Inhoudsopgave
Inhoud
1
,Lecture 8: Introduction to European Government (Migration)
Palm (2020) – Externalized migration governance and the limits of
sovereignty.
Provides a critical examination of the European Union’s migration policies, focusing on the
philosophical and legal implications of ‘externalizing’ border control to third countries.
Introduction
A key feature of EU-policy has become externalization-> cooperation with third countries
to prevent migrants from even attempting to cross the Mediterranean. As a result, illegal
migrants are now unable to enter the EU or leave the countries through which they are
travelling.
Traditional sovereignty model
Historically, migration control is viewed as a core component of a nation-state's sovereign
power. Palm highlights several key arguments from influential political philosophers who
advocate for broad discretionary authority on the part of the state:
Philosopher, Key Argument
- Walzer (1983): States are like "clubs" that must be allowed to set membership
criteria to preserve their distinctive cultures.
- Wellman (2011): Uses a marriage analogy; just as an individual cannot be forced
to marry, a state has a right to freedom of association, which includes the right to
exclude others.
- Miller (2007): States have a right to enforce restrictions, though they must remain
sensitive to the plight of refugees.
Neo-republican Theory challenging the traditional sovereignty model
Neo-republican theory-> argues that state power is only legitimate if it’s non-arbitrary
(niet willekeurig).
Power is morally acceptable only when those in power cannot interfere arbitrarily
with an individual's choices.
To justify the exercise of power, it must be carried out through accountable
institutions, and those subject to it must have the opportunity to contest it ( in
beroep gaan).
Currently, migrants are exposed to a form of coercion over which they have no
influence and against which they cannot resist. This systematic vulnerability to
arbitrary power constitutes domination.
Red flags regarding the EU’s strategy
Responsibility follows control: From a legal standpoint, exercising extraterritorial
control entails the obligation to take responsibility for the consequences of that
control.
Jurisdiction shopping: The EU is accused of engaging in “jurisdiction shopping”—
shifting migration control to other countries in order to reduce its own legal
responsibility and circumvent human rights obligations.
Non-refoulement: Returning migrants to countries where they are at risk (such as
Libya) violates the principles of international law.
Conclusion
Palm concludes that while states do have the right to control their borders, this right is
not absolute. Sovereignty does not give states the “power to decide on migration issues
at their own discretion” without any restrictions.
If the EU is to respect international law and Neo-republican principles of justice, it must:
1. Ensure migration controls are non-arbitrary.
2. Take responsibility for the consequences of its power beyond its own borders.
3. Provide channels for migrants to voice interests and contest decisions, even when
they are in third countries.
2
, Key argument
State sovereignty is not an absolute right that grants states the moral authority to
exercise power over non-members in third countries at their own discretion.
From a neo-republican perspective, she argues that the externalization of EU migration
policy is unjust because it leads to “domination.” This means that migrants are subjected
to an arbitrary, unchecked power over which they have no influence and against which
they cannot object:
- Non-arbitrariness: political power is morally acceptable only if it is not arbitrary.
This requires that the exercise of power be subject to scrutiny by those affected by
it.
- As soon as a state (or the EU) exercises effective control over the movements of
migrants—even outside its own territory—it assumes legal and moral responsibility
for the consequences of that control.
- Foreseeable harm: The EU knew that the human rights situation in Libya was
precarious. By forcibly returning migrants to a place where mistreatment and
arbitrary detention are foreseeable, the EU is responsible for the resulting harm.
Criticism on the keyargument:
- Arguments of Wellman and Walzer.
o Refutation on Wellman and Walzer: Although she acknowledges that states
have a certain right to border control, she argues that this right is limited.
The comparison to a club or a marriage breaks down as soon as the state
exercises power that violates fundamental human rights or causes harm to
people outside its territory without any form of accountability.
- Security and stability: proponents of strict border control argue that mass
immigration poses a threat to national stability, the economy, and the state’s
ability to care for its own citizens.
o Refutation: She argues that the threat posed by immigration is often
exaggerated. There are no compelling reasons to believe that large-scale
immigration fundamentally alters the core capacity of wealthy nations to
protect their own citizens. Moreover, the burden on the state must be
weighed against the vital interests of the migrant, such as the right to life.
