Developmental borderwork and the International Organization for Migration

The global governance of borders and migration is increasingly carried out by intergovernmental organisations. Organisations like the IOM epitomise this trend, and with the backdrop of 'migration crisis' govern mobility by deploying humanitarian assistance as much as by providing border se...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of ethnic and migration studies 2018-07, Vol.44 (10), p.1656-1672
Main Author: Frowd, Philippe M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Best practice
Borders
development
Experts
Governance
Humanitarianism
IGOs
Implementation
International organizations
Intervention
IOM
Migrants
Migration
Mobility
Protection
Security
Selfimage
Sovereignty
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The global governance of borders and migration is increasingly carried out by intergovernmental organisations. Organisations like the IOM epitomise this trend, and with the backdrop of 'migration crisis' govern mobility by deploying humanitarian assistance as much as by providing border security expertise. This article argues that we should pay attention to the ways the IOM brings together these seemingly distinct rationales and practices of care and control. It argues that the IOM can be understood as a 'developmental borderwork' actor, whose practices are underpinned by a sincere but procedural humanitarianism, a technical focus on best practices and implementation, and an intervention approach drawn from the development industry. To make this argument, the article draws from two empirical trends. First, it examines IOM projects building new border infrastructures and technologies in Mauritania and South Sudan, seeing in these a fusion of security and statebuilding. Second, the article traces the organisation's development of a humanitarian border management (HBM) concept through which it works to reconcile its emerging migrant protection self-image with member states' security needs. Each of these cases reflect the tensions within the IOM between humanitarianism, statebuilding, and the persistent reality of state sovereignty.
ISSN:1369-183X
1469-9451
DOI:10.1080/1369183X.2017.1354046