从消极的国际化保护到积极的国际化保护:减弱的团结与难民保护实践

IF 2.5 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS European Journal of International Security Pub Date : 2024-02-12 DOI:10.1017/eis.2024.3
Jonathan Gilmore
{"title":"从消极的国际化保护到积极的国际化保护:减弱的团结与难民保护实践","authors":"Jonathan Gilmore","doi":"10.1017/eis.2024.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the growth of international civilian-protection concepts since the 1990s and the question of what protection means in a qualitative sense. It makes a significant intervention in advancing a typology of <jats:italic>positive</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>negative protection</jats:italic>, allowing more systematic analysis of whether protective practices fulfil the normative goals of internationalised protection and creating openings for expanded imagination of possible protective practices. It is argued that practices of refugee protection during this period have been shaped by logics of externalisation that seek to maintain distance between protector and protected and attenuate cosmopolitan solidarity with vulnerable non-citizens, both of which have detrimental impacts on the depth of protective practices and the experience of protection. These practices occur at the intersection of conflicting interpretative backdrops – between the cosmopolitan-minded commitments to the protection of vulnerable non-citizens and backdrops that frame migration as a problem. Using the case of the United Kingdom (UK) asylum system, the article argues that this is generative of <jats:italic>negative protection</jats:italic> – practices providing immediate physical protection, but simultaneously constructing conditions of acute vulnerability. Conversely, <jats:italic>positive protection</jats:italic> might be found in practices that embody fuller solidarity with protected people and enable them to flourish as a socially embedded individuals.","PeriodicalId":44394,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Security","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From negative to positive internationalised protection: Attenuated solidarity and the practice of refugee protection\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan Gilmore\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/eis.2024.3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article explores the growth of international civilian-protection concepts since the 1990s and the question of what protection means in a qualitative sense. It makes a significant intervention in advancing a typology of <jats:italic>positive</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>negative protection</jats:italic>, allowing more systematic analysis of whether protective practices fulfil the normative goals of internationalised protection and creating openings for expanded imagination of possible protective practices. It is argued that practices of refugee protection during this period have been shaped by logics of externalisation that seek to maintain distance between protector and protected and attenuate cosmopolitan solidarity with vulnerable non-citizens, both of which have detrimental impacts on the depth of protective practices and the experience of protection. These practices occur at the intersection of conflicting interpretative backdrops – between the cosmopolitan-minded commitments to the protection of vulnerable non-citizens and backdrops that frame migration as a problem. Using the case of the United Kingdom (UK) asylum system, the article argues that this is generative of <jats:italic>negative protection</jats:italic> – practices providing immediate physical protection, but simultaneously constructing conditions of acute vulnerability. Conversely, <jats:italic>positive protection</jats:italic> might be found in practices that embody fuller solidarity with protected people and enable them to flourish as a socially embedded individuals.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44394,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of International Security\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of International Security\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2024.3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of International Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2024.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了自 20 世纪 90 年代以来国际平民保护概念的发展以及保护在质量意义上的含义问题。文章在推进积极和消极保护类型学方面进行了重要的干预,允许对保护实践是否实现了国际化保护的规范目标进行更系统的分析,并为扩大对可能的保护实践的想象力开辟了空间。本文认为,这一时期的难民保护实践是由外在化逻辑形成的,这种逻辑试图保持保护者与被保护者之间的距离,并削弱与弱势非公民的世界性团结,这两者都对保护实践的深度和保护体验产生了不利影响。这些做法发生在相互冲突的解释背景的交汇点--具有世界主义思想的保护弱势非公民的承诺与将移民视为问题的背景之间。文章以英国的庇护制度为例,认为这产生了消极保护--提供直接人身保护的做法,但同时也构建了极度脆弱的条件。与此相反,积极的保护可能存在于体现与受保护者更充分的团结并使他们能够作为社会嵌入的个体蓬勃发展的做法中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
From negative to positive internationalised protection: Attenuated solidarity and the practice of refugee protection
This article explores the growth of international civilian-protection concepts since the 1990s and the question of what protection means in a qualitative sense. It makes a significant intervention in advancing a typology of positive and negative protection, allowing more systematic analysis of whether protective practices fulfil the normative goals of internationalised protection and creating openings for expanded imagination of possible protective practices. It is argued that practices of refugee protection during this period have been shaped by logics of externalisation that seek to maintain distance between protector and protected and attenuate cosmopolitan solidarity with vulnerable non-citizens, both of which have detrimental impacts on the depth of protective practices and the experience of protection. These practices occur at the intersection of conflicting interpretative backdrops – between the cosmopolitan-minded commitments to the protection of vulnerable non-citizens and backdrops that frame migration as a problem. Using the case of the United Kingdom (UK) asylum system, the article argues that this is generative of negative protection – practices providing immediate physical protection, but simultaneously constructing conditions of acute vulnerability. Conversely, positive protection might be found in practices that embody fuller solidarity with protected people and enable them to flourish as a socially embedded individuals.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.60%
发文量
30
期刊最新文献
Transcending the fog of war? US military ‘AI’, vision, and the emergent post-scopic regime Anything you can do [I can do better]: Exploring women’s agency and gendered protection in state militaries Timing bombs and the temporal dynamics of Iranian nuclear security Cyberbiosecurity in the new normal: Cyberbio risks, pre-emptive security, and the global governance of bioinformation The military-strategic rationality of hybrid warfare: Everyday total defence under strategic non-peace in the case of Sweden
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1