3
Inhoud
1
,Lecture 8: Introduction to European Government (Migration)
Palm (2020) – Externalized migration governance and the limits of
sovereignty.
Provides a critical examination of the European Union’s migration policies, focusing on the
philosophical and legal implications of ‘externalizing’ border control to third countries.
Introduction
A key feature of EU-policy has become externalization-> cooperation with third countries
to prevent migrants from even attempting to cross the Mediterranean. As a result, illegal
migrants are now unable to enter the EU or leave the countries through which they are
travelling.
Traditional sovereignty model
Historically, migration control is viewed as a core component of a nation-state's sovereign
power. Palm highlights several key arguments from influential political philosophers who
advocate for broad discretionary authority on the part of the state:
Philosopher, Key Argument
- Walzer (1983): States are like "clubs" that must be allowed to set membership
criteria to preserve their distinctive cultures.
- Wellman (2011): Uses a marriage analogy; just as an individual cannot be forced
to marry, a state has a right to freedom of association, which includes the right to
exclude others.
- Miller (2007): States have a right to enforce restrictions, though they must remain
sensitive to the plight of refugees.
Neo-republican Theory challenging the traditional sovereignty model
Neo-republican theory-> argues that state power is only legitimate if it’s non-arbitrary
(niet willekeurig).
Power is morally acceptable only when those in power cannot interfere arbitrarily
with an individual's choices.
To justify the exercise of power, it must be carried out through accountable
institutions, and those subject to it must have the opportunity to contest it ( in
beroep gaan).
Currently, migrants are exposed to a form of coercion over which they have no
influence and against which they cannot resist. This systematic vulnerability to
arbitrary power constitutes domination.
Red flags regarding the EU’s strategy
Responsibility follows control: From a legal standpoint, exercising extraterritorial
control entails the obligation to take responsibility for the consequences of that
control.
Jurisdiction shopping: The EU is accused of engaging in “jurisdiction shopping”—
shifting migration control to other countries in order to reduce its own legal
responsibility and circumvent human rights obligations.
Non-refoulement: Returning migrants to countries where they are at risk (such as
Libya) violates the principles of international law.
Conclusion
Palm concludes that while states do have the right to control their borders, this right is
not absolute. Sovereignty does not give states the “power to decide on migration issues
at their own discretion” without any restrictions.
If the EU is to respect international law and Neo-republican principles of justice, it must:
1. Ensure migration controls are non-arbitrary.
2. Take responsibility for the consequences of its power beyond its own borders.
3. Provide channels for migrants to voice interests and contest decisions, even when
they are in third countries.
2
, Key argument
State sovereignty is not an absolute right that grants states the moral authority to
exercise power over non-members in third countries at their own discretion.
From a neo-republican perspective, she argues that the externalization of EU migration
policy is unjust because it leads to “domination.” This means that migrants are subjected
to an arbitrary, unchecked power over which they have no influence and against which
they cannot object:
- Non-arbitrariness: political power is morally acceptable only if it is not arbitrary.
This requires that the exercise of power be subject to scrutiny by those affected by
it.
- As soon as a state (or the EU) exercises effective control over the movements of
migrants—even outside its own territory—it assumes legal and moral responsibility
for the consequences of that control.
- Foreseeable harm: The EU knew that the human rights situation in Libya was
precarious. By forcibly returning migrants to a place where mistreatment and
arbitrary detention are foreseeable, the EU is responsible for the resulting harm.
Criticism on the keyargument:
- Arguments of Wellman and Walzer.
o Refutation on Wellman and Walzer: Although she acknowledges that states
have a certain right to border control, she argues that this right is limited.
The comparison to a club or a marriage breaks down as soon as the state
exercises power that violates fundamental human rights or causes harm to
people outside its territory without any form of accountability.
- Security and stability: proponents of strict border control argue that mass
immigration poses a threat to national stability, the economy, and the state’s
ability to care for its own citizens.
o Refutation: She argues that the threat posed by immigration is often
exaggerated. There are no compelling reasons to believe that large-scale
immigration fundamentally alters the core capacity of wealthy nations to
protect their own citizens. Moreover, the burden on the state must be
weighed against the vital interests of the migrant, such as the right to life.
3
