Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:23:29.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Governing Borders in France: From Extraterritorial to Humanitarian Confinement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014

Chowra Makaremi
Chowra Makaremi
Affiliation:
Département d'anthropologie, Université de Montréal, CP 6128, Succ. Centre-ville, Montreal, QC H3C 3J7,chowra.makaremi@umontreal.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Western states, restrictive migration policies over the last 30 years have entailed a shift in the practices of control, leading to the institution of systems of detention at international borders. Border confinement raises substantial issues about fundamental rights; it involves questions of legality and legitimacy, and the definition of new technologies of government. In France, the origins of border detention show how pre-existing administrative practices of detention were legalized through the adoption of “waiting zones,” a new regime of detention that enhanced both conditions of detention and disciplinary control over detainees. This development confronts human-rights activists who have opposed border detention since the mid-1970s with “paradoxical gains” and a tough dilemma: the rights that have been granted by the state to travellers held at the borders are not enough, whereas legalization has opened the way for new control mechanisms. Understanding border confinement involves analysing these paradoxes produced by constant negotiations between the administration, willing to tighten control over its borders, and concerns of certain groups within civil society, willing to defend basic rights and give a legal framework to control practices. In France, the diffusion of penitentiary models of management and the ambiguities of law that this article explores further draw together the conditions for administrative processes of legal exclusion. What do such processes teach us about evolving regimes of government within rights-based liberal systems?

Résumé

Dans les états occidentaux, les politiques migratoires restrictives des trente dernières années ont entraîné un changement dans les pratiques de contrôle, menant à la construction d'institutions de détention aux frontières. L'incarcération aux frontières suscite un questionnement important à propos des droits fondamentaux, questions portant sur les notions de légalité et de légitimité ainsi que sur la définition des nouvelles technologies du gouvernement. En France, les origines de l'incarcération aux frontières démontrent comment des pratiques administratives préexistantes ont été légalisées à l'aide de l'adoption de « zones d'attentes », nouveau régime d'incarcération qui rehausse les conditions de détention ainsi que le contrôle disciplinaire sur les détenus. Pour les activistes qui font la revendication des droits humains et qui s'opposent à l'incarcération aux frontières depuis la seconde moitié des années 1970, ce développement représente des gains paradoxaux et un dilemme difficile : les droits accordés par l'État aux voyageurs incarcérés aux frontières ont demeurés insuffisants tandis que la légalisation a permis la création de nouveaux mécanismes de contrôle. L'étude de l'incarcération aux frontières implique une analyse des paradoxes créés par les négociations constantes entre, d'une part, une administration voulant resserrer son contrôle sur les frontières et, d'autre part, certains groupes civils dont les préoccupations incluent la défense des droits de base et l'encadrement légal des pratiques du contrôle. Les conditions des processus d'exclusion de l'administration légale sont soulignées, en France, par la diffusion des modèles de l'administration pénitentiaire et l'ambiguïté de la loi. Qu'est-ce que ces processus révèlent sur l'évolution des régimes gouvernementaux à l'intérieur de systèmes libéraux basés sur les droits?

Keywords

contrôle aux frontièresincarcération extraterritorialeétrangers non documentés et demandeurs d'asile dans l'Union européennemobilisation légaleborder controlextraterritorial confinementundocumented aliens and asylum seekers in the EUlegal mobilization
Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 24 , Issue 3: The Dilemmas of Discretion/Dilemmes Discrétionnaires , December 2009 , pp. 411 - 432
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See especially Balibar, Etienne, Nous, citoyens d'Europe? Les frontières, l'Etat, le peuple (Paris: La Découverte, 2001)Google Scholar. See also Duffield, Mark, Development, Security, and Unending War: Governing the World of Peoples (London: Polity Press, 2007)Google Scholar.

2 Bigo, Didier, Police en réseaux, l'expérience européenne (Paris: Presses de Sciences Po, 1996), 303Google Scholar.

3 Balibar, , Nous, citoyens d'Europe?, 175Google Scholar.

4 As a judicial oddity, waiting areas have been an object of study by jurists. See Salas, Denis, “‘Incriminés, discriminés …’ Immigration illégale et pratiques judiciaires en France,” Hommes et migrations 1241 (2001), 178Google Scholar (on the inefficiency of legal control on administrative detention). See also Julien-Laferrière, François, “La rétention des étrangers aux frontières françaises,” Cultures et conflits 23 (1996)Google Scholar, for a comparative approach to the confinement and expulsion of aliens, highlighting the administrative rationalities at stake.

