LIBRICIRC

Discussion : Antoine Pécoud, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord/​ICM, and Hélène Thiollet, Sciences Po Paris-CERI/ICM

Betty Rouland, IRMC : Intra-regional mobilities in practices : a geo-historical perspective in Tunisia

This paper discusses the evolu­tion of intra-regional prac­tices of mobi­li­ties from the colo­nial period to nowa­days through the case study of Tunisia. Until the 2011 popular upri­sings, the country was prima­rily known as a country of “emigration”and intra-regional mobi­lity was hardly documented.

Econo­mists even qualify the region as “no Maghreb” (Hammami, 2016, Mahjoub, 2017) in refe­rence to the low level of economic inte­gra­tion. By using a geo-histo­rical pers­pec­tive, the paper empha­sizes inter­ac­tions and deve­lop­ment resul­ting from multi-scalar spaces of circu­la­tions (cross-border, regional, trans­na­tional) in the region. It is based on various empi­rical studies of Libyans, Moroc­cans and Alge­rians in different cities in Tunisia. Intra-regional prac­tices of mobi­li­ties result from the evolu­tion of specific geopo­li­tical contexts combined with the accu­mu­la­tion of conti­gui­ties (geo- histo­rical, poli­tical, and socio-cultural) and more recently processes of regio­na­li­za­tion by the bottom- up.

Diego Acosta, University of Bristol : Regional free movement of people law : a new field of study for international migration law

A powerful narra­tive presents the response to the global chal­lenge of migra­tion as the erec­tion of borders. This paper explores its appa­rent converse : the easing of borders at regional level. There are now poli­cies and laws faci­li­ta­ting free move­ment of people in at least thirty-three regional orga­ni­za­tions invol­ving 174 states, in addi­tion to nume­rous bila­teral agree­ments and domestic norms. Yet little work has been done to unders­tand their scope. This Article defines a new field of study for inter­na­tional migra­tion law, labelled as regional free move­ment of people law, and syste­ma­ti­cally presents its components.

Delphine Perrin, IRD-LPED : Reflecting on free movement in ECOWAS from the Nigerien context

Free move­ment in ECOWAS is a social pheno­menon, an old poli­tical project as well as an object of fantasy. Intra-African free move­ment projects have recently been relaun­ched at the regional and conti­nental levels : they exem­plify a desire to develop an « African approach » to migra­tion, that would be distinct from a Euro­pean approach, but along­side which it could flou­rish. These projects are evol­ving at a time when African states (mainly in the Medi­ter­ra­nean and the Sahel) are engaged in « globa­lized » legal and poli­tical migra­tion dyna­mics : they are deve­lo­ping migra­tion poli­cies and legis­la­tion that are supposed to regu­late migra­tion, they are promo­ting discourses of mobi­lity mana­ge­ment and they are parti­ci­pa­ting in the secu­ri­ti­za­tion of migra­tion by rein­for­cing a legal arsenal to fight against unre­gu­lated migration.

My paper will present some reflec­tions on free move­ment in the ECOWAS space in light of the new situa­tion in Niger, which has been engaged since 2016 in a fight against « migrant smug­gling » and « human trafficking ».

The Nige­rien pers­pec­tive allows us to high­light two areas of reflection :

• intra-African free move­ment in a context of infor­ma­lity : how the discourse and instru­ments for figh­ting irre­gular migra­tion and promo­ting regular migra­tion clash with the prac­tices of states and individuals ;
• Intra-African freedom of move­ment in a « globa­lized » secu­rity context : how to achieve freedom of move­ment in a poli­tical space inserted in and connected to other spaces (Medi­ter­ra­nean, Euro­pean, ..)? Is it possible to achieve in spite of these inter­ac­tions that constrain freedom of move­ment, without ques­tio­ning and confron­ting the mobi­lity mana­ge­ment system outside the ECOWAS space ?

Camille Gendrot, Université Paris 1‑IREDIES/​ICM : Free movement of persons in West Africa : historical choices and the impacts on current rights

The construc­tion of a right to free move­ment of persons in West Africa is essen­tially being carried out within the frame­work of subre­gional inter­na­tional orga­ni­za­tions. As early as the late 1950s, a project emerged to create a space, without calling into ques­tion colo­nial admi­nis­tra­tive sharing, where workers could continue to move while main­tai­ning a form of unity among the future inde­pendent states. The Sahel-Benin Union was the first forum in which the poli­tical idea of faci­li­ta­ting intra- regional move­ment deve­loped. While the idea of faci­li­ta­ting the move­ment of part of the people of the subre­gion is an old one, its trans­la­tion into a right to free move­ment for part of the citi­zens is rela­ti­vely recent.

