It comes as a general rule that most states try to define the boundaries of human rights as broadly as possible, hoping to be able to limit them at their own discretion, in the face of certain circumstances – usually dictated by relentless political calculation. In such cases states often decide to violate even the most fundamental human rights standards, manifesting what has been called governmental xenophobia.
This presentation uses examples of such behavior by the Polish authorities concerning rejected refugees from the former Soviet republics and Poland's rejection of the EU Solidarity Relocation Plan, proudly boasting not to allow in refugees from North Africa and Syria. Through the Polish case this paper asks why for the states not directly affected by the consequences and burdens of mass refugee movements, mobility is a challenge to which they react in a hostile, excluding manner, violating human rights standards and excluding the possibility to resistance through law?
This presentation discusses the arbitrariness and historical contingency of a legal category of a refugee as well as its effects on refugee positionality, by focusing on the exile experience of refugee scholars. By shifting the gaze from the law itself to the “refugee experiences” of the law the paper discusses its limits, consequences and (dis)trusts as discussed by scholars themselves.
The paper utilizes both historical and contemporary ethnographic data and focuses on such issues as shifting definition of a refugee, securitization of refugee law, inadequacy of the legal definitions and inconsistencies in refugee procedures. First, it studies the academic writing of refugee scholars on the topic of refugee protection by focusing on the work of Hannah Arendt, Louise Holborn and Otto Kirchheimer. Secondly, the paper discusses insights by four scholars “at risk” based at different European universities, interviewed during Autumn and Winter 2018/2019.
In the contemporary world, mobile law is created primarily to close borders, to stop or limit the inflow of migrants, and to expel unwanted immigrants lucky enough to reach the Global North. The process of securitization of migration law observed since the 1990s now incorporates instruments of criminal law into migration law. As an effect, people on the move are punished just for being migrants. The legal provisions have become so strict and borders so tightly closed that for a lot of people it’s proving almost impossible not to break the law or commit a criminal act on their way. But being labeled a ‘criminal’ brings serious consequences – form prohibition to obtaining legal stay to forced expulsion from the country of residence.
Such practices result in victimization of migrants such as depriving them of rights that citizens have in similar legal procedures. But is this lawful and just? I would like to focus on answering this question during my presentation.