{ "items": [ "\n\n
This article examines the enduring entanglements of counterterror governance and refugee encampment in Kenya. The spectre of \u201cterrorism\u201d and its supposed remedy\u2014\u201ccounterterrorism\u201d\u2014have loomed large in Kenyan politics since the 1990s and gained further traction since the country\u2019s military invasion and occupation of southern Somalia in 2011. Few other spaces have been associated as persistently with threats to Kenya\u2019s national security and sovereignty as the Dadaab and Kakuma refugee camps in the country\u2019s Northern belt, which are popularly depicted as \u201cwombs\u201d of terror. In this article, we analyze the transformation of refugee governance in Kenya under the auspices of the War on Terror and consider how counterterrorism has become a way of governing both refugees and precarious ethnoracialized citizens. We provide a multi-scalar analysis that moves between the scales of global militarization, Kenyan state governance, as well as securitized spaces of camps, checkpoints, and policing. The article concludes that refugee camps are not only gateways for imported global counterterror initiatives, but key sites of locally defined state-making processes in which Kenya\u2019s counterterror state is (re)assembled as part of a planetary architecture of humanitarian containment and militarized apartheid.
\n \n\n \n \nIn the \u2018global north\u2019, successive waves of anti-refugee policies have so eroded the institution of asylum that it almost seems lost. The EU\u2019s response to the unprecedented number of refugees from Ukraine demonstrates what it, and the UK, can and should do for all those fleeing war and persecution.
\n \n\n \n \nPartition refugees who arrived in India challenged the laws that various provincial governments enacted to \u201cregulate\u201d and \u201crehabilitate\u201d them. By looking at one of the earliest and key cases concerning writs that emerged out of Sindhi refugee legal challenges to the Bombay government\u2019s land requisition scheme of 1947\u201348, this article suggests that partition refugees helped to shape the legal and constitutional landscape of newly independent India.
\n \n\n \n \nRichard Burton, soldier, ethnographer, translator, philologist, and colonial intelligence-gatherer spent the early years of his career in Sindh and was the first and primary colonial ethnographer of Sindh. Burton was clearly attracted to the ecumenical complexity of Sindhi religious practice but was hostile in his descriptions of Sindh\u2019s Hindus whom he viewed as a corrupt and scheming \u201crace,\u201d subjecting the Muslims of the province to their tyranny. The article examines how Burton\u2019s racialised ethnographies of Sindh cast Sindh as distinct from \u201cIndia\u201d and Hindus as outsider immigrants to the province. Paradoxically, Burton\u2019s narratives also created Sindh as the space par excellence of the negation of religious categories. However, this categorisation of Sindh also highlighted it as a space distinct from India. In conclusion, the article shows how the idea of Sindh\u2019s separate identity maintained a strong afterlife in colonial Sindh, rearticulated in certain key contexts.
\n \n\n \n \nThis special section contributes to the growing interdisciplinary field of camp studies by examining the ways in which scholars methodologically approach and study camps and camp-like spaces. The characteristics of camps, which render them of interest to scholarship in the first place, simultaneously generate methodological, ethical, and practical questions for research. Yet comparatively few studies have explicitly addressed the methods and methodologies in camp research. How do camp contexts shape our underlying research philosophies and how do particular ways of doing research impact our conceptualisations of camps? The contributors to this special section provide a variety of answers to these questions, drawing on empirical research in/on current and historical camp settings. Overall, we gesture towards \u201ccamp methodologies\u201d not as a set of prescribed tools, techniques, or epistemologies to be followed when studying camps but as a shorthand for approaches that consider first, how camp geographies delimit research activities and second, how methodological choices in turn (re)construct the camp conceptually in different ways. Ultimately, this collection aims to encourage critical debates and reflections to shed more light on the methodological effects, positionalities, responsibilities, complicities, and continuing necessities of studying camps.
