Political geography III: International migration and geopolitics

Abstract

This report provides an overview of contemporary scholarship on the geopolitics and political geographies of migration. There has also been an extensive amount of scholarship, including several special issues focused on migration, borders, and displacement from state and non-state institutional management to the everyday experiences of individual migrants. The political geographies and geopolitics of human displacement in this report are organized into the following thematic categories: state and institutional management, institutionalized suspicion of migrant populations, border management techniques and technologies, and re-centering migrant experiences.

Keywords

political geography geopolitics migration borders displacement refugees asylum

This report provides an overview of contemporary scholarship on the geopolitics and political geographies of migration. The continued increase of human displacement highlights multiple political crises globally, from the ongoing but largely ignored crisis in Afghanistan to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (Lizotte et al., 2022; Moisio, 2022; Murphy, 2022) and the massive displacements caused by climate-related and other environmental disasters (Lunstrum and Bose, 2022)—such as the recent floods in Pakistan that left nearly 1700 dead and displaced over 30 million people. There has also been extensive scholarship, particularly in the last year, attending to migration, border control, and the role of states and non-governmental institutions in the management and control of human mobility and resettlement (Lemaire et al., 2021; Myadar and Dempsey, 2022; Savio Vammen et al., 2022; Strauss, 2022; Zardo and Wolff, 2022a). The edited handbook on Critical Geographies of Migration assembles an extensive collection migration research among geographies from various perspectives (Mitchell et al., 2019). The analyses of migration discussed in this report include different theoretical and methodological approaches and covers the divergent reasons for displacement.

Scholars have examined the myriad ways in which migrant and refugee populations are managed and controlled by states and institutions, from the increased use of digital technologies to extract identity-based data from migrants to the use of drones as a border management tool. Other studies center on the experiences and agentic methods of refugees and migrant populations themselves, which underscore the challenges faced by individuals such as experiences of ambiguity, vulnerability, and obstacles endemic to border crossings, processing centers, camps, and resettlement procedures. Centering the perspectives and actions of migrants, immigrants, and refugees also emphasizes the extensive hurdles, complicated by gendered and racialized stereotypes and assumptions, they experience while navigating through the bureaucratic barriers set by governments and institutions tasked with the management of migratory populations (Jones, 2021).

A review of this scholarship reveals different methodological approaches to the study of migration and related displacements, such as empirically rich, qualitative studies largely focused on micro-scale processes and specific case studies, as well as macro-scale, quantitative studies that address broader trends. While we may identify these different approaches as a schism between methods of academic inquiry (O’Loughlin, 2018), I suggest that these divergent methodological approaches for studying the spatial politics of displacement (both drawing from and contributing to the interdisciplinary literature in refugee, migration, and border studies) collectively highlight the importance of examining the general along with the particular. Some scholars have also called for “bridging the scalar and interdisciplinary divide (urban-subnational-transnational)” as necessary for tackling contemporary forms of displacement and viewing individual mobility choices as a spectrum of decision-making rather than an either/or binary (Roast et al., 2022: 632).

The micro-scale geographies of a refugee camp or border management regimes combined with macro-scale analyses of institutional violence, bureaucratic management, and governance illustrate a complicated understanding of migrants’ experiences and needs, along with a their agentic methods for ensuring their survival. Reviewing recent political geographic analyses of migration collectively and acknowledging the importance of divergent methodological approaches, further emphasizes the need for scholars to embrace multi-scalar and mixed research methods as necessary for confronting these colossal and unrelenting political crises. I argue that splitting methodological hairs, or identifying one approach as more valid than another, diminishes rather than increases our collective knowledge and exchange of ideas and expertise. Therefore, this report provides a review of multiple methodological, theoretical, and analytical frameworks all examining the spatial politics of migration.

I. State and institutional management

The special issue “Making and Unmaking Refugees: Geopolitics of Social Ordering and Struggle within the Global Refugee Regime” in the journal Geopolitics assembles a suite of articles, which examine power imbalances integrated within the state-centered global political order to highlight the protracted violence perpetuated against displaced persons (Myadar and Dempsey, 2022). State-based management regimes for migrants and refugees reveal how national politics and public discourse about immigration can have an outsized influence, which can both extensively shape national policies and programs, and significantly alter the outcomes for displaced persons. For example, Bose (2022) explores how anti-immigration rhetoric as part of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, as compared with pro-immigration discourse in Canada’s 2015 federal elections had specific effects on individuals seeking asylum. While this comparative analysis illustrates two countries with significantly different approaches, the influence of domestic politics speaks to a much larger and more pressing concern, namely, how to provide adequate global protections for displaced people within a system that is dominated by state actors that are highly influenced by domestic political priorities (Bose, 2022).