5 See Lavenex, Sandra, The Europeanisation of Refugee Policies: Between Human Rights and Internal Security (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2001)Google Scholar.

6 See Fischer, Nicolas, “Entre urgence et contrôle. Les centres de rétention dans la France contemporaine,” Asylons 2 (2007), http://terra.rezo.net/article663.html.Google Scholar

7 Figures from the French Ministry of Immigration, Integration, National Idęntity and Mutually Supportive Development (June 3, 2008), archived at ANAFE, http://www.anafe.org/download/generalites/CR-reunion-annuelle-ZA-2007.pdf.

8 Ethical issues related to this fieldwork are discussed in Makaremi, Chowra, “Étudier et assister les étrangers aux frontières,” in Les politiques de l'enquête: épreuves ethnographiques, ed. Fassin, Didier and Bensa, Alban (Paris: La Découverte, 2008)Google Scholar.

9 These issues have been developed in the literature on border camps and deportation that has emerged in the last decade. See especially Lago, Alessandro Dal, “Non-persons,” Associations: Journal of Social and Legal Studies 3 (2001)Google Scholar; Fischer, Nicolas, “Les expulsés inexpulsables. Recompositions du contrôle des étrangers dans la France des années 1930,” Cultures et conflits 53 (2005)Google Scholar; Coutin, Suzan Bibler, “Illegality, Borderlands, and the Space of Nonexistence,” in Globalization Under Construction: Governmentality, Law and Identity, ed. Perry, Richard W. and Maurer, Bill (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003)Google Scholar; Rahola, Federico, “La forme-camp. Pour une généalogie des lieux de transit et d'internement du present,” Cultures et conflits 68 (2007)Google Scholar; Bernardot, Marc, Camps d'étrangers (Broissieux: Éditions du Croquant, 2008)Google Scholar; Courau, Henri, Ethnologie de la forme-camp de Sangatte. De l'exception à la régulation (Paris: Éditions des Archives contemporaines, 2007)Google Scholar; Kobelinsky, Carolina and Makaremi, Chowra, eds., Confinement des étrangers: entre circulation et enfermement [special issue], Cultures et conflits 71 (2008)Google Scholar.

10 On the qualification of alien detention as situations of “no-law,” see Israel, Liora, “Building French Immigration Laws through Litigation: The Paradoxical History of the GISTI's First Years,” Politix 62 (2003), especially at 116Google Scholar.

11 Schmitt, Carl, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty (1934), trans. Schwab, George (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Schmitt's concept is discussed in Agamben, Giorgio, State of Exception (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Salter, Marc B. et al. , eds., Politics at the Airport (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008)Google Scholar.

13 Ibid.

14 Foucault, Michel, Sécurité, territoire, population : cours au Collège de France, 1977–1978 (Paris: Seuil/Gallimard, 2004)Google Scholar.

15 Pratt, Anna, Securing Borders: Detention and Deportation in Canada (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

16 Butler, Judith and Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty, Who Sings the Nation-State? Language, Politics, Belonging (New York: Seagull Books, 2007), 42Google Scholar.

17 Art. L221-1 Ceseda (Code de l'entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d'asile), abrogating the Ordonnance n°45-2658 sur les conditions d'entrée et de séjour des étrangers en France du 2 novembre 1945, J.O., 4 November 1945, 7225, art. 35.

18 “Transit visas” are documents allowing travellers to travel via France during their flight to a third country. These “visas” are instituted by decree for a list of countries, corresponding to the list of main countries of origin of asylum seekers. This is why they have been identified as an important technique of bypassing Geneva Convention obligations to protect refugees (see note 19 below) and controlling asylum claims. See Beaudu, Gérard, “La politique européenne des visas de court séjour,” Cultures et conflits 50 (2003)Google Scholar. Indeed, since the institution of “transit visas,” the number of asylum claims has sometimes dramatically decreased, even as the conflict or political situation in the country of origin has not improved—quite the opposite, in fact.

19 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 150 (entered into force April 22, 1954).

20 By default, it was then ruled by the international obligations of the state relating to the European Convention on Human Rights, 4 November 1950, Eur. T.S. 5, 213 U.N.T.S. 221, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 19 December 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.

21 I thank Veronique Nahoum-Grappe (personal communication) for this expression.

22 See note 23 below.

23 Decret n° 82-442 pour l'application des articles 5, 5-1 et 5-3 de l'Ordonnance n° 45-2658 du 2 novembre 1945, J.O., 27 May 1982, 7225, art. 12.