\n \n\n \n \nBuilding upon the literature on contact theory, this paper explores the role of inter-group interaction in shaping social cohesion between refugees and host communities in East Africa. It draws upon \ufb01rst-hand quantitative (n=16,608) and qualitative data collected from refugees and nearby host communities in urban and camp-like contexts in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda. Focusing on the Uganda data, OLS regressions reveal a positive and signi\ufb01cant correlation between refugee-host interaction and the perception of hosts towards refugees. This association disappears when an instrumental variable (IV) approach is used to address endogeneity issues, except when only data from the urban context is used. The analysis of cross-country data highlights further di\ufb00erences in the types of interaction and perception that matter between urban and camp-like contexts. It also suggests that ethno-linguistic proximity between refugee and host populations is associated with more positive attitudes. In all contexts, an important part of attitude formation appears to take place at the intra-group level, within households and immediate neighbourhoods, independently of individual interaction with the out-group. The paper proposes a series of policy recommendations to improve refugee-host social cohesion, with di\ufb00erent approaches required in urban and camp-like contexts.
\n \n\n \n \nChapter in 'Documenting Displacement: Questioning Methodological Boundaries in Forced Migration Research', edited by Katarzyna Grabska & Christina Clark-Kazak. Legal precarity, mobility, and the criminalization of migrants complicate the study of forced migration and exile. Traditional methodologies can obscure both the agency of displaced people and hierarchies of power between researchers and research participants. This project critically assesses the ways in which knowledge is co-created and reproduced through narratives in spaces of displacement, advancing a creative, collective, and interdisciplinary approach.\r\n\r\nDocumenting Displacement explores the ethics and methods of research in diverse forced migration contexts and proposes new ways of thinking about and documenting displacement. Each chapter delves into specific ethical and methodological challenges, with particular attention to unequal power relations in the co-creation of knowledge, questions about representation and ownership, and the adaptation of methodological approaches to contexts of mobility. Contributors reflect honestly on what has worked and what has not, providing useful points of discussion for future research by both established and emerging researchers.\r\n\r\nInnovative in its use of arts-based methods, Documenting Displacement invites researchers to explore new avenues guided not only by the procedural ethics imposed by academic institutions, but also by a relational ethics that more fully considers the position of the researcher and the interests of those who have been displaced.
\n \n\n \n \nBerlin, Europe\u2019s third largest city at the turn of the 20th century, evokes images of the cultural metropolis and industrial center of the Golden Twenties, the darkness and cruelty of the Nazi regime, and decades of Cold War tension. Over 30 years now since the Wall fell, the unified capital has become a popular tourist destination. An international community of artists, academics, diplomats, journalists, and an increasing number of tech start-up workers also call Berlin home, contributing to gentrification and rising living costs across the city. However, not all of Berlin\u2019s newcomers arrived out of choice. Six years after the influx of more than one million refugees in 2015, there are now approximately 50,000 Syrian refugees living in the city.
\n \n\n \n \nThis book explores the struggles of a minority group \u2013 Alevis \u2013 for recognition and representation in Turkey and the diaspora. It examines how they mobilise against state practices and claim their rights, while at the same time negotiating how they define themselves. The authors offers a conceptual framework to study minorities by looking at both structural and agency-related factors in resisting state pressure and mobilising for their rights.\r\n\r\nThe Alevis in Modern Turkey and the Diaspora is divided into three main sections looking into: the Turkish state and society\u2019s pressures over Alevis; how Alevis struggle and obtain representation in various Western countries; and how traditional authority and rituals transform under these conditions. Studying this minority group\u2019s experience helps to understand oppression and resistance in the broader Middle East.
\n \n\n \n \nIn conflict situations, rapid changes can occur in the conditions in both host and home countries. In the context of such uncertainty, how do refugees navigate the bureaucratic apparatus of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to obtain humanitarian aid and resettlement? We carried out fieldwork in 2019 in Lebanon and found the UNHCR\u2019s bureaucracy to be a \u2018black box\u2019 for refugees in relation to the provision of information on humanitarian aid and resettlement. In this context of limited information, we found that rumours \u2013 widely considered to be uncertain truths \u2013 contributed to shaping participants\u2019 understanding of the UNHCR\u2019s decisions on the provision of aid and resettlement. In this article, we highlight the interpretive aspect of rumours and argue that refugees engage in interpretive labour as a result of the unequal relationship between themselves and the UNHCR\u2019s opaque bureaucracy and provision of information. While refugees have to provide the UNHCR with detailed and highly personal information in interviews and household inspections, officers provide refugees with only generic responses, leading refugees to make their own interpretations of the bureaucratic decision-making processes. We conceptualise this interpretive labour as a collective process that contributes to generating rumours among refugee groups.