Indeed, it was not until the late 1970s that a right to free move­ment was for the first time legally affirmed and imple­mented by the Consti­tu­tive Act of the Economic Commu­nity of West African States (ECOWAS) signed in 1975. Other spaces in the subre­gion subse­quently deve­loped, respon­ding to parti­cular poli­tical struggles – such as the West African Economic and Mone­tary Union (WAEMU) and the Commu­nity of Sahelo-Saharan States (CENSAD) – or to specific tech­nical areas – such as river mana­ge­ment within the Mano River Union (MRU).

These move­ments, which some authors have described as « frag­men­ta­tion of inter­na­tional legal action » or « sub-regio­na­lism », lead us to ques­tion the objec­tives of their crea­tion. Each orga­ni­za­tion is the result of a parti­cular crea­tion process. Through their study, we observe that the choice of free move­ment of persons is first and fore­most part of economic inte­gra­tion projects. Never­the­less, limi­ting the expla­na­tion and defi­ni­tion of this right to its economic dimen­sion does not embrace the moti­va­tions and objec­tives advo­cated in the regional texts. Inte­gra­ting the West African terri­to­ries with the ambi­tion of crea­ting an area of peace and stabi­lity for the West African popu­la­tions also remains the spea­rhead of these organizations.

These ideo­lo­gical approaches are more or less reflected in the legal norms that West African orga­ni­za­tions have deve­loped. It there­fore seems impor­tant to study the construc­tion of rights to free move­ment of persons in the subre­gion in order to unders­tand the legal impacts of the policy choices made by States. We thus propose to examine how the choice of a liberal free move­ment of persons trans­lates into the current recog­ni­tion of rights rela­ting to the move­ment of persons in the subregion.

Discussion : Sara Casella Colombeau, Université de Grenoble-Alpes/ICM, and Olivier Clochard, CNRS-Migrinter/ICM

Torsten Feys, VLIZ-IMIS : Viapolitics of Transport Revolutions & their Restrictive Impact on Free Movement

Trans­port revo­lu­tions marked the long nine­teenth century which has been labeled as the era of free mass migra­tion and by exten­sion free move­ment. There is a general consensus that the increased mobi­lity caused by trans­port revo­lu­tion forced nation states to suspend passport regu­la­tions and lower controls on mobi­lity. However, this assump­tion lacks empi­rical research, not least from the pers­pec­tive of the trans­port compa­nies and their rela­tions with state autho­ri­ties. The presen­ta­tion argues that the trans­port revo­lu­tion faci­li­tated state control over human mobi­lity on two levels. First it concen­trated a great number of passen­gers on vehicles travel­ling at fixed sche­dules. Second it gave rise to a limited number of major trans­port compa­nies faci­li­ta­ting rela­tions between the trans­port sector and state autho­ri­ties. This allowed states to gradually inte­grate trans­port compa­nies in mobi­lity control mecha­nisms using them as impor­tant actors of enfor­cing migration/​mobility poli­cies. This put trans­port compa­nies in a para­doxical posi­tion as their natural logic spurs free move­ment, yet the impo­si­tions force them to restrict it. As states gained power, trans­port compa­nies were increa­singly pushed in a difficult balan­cing act to swell their passenger numbers while avoi­ding that govern­ments imposed further restric­tions on their busi­ness. This balan­cing act and how American and Belgian autho­ri­ties used trans­port revo­lu­tions (steam­ship and rail­roads respec­ti­vely) to carry out their migration/​mobility poli­cies will be used as case-studies.

Martin Seeleib-Kaiser, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen : Territoriality, Citizenship, and Welfare

The provi­sion of welfare has histo­ri­cally been closely asso­ciated to a speci­fied terri­tory, be it the local muni­ci­pa­lity, region or the nation state. Increased internal mobi­lity and inter­na­tional migra­tion has regu­larly chal­lenged the defi­ni­tion of insi­ders or citi­zens, being able to access welfare. Terri­to­rial juris­dic­tions have used various means to restrict mobi­lity, or have provided the right to freedom of move­ment very often dependent on economic consi­de­ra­tions. Welfare in this paper is defined as the provi­sion of the means of subsis­tence either in the form of poor relief or the right to social assis­tance. The paper draws on expe­riences and deve­lop­ments in diverse juris­dic­tions of Europe, the People’s Repu­blic of China and the US. It will discuss the tension between terri­to­ria­lity and acces­sing welfare in an histo­rical and inter­na­tional compa­rison, different unders­tan­dings of citi­zen­ship, and finally the need for a guaran­teed social minimum as an element of EU citi­zen­ship in the 21st century.