When states are the main arbiter of border crossings and immigration policies, domestic politics will continue to have significant influence over the management, processing, and treatment of migrants and refugees attempting to cross international borders for their safety, security, or economic opportunity. Thus, the border functions as a spatial binary between the accepted citizen, and a politically charged discursive framing of migrants as either vulnerable or dangerous. Analyses of diaspora geopolitics through qualitative studies of the political divisions among resettled populations draw attention to the political conflicts that led various communities to seek refuge, while acknowledging that these conflicts may carry over into the diaspora (Hyndman et al., 2022). These conflicts are further complicated by domestic politics in host countries, such as acts of sociopolitical or economic marginalization and exclusion that cast violent dispersions upon refugee communities (Hyndman et al., 2022). The complexities and challenges of diaspora geopolitics are infused with domestic politics brought by migrants from their home countries and among the existing citizenry within their adopted/host country.

The temporality experienced by refugees and asylum seekers waiting to be processed through unrelentingly slow and multiple bureaucracies that are habitually hostile to migrants combined with xenophobia within many host countries places national interests ahead of the needs of vulnerable populations seeking refuge, which often manifests into multiple displacements (McIlwaine and Evans, 2022; Mountz, 2010, 2020; Wahab and Ashutosh, 2022). Additionally, the massive number of people seeking refuge outside their home countries is itself a crisis of care, management, and governance, that dehumanizes, retraumatizes, and continuously places migrants in spaces and situations of increased vulnerability (Ehrkamp et al., 2022). The geopolitical trauma of migrants is further examined through the experiences of unaccompanied children at the U.S./Mexico border. This analysis demonstrates how the mechanism of state care for migrant children, creates new situations of fear and increased risk of violence and vulnerability (Torres et al., 2022). The questioning of refugees and other migrants at border crossings, or detention and processing centers illustrates inherent assumptions about migrant populations that fuel distrust and doubt. These suspicious assumptions have subsequently become part of the institutional structures that determine the “worthiness” of individual migrants and refugees to cross borders and seek resettlement or asylum.

II. Institutionalized suspicion of migrants

Most European institutions, states, and individuals involved in migration management regimes view migrant populations with suspicion, leading to questions of legitimacy and categorizations of the “deserving” from the “non-deserving” other, which in many cases normalizes discrimination within many European systems of migration management (Borrelli, 2022). A special section in Geopolitics examines institutionalized suspicion of migrants as an entry point for identifying how disbelief shapes administrative frameworks (Borrelli et al., 2022). For example, Affolter (2022) shows how doubt and distrust are built into the institutional socialization of asylum case workers within the Swiss Secretariat for Migration.

The discursive framing of migrants as untrustworthy combined with an opaque system of management reinforces institutionalized suspicion of migrants as “tricksters,” which ultimately misrepresents and misinterprets migrants’ and refugees’ agentic approaches for navigating unpredictable management structures (Scheel, 2022). While the actions used by individuals to negotiate through these systems remain essential, they may also negatively affect them, particularly when they are viewed as dishonest and used as a reason to increase the use of security technologies at borders and processing centers. There remains minimal time, space, or willingness within institutions to incorporate the perspectives of the individuals caught within the political sites of power and control over their mobility (Scheel, 2022).

The actions of migrants and refugees are further explored through the geopolitics of migration focused on rethinking concepts of political agency (Borrelli et al., 2022). The Geopolitics special issue “Rethinking the Migrant Position” centers on migrant perspectives, practices, autonomy, and agency and challenges the geopolitical and domestic incongruities between human mobility and state and institutionalized control (Mudu and Chattopadhyay, 2022). These scholars argue that framing migrants as “autonomous actors” or “global citizens” rather than a mass of vulnerable subjects, remains necessary for moving the geopolitics of migration studies in new directions (Mudu and Chattopadhyay, 2022). Scholars focusing on migrants’ agency and autonomy explore how they negotiate and access their rights within institutions and in other cases challenge the ability of institutions to administer these rights (Alvarado, 2022). Migrants who refuse to cooperate with the Humanitarian Industrial Complex, elucidate the various forms of “humanitarianism” that remain complicit in the structural violence that harms migrants, particularly at the border. Thus, the autonomous actions of migrants can create fissures and fractures within the institutionalized mechanisms of border and migration management, and state subjugation (Dadusc and Mudu, 2022; Kallio et al., 2021; also see Spathopoulou et al., 2022).

