Bridgeheads of EU border externalisation? NGOs/CSOs and migration in Libya

Bridgeheads of EU border externalisation? NGOs/CSOs and migration in Libya
复制标题

欧盟边境外部化的桥头堡?

DOI:
10.1177/23996544221143905
复制
发表时间:
2023
期刊:
Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space
影响因子:
--
通讯作者:
P. Cuttitta
P. Cuttitta
中科院分区:
--
文献类型:
--
作者:
P. Cuttitta

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

本文分析了2009年至2020年利比亚非政府组织(NGO)和民间社会组织(CSO)开展的工作,以揭示其与欧盟移民和边境管理外部化的矛盾关系。虽然也在利比亚组织,并在倡议,如欧盟资助的专业化项目,其目的是增选新生的当地民间社会进入欧盟边境外部化机制,本文主要集中在国际非政府组织,特别注意到意大利非政府组织CIR。该文件表明,即使在困难的利比亚的背景下,有一些潜在的非政府组织/民间社会组织从根本上有效地反对欧盟外部化,或至少尝试这样做,通过活动,如公共信息和宣传。然而,在移徙者经常遭受各种虐待,外国或外国资助的行为者受到怀疑的情况下,非政府组织/民间社会组织的回旋余地有限。事实上,它们大多最终代表其(欧洲)捐助者填补了当地移民和边境管理系统的空白,从而支持外部化边境管理的顺利运作。这也体现在非政府组织/民间社会组织处理人权问题、与捐助者和地方当局互动以及长期坚持支持遏制移徙政策的二分法和分类法的方式上。
This paper analyses the work carried out by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society organisations (CSOs) in Libya from 2009 to 2020 to shed light on its ambivalent relationship to the EU externalisation of migration and border management. While also looking at Libyan organisations, and at initiatives such as EU-funded professionalisation projects, which aim to co-opt the nascent local civil society into the EU border externalisation mechanism, the paper largely focuses on international NGOs, with specific attention being paid to the Italian NGO CIR. The paper shows that even in the difficult Libyan context there is some potential for NGOs/CSOs to radically and effectively oppose EU externalisation, or at least try to do so through activities such as public information and advocacy. However, in a context in which migrants are systematically exposed to a wide range of abuses, and foreign or foreign-funded actors are seen with suspicion, NGOs/CSOs have limited room for manoeuvre. In fact, they mostly end up filling the gaps of the local migration and border management system on behalf of their (European) donors, thus supporting the smooth operation of externalised border management. This is also visible in the way NGOs/CSOs address human rights, interact with donors and local authorities, and perpetuate dichotomies and categorisations that support migration containment policies.