\n \n\n \n \nThe five papers in this themed section seek to explain national identifications with Syria using diverse methods and focusing on various state and societal actors before and after 2011. Each contribution engages with the distinction of national identities into their \u2018ethnic/primordial\u2019 and \u2018civic/constructed\u2019 elements and examines their meaning within Syria in different times and contexts. Since its independence in 1946, Syria experienced strong tensions between sub- and supra-state identities and experimented with diverse territorial nationalisms in their pan-Arab and specifically Syrian forms. Through a distinctive mix of ethnic Arab and civic ideological elements, they helped to forge unity among a multiplicity of ethnicities, tribes and sects living on the Syrian territory and thus were moulded in tandem with the interests of those in power.
\n \n\n \n \nThis article is interested in Syrian and Syrian refugees\u2019 ties of belonging to their country in times of war and displacement. By looking at individuals, the paper follows a micro-level approach to research societal ties of belonging to a country that has slipped into war. It argues that during conflicts, the meaning and boundaries of national identity are grasped in individuals' re-imagination of their country in either more \u201ccivic\u201d or \u201cethnic\u201d terms. As a result of this process, national identity may gain an inclusive, civic meaning based on the idea of citizenship or a more exclusive content based on the narrower confines of ethnicity and sect. Empirically, 100 Syrians and 100 Syrian refugees provided their vision of a future Syrian state in online interviews. The findings show that the majority of respondents\u2019 visions of Syria follows a civic rationale, with most survey participants linking their belonging to a future Syria with the broader ideas of citizenship, political rights and participation, rather than identifying the country in ethnic/sectarian terms. Combined with the theories, these results offer a glimpse into the societal formation of a new Syrian \u201cwe\u201d amid an ongoing war and continuing waves of displacement.
\n \n\n \n \nChapter 5 in \u2018Everybody\u2019s War: The Politics of Aid in the Syria Crisis\u2019 edited by Jehan Bseiso, Michiel Hofman, and Jonathan Whittall (OUP, October 2021)\r\nAbout the book: The Syrian crisis is one of the most serious humanitarian disasters in recent history. Yet the widely reported numbers\u2014more than 6 million displaced, including 5 million refugees\u2014reflect only a fractional toll of the conflict. Numerous international organizations, states, and civil society movements have called for the laws of war to be respected, sieges lifted, and humanitarian access facilitated. But beneath each of these humanitarian appeals lies a complicated reality extending beyond the binary narratives that have come to define the war in Syria.\r\n\r\nEverybody's War examines the complexities of humanitarianism in Syria and the wide-ranging consequences for both Syria's populations and humanitarian responses to future conflicts. Organized by M\u00e9decins Sans Fronti\u00e8res, this edited volume brings together academics and humanitarian practitioners from across the globe to provide a multitude of perspectives on the politics of aid in the Syrian war. Contributors explore the humanitarian crisis behind the Syrian conflict through the history and fragmentation of Syrian health care, the role of international humanitarian law in enabling attacks on health facilities, and the lived experience of siege in all its layers. Further attention is given to the ways in which humanitarian actors have fed the war economy and joined the information wars that have raged throughout the region over the past ten years.\r\n\r\nWhile the Syrian crisis has been everybody's war, it has certainly not been everybody's victory. This volume shares the intricate story of aid delivery and humanitarian complicity within one of the defining conflicts of the twenty-first century.
\n \n\n \n \nThe decades-old labelling of the Kurdistan Workers\u2019 Party (PKK) as a terror group by the European Union and several European states has meant that much of the Kurdish freedom movement\u2019s extensive political work in the diaspora has historically operated in a clandestine manner. This changed dramatically with the battle for the Syrian-Kurdish town of Kobane in late 2014. Following the circulation of images of Kurdish women who fought against the so-called Islamic State, thousands of researchers, activists, journalists, artists and politicians turned up at Kurdish community centres across Europe.