For many migrants waiting at the border, being detained, and crossing borders remains a site of uncertainty, vulnerability, and anxiety, which has been further exacerbated by COVID-19-related restrictions on mobility (Torres et al., 2022). Borderlands and border crossings are also sites where identity politics and territorial politics intersect in ways that incorporate spatial segregation and hybrid governance while maintaining strategic spatial and social separations between refugees and citizens (Wahab, 2022). This type of segregation further perpetuates othering and binary distinctions between “us/them” and “citizen/refugee,” which exacerbates misconceptions of migrant vulnerability as a site of insecurity for host-country citizens, rather than providing care for vulnerable migrants and refugees.

III. Border management techniques and technologies

Rafiq (2022) argues for incorporating the histories of border formation and questions the legitimacy of the linear borders drawn by former colonial powers. Analyzing the border as an archive is another method for both historicizing the border and pushing scholars to re-conceptualize the border and how it is constructed through contemporary crises (Young, 2022). Colonial histories and border archives, therefore, remain foundational to our contemporary understanding of borders and border control measures. The border as a site of digital and other technologies of migration management offers another mode of inquiry, as discussed from multiple perspectives in the Geopolitics special issue “Data Matters.” Geopolitical inquiry into technological migration and border management includes particular attention: to the data collection procedures; investigating data as a matter of concern; how data matters as a method of knowledge creation; and the material foundations of this data and how it is interpreted (Leese et al., 2022). Digital technologies regularly reinforce a binary system of us/them, friend/enemy, and in many cases function to reinforce local identities in a way that perpetuates the “need” for additional and stricter bordering practices and increases the experiences of spatial and political liminality for migrants (Jones, 2022; Micko and Riegel, 2022; Weaver, 2022).

Border technologies, such as electronic gates that collect biometric data at border crossings further perpetuate suspicion through inherent mistrust of travelers including claims of identity fraud, while doing little to remove the opacity and incongruities of these processes for migrants (Noori, 2022). Technologies of mobility management extract various forms of data from migrants that become sources of data circulation that incorporates migrants as active participants in their own governmentality (Tazzioli, 2022). Digital border management systems operate as a continuous mechanism of identity-based data extraction for verification, surveillance, control, and management. These systems are neither effortless nor dependable, causing delays and regularly enrolling migrants into different forms of self-datafication. Although, despite an abundance of collected data, this data may be disregarded because the information gathered does not necessarily develop into useful or actionable knowledge (Tazzioli, 2022).

Technology can also be used as a method for facilitating user-controlled digital identification such as “self-sovereign identity” (SSI) systems, which are lauded for providing individuals with control and ownership over their identifying information. However, this form of digital identification ignores intersectional prejudices encoded into bureaucratic classifications of people, while aggregating refugees into a homogenous rather than heterogenous group (Cheesman, 2022). The capacity of various authorities to use discretion in the arbitration of migrant dispersal and control, suggests human-to-human interactions that offer an opportunity to counter the indiscriminate and murky waters of administrative technologies. While discretion can be acounter-political tool that disrupts restrictive policies and bureaucratic barriers, Darling (2022) reminds us that it is also used as a tool of governance. The structures and technologies of migrant management require continued attention from political geographers to address the multiple and shifting ways in which these geopolitical devices of institutional management and governance may also be sites of action and autonomy for migrants to articulate and access resources, rights, and resettlement.

The data regimes used to control border crossings, particularly in Europe, include redundancies such as cross-verification and cross-validation to “prove” the accuracy and reliability of identities, which are viewed as foundational for effective governance (Leese et al., 2022). Migrants’ methods of agentic subversion and autonomy within these systems of control underscore the technological limits of population management and the fragility of the technology use itself (Bellanova & Glouftsios, 2022; Metcalfe, 2022). Experimentality is another aspect of digital governance that increases uncertainty and precarity for migrants including political poverty while extracting their financial and identity information (Aradau, 2022). Other technologies such as the use of drones as a border monitoring method, cloud the division between humanitarian and militarized spaces and can be used in ways that harm and endanger rather than provide care and protection for vulnerable populations (Loukinas, 2022).

Refugee and migrant vulnerability have also been capitalized upon through gendered pornographic reenactments of the sexual abuse regularly perpetuated against female migrants by border patrol officers (Casaglia, 2022). This research highlights the numerous links between intimate and geopolitical structures of inequality, domination, and violence and the limits of institutional structures that should provide care, but regularly enact physical and emotional harm (Casaglia, 2022). Other examinations of migrant and refugee vulnerability, underscore the resilience and agency of refugees to survive and subvert control over their lives, which stands in stark contrast to the dehumanizing processes occurring in refugee camps, detention, and processing centers, such as surveillance, spatial and temporal liminality, and re-traumatizing questioning (Dempsey, 2022). However, migrants also use various skills and agentic techniques to arbitrate the systems that seek to control, immobilize, further displace, or return them to their country of origin. The experiences of migrants within the controlled environments of state and institutional management reveal the multiple vulnerabilities experienced by individuals.