Adrienne Mannov, Aarhus University : Leviathan to-go : What is means to move freely with an itinerant sovereign

This talk will focus on free move­ment through the lens of protec­tion and care of those subject to and moving across state juris­dic­tions. My work takes its point of depar­ture in field­work among inter­na­tional merchant seafa­rers and their percep­tions of physical and exis­ten­tial secu­rity in connec­tion with contem­po­rary mari­time piracy (Mannov 2015). One pers­pec­tive that emerged from this project is an analysis of how power, protec­tion and care are prac­ticed at sea and on land, which I call “itine­rant sove­rei­gnty” (Mannov, n.d.). Modern sove­rei­gnty grows out of a West­pha­lian framing of poli­tical space and power within bounded terri­to­rial space, and sove­rei­gnty at sea is framed as “free” (Cf. UNCLOS). But I argue that sove­rei­gnty – in the sense of the power to wield force for and against a subject for the purpose of protec­ting and provi­ding care – is neither as static as national, physical borders might imply, nor is it as fluid as the notion that mare liberum (Cf. Grotius 1609) imparts upon us. Instead, sove­rei­gnty is deeply stra­tegic, rela­tional, poli­ti­cally driven and itine­rant. I supple­ment these ideas with how itine­rant sove­rei­gnty is helpful to think with in connec­tion with networked cybers­paces (Cf. Hilde­brandt 2017). How might we think about free move­ment and protec­tion when the space through which we move is both physical and virtual ? Thin­king about what it moves to move freely through the lens of itine­rant sove­rei­gnty is fruitful because it forces us to step outside of legal frame­works as if they were repre­sen­ta­tions of how poli­tical space is prac­ticed and into what actually happens when people, ideas and things move (or are blocked) through physical and virtual spaces.

Discussion : Emmanuel Blanchard, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines-CESDIP/ICM, and Laura Odasso, Collège de France /​ICM

Farida Souiah, LAMES : Free movement between France and Algeria : a lost cause for French bureaucrats (1962–1989) ?

Since Alge­ria’s inde­pen­dence in 1962, circu­la­tions of people have been a major diplo­matic issue in Franco-Alge­rian rela­tions. The Evian agree­ments, signed on March 18, 1962 and approved by refe­rendum on April 8 of the same year, main­tained a privi­leged regime of circu­la­tion between France and Algeria. No specific travel docu­ments were required for Alge­rians to travel to France. They were free to travel between France and Algeria with an iden­tity card (except in the case of a court deci­sion). The post-colo­nial period is that of a multi­pli­ca­tion of obstacles to freedom of move­ment, through increa­sing required forma­li­ties for migrants and trave­lers between the two coun­tries. Based on the French diplo­matic archives located in La Cour­neuve, this contri­bu­tion focuses on the actors and insti­tu­tions that posi­tioned them­selves in defense of freedom of move­ment between 1962 and 1989 (the year visas were imposed between the two coun­tries), tracing the evolu­tion of the argu­ments mobi­lized and the causes invoked to justify their imple­men­ta­tion or main­te­nance, at least from a formal point of view. In parti­cular, it explores the diver­gences between the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MAE) and the French Ministry of the Interior, as well as the diver­gences within MAE on this issue of freedom of movement.

Mahmoud Keshavarz, HDK-Valand Academy of Art and Design : Colonial Techniques of (Im)mobility

What does histo­ries of tech­no­lo­gies of mobi­lity from the pers­pec­tive of those banned from moving tell us ? Focu­sing on a time period from 1800 to 1920, this essay will bring few examples of tech­no­lo­gical forma­tions around which iden­ti­fi­ca­tion prac­tices were linked to the right to move.

Blen­ding state and non-state actors who were involved in impo­sing, nego­tia­ting and contes­ting certain tech­no­lo­gies of mobi­lity control, the essay links the ways in which tech­no­lo­gies of free move­ment for colo­ni­zers and their inter­ests were part and parcel of tech­no­lo­gies of control­ling the colo­nized. In this sense, expan­sion, gras­ping and occu­pa­tion mobi­lized through a liberal claim to freedom of move­ment went hand in hand with restric­tions, confi­ne­ment and expul­sion all of which were impos­sible without a set of specific iden­ti­fi­ca­tion prac­tices linked to the right to move. If free move­ment became possible for some because they could be known, this essay argues that the right to free move­ment always needs to be discussed in rela­tion to the right to opacity.