\n \n\n \n \nThis article discusses radical democratic citizenship in the context of the \u2018Rojava Revolution\u2019, an ongoing society-building effort that emerged in majority Kurdish regions in the context of the Syrian war. It describes aspects of the political vision of Abdullah \u00d6calan, as interpreted and applied by activists involved in the democratic self-governance system in Rojava (northern Syria), since 2012. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork in the region, the article focuses on the ways in which activists frame their revolution and notions of radical democratic citizenship as consciousness-raising efforts against the state system. Centering the role of educational institutions, it argues that theoretical discussions within the Kurdish freedom movement seek to emancipate political action from state-centric ways of articulating political will, justice demands, and wider geopolitical interests. Lastly, it encourages studying radical democracy efforts by taking seriously the political vocabularies, everyday practices, and long-term perspectives advanced in collective self-organisation from below.
\n \n\n \n \nRecent years have seen recurrent calls for bridging the \u201cgap\u201d between the worlds of policy-makers, practitioners, and academic scholars concerned with forced migration and humanitarian aid. This has resulted in growing partnerships between international organisations, governments, businesses, foundations, and universities with the aim of harnessing market economic thinking to create new practice-oriented knowledge rather than out-of-touch theories. This intervention responds critically to these developments and questions the seemingly common-sense logic behind attempts to forge ever closer collaborations across institutional lines. Rather than benefitting displaced communities, bridging divides has often served as a way of consolidating the hegemony of humanitarian actors and inadvertently delegitimized more critical scholarship. Scholars in refugee and forced migration studies have hereby been engulfed in a tightening \u201chumanitarian embrace\u201d. This paper argues that in order to fulfil a scholarly commitment to social justice, anti-violence and pro-asylum politics, it is time to again demarcate the boundaries between the practices and institutions that reproduce humanitarian power and their critics.
\n \n\n \n \nLarge-scale development interventions have long failed to accommodate the needs and preferences of pastoralists or the systems of resource governance and land tenure upon which they rely. However, advocates of rights-based approaches to development emphasise the importance of community participation in planning and agenda-setting, and in Kenya, public participation is a formal constitutional requirement for government decision-making processes. In 2015, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees concluded negotiations with local stakeholders about the use of 15 km2 of communal rangelands to build a new refugee settlement in Turkana County, Kenya. Negotiations entailed a community dialogue process involving local people living in the vicinity of the proposed settlement. This paper retrospectively examines the inclusivity of the dialogue process, with particular attention to the involvement of pastoralists and the representation of their interests. Interviews and focus groups conducted with a range of key informants and community stakeholders highlighted two key problems. First, negotiations relied upon a simplistic approach to communal land tenure that overlooked the complexity of overlapping and often contested access rights. Second, there was an over-reliance on urban professionals and politicians as intermediaries between rural communities and development actors. Even where elite intermediaries act in good faith, they may introduce an \u2018oppidan bias\u2019 into development policies, thereby marginalising the viewpoints of non-urban, non-sedentary demographics, such as pastoralists. I conclude with recommendations for the UNHCR to develop a more explicit strategy for direct engagement with host community stakeholders in Turkana and with increased attention to the interests of livestock producers and the nuances of pastoralist land use.
\n \n\n \n \nIt is possible to identify gendered disadvantage at almost every point in a migrant woman's journey, physical and legal, from country of origin to country of destination, from admission to naturalization. Rules which explicitly distribute migration opportunities differently on the grounds of sex/gender, such as prohibitions on certain women's emigration, may produce such disadvantage. Women may also, however, be disadvantaged by facially gender-neutral rules. Examples of indirectly disadvantageous provisions include those which classify certain forms of labor as either \u201clow-\u201d or \u201chigh-\u201d skilled, using this categorization to distribute migration opportunities differentially. Such rules may disproportionately affect the mostly female workers whose labor in certain fields is considered \u201clow-skilled\u201d in comparison to that undertaken by their predominantly male, \u201chigh-skilled\u201d counterparts. Scholars have identified the diverse ways in which states\u2019 immigration and nationality laws continue to involve gendered and racialized exclusion, subordination, and violence. Migration control practices, including those concerned with deterrence, detention, and deportation, have also been impugned on these bases. This essay draws on this literature to examine whether rules that produce gendered disadvantage are open to challenge under the international legal regime charged with eradicating discrimination against women, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
\n \n\n \n \n