Advertisement

Ethico-political Governmentality of Immigration and Asylum in Ethiopia

  • Dilek Karal
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter deals with the international immigration and asylum regime’s propositions for Ethiopia that construct ethico-political power. The chapter firstly aims to unearth construction of ethico-political power in policy plans for Ethiopia and reflections of ethico-political power in immigration and asylum policies in Ethiopia. The author claims that Africa and Ethiopia are problematized in policy documents quite negatively as a place of inequality, discrimination, extreme poverty and undemocratic governance. Second, the chapter maintains that African migration dynamics and immigrants are either problematized as a part of dependency or criminality rhetoric. In the second part of this chapter the author analyzes the reflections of the ethico-political paradigm in governmentality of immigration and asylum in Ethiopia. Author also claims that this paradigm reflects on Ethiopia at differing levels, such as positioning the country as a “safe third country” of the Global North, strengthening of control over immigrants, increasing dependence on individual and community as a part of neo-liberal policy making. These reflections create certain “uncalculated effects” on governmentality of immigration and asylum in Ethiopia, affecting the state, migrant communities and individuals.

References

  1. African Union. (2006). Migration Policy Framework for Africa. Addis Ababa: AU.Google Scholar
  2. AU. (2004). Commission of the African Union: 2004–2007 Strategic Plan. Addis Ababa: AU.Google Scholar
  3. Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. EU Commission. (2004). On the Managed Entry in the EU of Persons in Need of International Protection and the Enhancement of the Protection Capacity of the Regions of Origin: “Improving Access to Durable Solutions”. Brussels: EU Commission.Google Scholar
  5. EU Commission. (2009). 1st Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum. Brussels: EU Commission.Google Scholar
  6. EU Commission. (2011). 3rd Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum. Brussels: EU Commission.Google Scholar
  7. EU Commission. (2015). Regional Protection Programs. Retrieved from January 1, 2014, from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum/external-aspects/index_en.htm
  8. Ferguson, J. (2006). Global Shadows: Africa in the Neoliberal World Order. London/New York: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Foucault, M. (1979). Governmentality. Ideology and Consciousness, 6, 5–21.Google Scholar
  11. Garland, D. (1996). The Limits of Sovereign State: Strategies of Crime Control in Contemporary Society. British Journal of Criminology, 36(4), 445–471. Retrieved from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/4/445.shortCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glenn, E. N. (2010). Forced to Care: Coercion and Caregiving in America. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Grabska, K. (2006). Marginalization in Urban Spaces of the Global South: Urban Refugees in Cairo. Journal of Refugee Studies, 19(3), 287–307.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fel014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greenhalgh, S. (2008). Just One Child. London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hilhorst, D., & Jansen, B. J. (2010). Humanitarian Space as Arena: A Perspective on the Everyday Politics of Aid. Development & Change, 41(6), 117–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Human Rights Watch. (2002). Hidden in Plain View: Refugees Living Without Protection in Nairobi and Kampala. New York: Human Rights Watch.Google Scholar
  17. IGAD, AU, & IOM. (n.d.). Workshop on the IGAD Regional Consultative Process (IGAD-RCP). Addis Ababa: AU.Google Scholar
  18. Inda, J. X. (2006). Border Prophylaxis: Technology, Illegality, and the Government of Immigration. Cultural Dynamics, 18(2), 115–138.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0921374006066695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. IOM. (2000). World Migration Report. Geneva: IOM.Google Scholar
  20. IOM. (2003). World Migration Report: An Overview of International Migration. Geneva: IOM.Google Scholar
  21. IOM. (2005). The World Migration Report: Cost and Benefits of Migration. Geneva: IOM.Google Scholar
  22. IOM. (2010). World Migration Report. Geneva: IOM.Google Scholar
  23. IOM. (2011). World Migration Report: Communicating Effectively About Migration. Geneva: IOM.Google Scholar
  24. IOM. (2012, September). Consultative and Capacity Building Workshop for Members of the Police Force and Border Control Officers Held in Kombolcha. The Migrant. Addis Ababa.Google Scholar
  25. IOM. (2013). Towards the 2013 High-Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development. Geneva: IOM.Google Scholar
  26. IOM. (2014). Migration Profiles: Ethiopia. Retrieved from January 1, 2015, from http://esa.un.org/MigGMGProfiles/indicators/files/Ethiopia.pdf
  27. Jacobsen, K. (2005). The Economic Life of Refugees. Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
  28. Klavert, H. (2011). African Union Frameworks for Migration: Current Issues and Questions for the Future (Discussion Paper 108). Maastricht: ECDPM.Google Scholar
  29. Landau, L. (2005). Forced Migrants in the New Johannesburg: Towards a Local Government Response. Johannesburg: University of Witwatersrand.Google Scholar
  30. Li, T. M. (1999). Compromising Power: Development, Culture, and Rule in Indonesia. Cultural Anthropology, 14(3), 295–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Markos, K. (1997). The Treatment of Somali Refugees in Ethiopia under Ethiopian and International Law. International Journal of Refugee Law, 9(3), 365–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McMaster, D. (2006). RESETTLED REFUGEES: Temporary Protection Visas: Obstructing Refugee Livelihoods. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 25(2), 135–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nikolas, R. (1996). The Death of the Social? Re-figuring the Territory of Government. Economy and Society, 25(3), 327–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. O’Malley, P. (1996). Risk and Responsibility. In A. Barry, T. Osborne, & N. Rose (Eds.), Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-liberalism, and Rationalities of Government (pp. 189–207). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Turton, D. (2005). The Meaning of Place in a World of Movement: Lessons from Long-Term Field Research in Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Refugee Studies, 18(3), 258–280.  https://doi.org/10.1093/refuge/fei031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. UNHCR. (2000). UNHCR Global Report. Geneva: UNHCR.Google Scholar
  37. UNHCR. (2001). Global Report. Geneva: UNHCR.Google Scholar
  38. UNHCR. (2009). Global Report. Geneva: UNHCR.Google Scholar
  39. UNHCR. (2010). Global Report 2010. Geneva: UNHCR.Google Scholar
  40. UNHCR (2013) Ethiopia Operational Overview. Retrieved from: http://www.unhcr.org/ethiopia.html
  41. UNHCR. (2015). Global Appeal 2015 Update. Geneva: UNHCR.Google Scholar
  42. UNHCR Policy on Refugee Protection and Solutions in Urban Areas. (2009, September). Geneva: UNHCR.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dilek Karal
    • 1
  1. 1.Bir Dünya Çocuk DerneğiGaziantepTurkey

Personalised recommendations