24 Interior Ministry, Circulaire du 17 septembre 1986, INT/D/86/00338/C; Circulaire du 8 août 1987, INT/D/87/00224/C.

25 Ibid., Circulaire du 17 septembre [translated by author].

26 Within the Schengen Area, created by the Schengen Agreements, 25 European countries have abolished all internal border controls. The Schengen Agreements, signed in 1985 and expanded in 1997 and 1999, “abolished checks at the internal borders of the signatory States and created a single external border where immigration checks for the Schengen area are carried out in accordance with identical procedures. Common rules regarding visas, right of asylum and checks at external borders were adopted to allow the free movement of persons within the signatory States without disrupting law and order.” The Schengen Area and Cooperation (Europa 2009)Google Scholar, http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/133020_en.htm.

27 Author's field notes, February 20, 2005 [report translated by author].

28 Constitutional Council, Decision 92-307 DC, February 25, 1992, http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/root/bank_mm/anglais/a92307dc.pdf.

29 The latest modifications came with Loi n° 1631 du 20 novembre 2007 [Act on the control of immigration, integration and asylum], J.O., 21 November 2007, 1893.

30 Loi n° 92–625 du 6 juillet 1992 [Act on waiting zones in ports and airports], J.O., 9 July 1992, 9185 [translated by author; emphasis added].

31 Further discussion of these reports appears below in the section on mobilization against border detention.

32 See note 17 above.

33 Interior Ministry, Circulaire du 9 août 1993, INT/D/93/00185/C [translated by author].

34 Ibid.

35 See also Makaremi, Chowra, “Alien Confinement in Europe: Violence and the Law. The Case of Roissy-Charles de Gaulle Airport in France,” in The Literature of Concentration Camps, ed. Hogan, Colman and Marín-Dómine, Marta (Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press, 2007)Google Scholar.

36 L'Europe des camps : la mise à l'écart des étrangers (2) [special issue], Cultures et conflits 57 (2005)Google Scholar; Étrangers : la mise à l'écart [special issue], Politix 1 (2005)Google Scholar. See also Pratt, Securing Borders.

37 On the humanitarian system of border detention see Makaremi, Chowra, “Les «zones de non-droit» : un dispositif pathétique de la démocratie,” Anthropologie et société 32 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 See Iserte, Morgane, “Récit de la «crise tchétchène» (décembre 2007–février 2008) : Éclairages circonstanciés sur le dispositif de confinement des étrangers dans la zone d'attente de Roissy–Charles de Gaulle,” in Enfermés dehors : le confinement des étrangers, ed. Kobelinsky, Carolina and Makaremi, Chowra (Bellecombes en Beauges: Éditions du Croquant, 2009)Google Scholar.

39 GISTI, “Roissy: un filtrage sélectif,” Plein Droit 13 (1991) [translated by author]Google Scholar.

40 Loi n° 1119 du 26 novembre 2003 [Act on the control of immigration, residency of aliens, and nationality], J.O., 27 November 2003, 20146 [translated by author].

41 Pratt, , Securing BordersGoogle Scholar.

42 Author's field notes, interview with G.S., March 24, 2005 [translated by author].

43 Author's field notes, interview with M.D., June 15, 2007 [translated by author].

44 Author's field notes, interview with L.R., June 15, 2007 [translated by author].

45 At the beginning, ANAFÉ comprised both NGOs—Amnesty International, the Cimade (Service Œcuménique d'Entraide), the COMEDE (Comité Médical pour les Exiles), the CAIF (Conseil des Associations Immigrées en France), France Terre d'Asile, the GAS (Groupe Accueil et Solidarité), the GISTI (Groupe d'Information et de Soutien des Immigrés), the LDH (Ligue des Droits de l'Homme), the MRAP (Mouvement contre le Racisme et pour l'Amitié entre les Peuples)—and professional associations or unions—the Association of Lawyers for the Recognition of Fundamental Rights to Immigrants (ADDE), the CFDT Union of Air France employees, the CFDT Union of Paris airport employees, the union of civil aviation pilots, the unitary union of commercial flight attendants, the Paris regional association of CFDT Unions, and, last but not least, the CFDT Union of Frontier Police.

46 ANAFÉ, Zones d'attente des aéroports et des gares ferroviaires—visite des associations habilitées. Rapport 1998—1999 (ANAFÉ, 2000), http://www.anafe.org/download/rapports/rapport98-99.pdf.

