialise border policies in countries as different as Armenia, Ethiopia, and Serbia. Second, the international government of borders comprises diverse and heterogeneous practices, ranging from the hosting of training seminars for local security and migration officials to the promotion of schemes to purchase and install cutting-edge surveillance equipment. In such different ways one can observe in very material terms how the project of making borders into a problem of ‘management’ conflicts with a perception of borders as a site of social struggle and politics.

Drone strikes, Dingpolitik and beyond: Furthering the debate on materiality and security

Recent scholarship in critical security studies argues that matter matters because it is not an inert backdrop to social life but lively, affectively laden, active in the constitution of subjects, and capable of enabling and constraining security practices and processes. This article seeks to further the debate about materiality and security. Its main claim is that materials-oriented approaches to security typically focus on the place of materials and objects within technologies and assemblages of governance. Less often do they ask how materials and objects become entangled in political controversies, and how objects mediate issues of public concern. To bring publics and contentious politics more fully into the debate about the matter of security, the article engages with Latour’s work on politics, publics and things – or dingpolitik. It then connects the theme of dingpolitik to a particular controversy: Human Rights Watch’s investigation of Gaza civilians allegedly killed by Israeli drone-launched missiles in 2008–2009. Drawing three lessons from this case, the article explores how further conversation between dingpolitik and security studies can be mutually beneficial for both literatures.

Migration, vehicles, and politics: Three theses on viapolitics

This article argues that vehicles, roads and routes merit a much more central place in theorizations of migration politics. This argument is developed in terms of three theses. First, the study of migration politics should examine how vehicles feature in the public mediation of migration and border controversies. Second, it is important to analyze vehicles as mobile sites of power and contestation in their own right. Third, an understanding of the materiality of transportation helps to explain how the vehicle can sometimes become a site of strategic political action. These arguments are in turn used to develop a concept of viapolitics as a contribution to literatures on migration, mobilities and power. Viapolitics orients us to see migration from the middle, that is, from the angle of the vehicle and not just the state. It also seeks to connect migration studies to the history of problematizations, cultural types and the mythopoetics of the road.

Editor's Introduction: Anti-policy and anti-politics: Critical reflections on certain schemes to govern bad things

This article proposes a concept of anti-policy along with some propositions concerning how we might research this new topic. It also introduces the four articles which make up this special issue on anti-policy and anti-politics. Anti-policy is a way of registering an undertheorized feature of the contemporary political culture of many western countries, as well as the domain of international politics. This is the ubiquity of discourses, schemes and policies whose stated objective is to combat or negate bad things. Anti-policy includes, but is not limited to, anti-terrorism, anti-racism, anti-trafficking, anti-corruption, anti-poverty and the war on crime. Observing that anti-policy can become a terrain of political struggle in its own right, the article cautions against the assumption that anti-policy can be simply equated with depoliticization.

The Sight of Migration: Governmentality, Visibility and Europe’s Contested Borders

Foucault’s shift from an analytical focus on discipline to governmentality saw the theme of visibility move into the background of his attention. In this article we ask how the debates about governmentality and visibility can be brought into a mutually productive relationship. Building on recent arguments for greater rigour in conceptualising visibility, we proceed to examine what visibility means and does in the context of migration control in Europe. Focusing on the EU’s recently deployed programme of border surveillance, EUROSUR, we elaborate how multiple forms of visibility are at play. We conclude that the politics of visibility is an important theme for future studies in the governance of migration.

Bringing Publics into Critical Security Studies: Notes for a Research Strategy

Publics are an undertheorised and somewhat marginal presence in critical security studies. This article argues that a better understanding of publics can advance our understanding of the governance as well as the contestation of security regimes and practices. We develop this argument in three parts. First, we discuss the marginality of publics in critical security studies while highlighting those limited instances where publics have been engaged. Second, we direct attention to emerging research on publics in cognate disciplines, focusing in particular on the literature about material publics. We distil from this work some useful lessons for security studies. In a final section we suggest two research moves for promoting a stronger focus on publics within critical security studies. We conclude that a focus on material publics can furnish security studies with a better understanding of the phenomenon of politics.