Emma Carmel, University of Bath : The double coloniality of ‘Europeanness’: free movement governance from Rome to Brexit

‘Free move­ment’ (strictly, free move­ment of labour, FMoL) is today frequently touted as an emble­matic, even consti­tu­tive feature of the EU as a project. Yet this charac­te­ri­sa­tion of FMoL as funda­mental to the iden­tity of the Union is belied by the major trans­for­ma­tions in its defi­ni­tion, regu­la­tion and privi­leges since the Treaty of Rome. This paper argues that this ambi­va­lent status of FMoL stems from its role as a central – if dynamic – gover­nance prac­tice of colo­nial poli­tical economy since the late 20c. ‘Free move­ment’ has never been a funda­mental condi­tion for either member state­hood or indi­vi­dual citi­zen­ship. However, FMoL is funda­mental to its onto­logy. That is, it is funda­mental to the ways in which the ‘Euro­pean­ness’ of the Economic Commu­nity, and later the Union, is dyna­mi­cally arti­cu­lated in rela­tion to both what is outside, or non-Euro­pean, and what is inside and is Euro­pean. Empi­ri­cally the paper examines four key changes in EU free move­ment regu­la­tion : Rome, the intro­duc­tion of social secu­rity co-ordi­na­tion ; Amsterdam and the 2004 acces­sions ; and pre-Brexit nego­tia­tions. It finds that FMoL gover­nance has always circum­scribed who gets to be Euro­pean and have access to FMoL ; and stra­ti­fied the terms and condi­tions of such access among those who are deemed ‘Euro­pean’. These circum­scrip­tions and stra­ti­fi­ca­tions are deeply impli­cated in the racial, gendered, classed and geo-poli­tical hierar­chies of the Union. Through this, we can iden­tify a double colo­nia­lity of rela­tions : on the one hand, among highly stra­ti­fied citi­zens and states inside the Union, and on the other, between ‘the Union’ and those citi­zens and states outside it. This double colo­nia­lity is inscribed in specific regu­la­tions on work, marriage, social secu­rity and welfare. Despite regu­la­tory change and rede­fi­ni­tion over time, FMoL has persis­tently exhi­bited this double colo­nia­lity ; contin­gently trying to fix the boun­da­ries of what counts as Euro­pean and Europeanness.

Discussion : Nora El Qadim, Université Paris 8‑CRESPPA/​ICM

Charles Heller : Towards a Politics of Freedom of Movement

If the only alter­na­tive to the current regime of border closure seems to be one founded in migrants’ freedom of move­ment, this poli­tical horizon is confronted with a host of difficul­ties. By way of trying to respond to these issues, we set out from the multiple borders and social boun­da­ries that constrain migrants’ move­ments as they travel, and high­light the many dimen­sions of the struggle into which one must engage to imple­ment a poli­tics of freedom of movement.

Kristin Surak, SOAS-University of London : Free Movement, For a Price : Investment Migration and Cross-Border Mobility

Invest­ment migra­tion programs offer “golden passports” and “golden visas” in exchange for a passive invest­ment in a country. Driving demand for these offerings is the concern by the wealthy to secure mobi­lity, whether in the present, in the form of cros­sing borders, or in the future as a Plan B. For those who can afford it, the programs offer a way to circumvent borders once they become incon­ve­nient – which were often the borders that faci­li­tated their wealth accu­mu­la­tion in the first place. For the coun­tries, they bring in a fast but small injec­tion of foreign direct invest­ment with few costs. These dyna­mics offer inter­es­ting compa­ri­sons with those of multi-national corpo­ra­tions, which also leve­rage juris­dic­tion to their own advan­tage, while coun­tries compete for a small slice of the pie.

Darshan Vigneswaran, University of Amsterdam : Freedom is a Road Seldom Travelled by the Multitude : Black Thinkers and Migration as Resistance

The concept of ‘free move­ment’ has often be8en narrowly conceived in ‘liberal’ terms, as corres­pon­ding to the absence of state impe­di­ments upon personal choices to move. This work seeks to move beyond this liberal frame­work, through a genea­lo­gical survey of the rela­tion­ship between ideas of physical move­ment through space and the lived expe­rience of auto­no­mous choice across a range of anti-colo­nial and anti-racist poli­tical theory. The unders­tan­dings of freedom that were consti­tuted in and through confron­ta­tions with racia­lised and colo­nial forms of oppres­sion, neces­sa­rily placed a heavy emphasis on addres­sing and over­co­ming terri­to­ria­lized, racia­lised and violent forms of control. In contrast to liberal ideals of freedom, these anti-colo­nial and anti-racist thin­kers concep­tua­lised freedom as an acti­vity or lived expe­rience rather than a passive condi­tion or absence. Key here, was the notion that specific forms of im/​mobility – occu­pa­tion, trans­gres­sion, flight – etc. could unsettle terri­to­rial and radi­ca­lised forms of power, and open up path­ways to alter­nate forms of poli­tical order. This paper explores how mobi­lity came to be central to their unders­tan­dings of what it meant to be free in these contexts, and then looks for ways in which these ideals of freedom may both reframe the way we think about contem­po­rary migrants’ acts of occu­pa­tion, trans­gres­sion and flight as political.