47 Julinet, Stephane, “Dans les zones d'attente: Atteinte aux libertés et inefficacité,” Plein Droits 44 (1999) [translated by author]Google Scholar.

48 The term double peine refers to the expulsion after imprisonment of migrant prisoners, who will then serve another sentence in their home country. See Sayad, Abdelmalek, “Immigration et «pensée d'État»,” Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 129 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 See also Fischer, Nicolas, “Les territoires du droit,” Vacarme 34 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, http://www.vacarme.org/article538.html.

50 See Panzani, Alex, Une prison clandestine de la police française. Arenc (Paris: François Maspero, 1957)Google Scholar.

51 On this point see Sarat, Austin and Scheingold, Stuart A., eds., Cause Lawyering: Political Commitments and Professional Responsibilities (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998)Google Scholar.

52 While the threat of clandestine migration is the main legitimizing rationale for detention of aliens (see Interior Ministry, Circulaire du 17 septembre 1986, cited at note 24 above), denunciations and journalists' investigations into these issues have subverted the state rhetoric by using the word “clandestine” to label the secrecy and discretionary dimension of detention. See, e.g., the titles of journalistic investigations dedicated both to Arenc and Roissy: Panzani, , Une prison clandestineGoogle Scholar; De Loisy, Anne, Bienvenue en France. Six mois d'enquête clandestine en zone d'attente (Paris: Le Cherche-Midi, 2005)Google Scholar.

53 Trib. gr. inst. Paris, 25 March 1992, Gaz.Pal.1992.2e sem.Jur.1802

54 Ibid.

55 Amuur v. France (1996), 3 E.C.H.R (Ser. A) 826, 22 E.H.R.R. 533.

56 Let us note here that the indefinite duration of detention, which was one reason for condemning French border detention as a violation of art. 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, still applies today to immigration detention centres in Quebec, Canada, where some asylum seekers have been held for up to 21 months (the French administration limited border detention to 20 days in 1992, as mentioned above). In Ontario, too, Pratt, Securing Borders, has found that a substantial number of those detained in “temporary” facilities were “long-term” detentions.

57 Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography, Report on the Arrival of Asylum-Seekers at European Airports, Doc. 6490 (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, September 12, 1991)Google Scholar, http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc91/EDOC6490.pdf.

58 Recommendation on the Arrival of Asylum-Seekers at European Airports, Doc. 1163 (Council of Europe, 14th Sess., 1991).

59 Sarat & Scheingold, Cause Lawyering.

60 Israel, , “Building French Immigration Laws,” 115–44Google Scholar.

61 The text of this agreement is available online via ANAFÉ at http://www.anafe.org/acces.php.

62 See Foucault, Michel, Surveiller et punir. Naissance de la prison (Paris: Gallimard, 1975)Google Scholar; Foucault, Michel, Il faut défendre la société (Paris: Hautes Etudes/Gallimard, 1997)Google Scholar; Foucault, Michel, Naissance de la biopolitique (Paris: Hautes Études/Gallimard, 1997)Google Scholar.

63 Panzani, , Une prison clandestine, 100 [translated by author]Google Scholar.

64 “Retention” is another euphemistic system of detention, equivalent to “holding” at the borders, for sans-papiers awaiting deportation. In France, the detention that takes place at the port of entry is organized by specific legislation and structures that are complementary to, but separate from, other apparatuses of alien confinement such as detention centres for sans-papiers.

65 Salas, “Incriminés, discriminés.”

66 Author's field notes, interview with Ms B., March 31, 2005 [translated by author].

67 Ibid. [translated by author].

68 Ibid.

69 The institution of border detention for asylum seekers and a specific system of asylum examination in the waiting zone pending a decision by police is an exception, and appears particularly restrictive compared to other situations in the European Union.

70 Author's field notes, interview with Mr S., March 16, 2005 [translated by author]. On the question of legal resistance and legitimacy and the issue of “involuntary legitimation” of lawyering see Ellman, Dean, “Struggle and Legitimation (Symposium: Lawyering in Repressive States),” Law and Social Inquiry 20 (1995)Google Scholar.

71 Foucault, , Il faut défendre la société, 34 [translated by author]Google Scholar.

72 Ibid., 35 [translated by author].

73 Ibid.

74 This argument is developed in Makaremi, “Les «zones de non-droit».”.

75 Rancière, Jacques, Aux bords du politique (Paris: Gallimard, 1998)Google Scholar.