IV. Re-centering migrant experiences

The management of refugees through the sticky and limiting morass of state systems does not provide any space for acknowledging, let alone understanding, the diversity of refugee experiences both from their home counties and within their host countries. Negative public discourse within host countries about migrants regularly represents humanitarian needs as a drain on existing systems of care. These discursive tricks translate migrant vulnerability into a domestic threat against the safety and security of host-country citizens and represent migrants’ economic desperation as low-wage job theft. In response, some scholars suggest the incorporation of narrative and storytelling as a method for countering these false representations and reclaiming the agency of migrants, and “the dyadic connection between place and self” to highlight the embodied experiences of individuals (Myadar, 2022: 474). Additionally, Bloch (2022) argues that displacement creates a type of data that is embodied where the indiscriminate temporalities of migratory processes are stored through memory. Other approaches to the study of migration have centered care and care work as integral to the process of refugee management, but not always duly enacted. For example, in the case of search and rescue missions for sea-borne migrants in Europe, there remains a blurring between territorial and moral boundaries compounded by the complexities of humanitarian needs, EU policy, and anti-migrant public discourse (McDowell, 2022, also see Dowle, 2021). Migrant care generally remains locked within systems of structural violence, which as discussed earlier in this report, retraumatizes, creates new forms of trauma, and displaces individuals from their humanity and ability to access care and comfort. Additionally, the systemic failure to care for migrant populations is further infused with sexist and racist determinants as a continued echo of colonial “logics” that further marginalize and exclude vulnerable populations (Hawthorne, 2022).

Another special issue on Migration in Geopolitics seeks to advance epistemologies of displacement by decentering migration governance in the Mediterranean and exploring the applicability of a decentering approach to migration studies generally (Zardo and Wolff, 2022a). This decentering approach requires thinking outside the conventional analytic frameworks and allowing overlooked or ignored perspectives to emerge while focusing on agentic methods and experiences of migrants to move beyond the established understandings of the time-space geographies of migration. Examples of a decentering approach include examining sites actively involved in migration management but often overlooked by policymakers and researchers, (i.e., Morocco, and Turkey); keen attention to local spaces and cities that have taken a novel approach to the migration crisis; a plural understanding of governance; and a method for challenging the discursive hierarchies that rely on colonial representations of the non-European other (Freemantle and Landau, 2022; Kutz and Wolff, 2022; Léonard and Kaunert, 2022; Panebianco, 2022; Triandafyllidou, 2022). Other scholars suggest operating across scales that simultaneously incorporate analyses of the geopolitical centers and peripheries of migration management and control (Bilgin, 2022).

Forced waiting remains another method of institutionalized control, regulation, and policing of migrants. To re-conceptualize the migrant experiences of forced waiting for decades or for their entire lives, Chattopadhyay and Tyner (2022), place migrant autonomy as a lens through which to examine chronic waiting. For example, squatting can be a method of communing, one that reappropriates space for communal methods of reproduction and production. Thus, leading geopolitics interventions that include “cooperative political and social mobilization” (Chattopadhyay and Tyner, 2022: 1250). This scholarship recenters migrants as autonomous actors rather than objects of inquiry.

V. Conclusion

This review has included scholarship that examines the spatial politics of migration at multiple scales, employing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research methodologies. These diverse approaches include multiple epistemologies of migration, which remain dependent on one’s perspective or situated knowledges (see Haraway, 1988). Multiple approaches, arguments, and conclusions in addition to the number of multi-authored articles, special issues, and collaborative research included in this report further illustrate that diverse research methodologies are necessary for confronting and analyzing the complex political geographies and geopolitics of migration. The extensive attention to this subject underscores the magnitude of current global crises and an opening up of spaces and acceptance for what Roast et al. (2022) identify as vital for scholarship on displacement. The numerous vulnerabilities and displacements of refugees and other migrants remain a daily and unrelenting constant, and a reflection of the tragedy of institutional management. The afterlives of colonial geographies built upon arbitrary borders, racism, sexism, and binary framings of exclusion and inclusion haunt contemporary management systems. This is further complicated by domestic politics and politicians that rail against immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers and weaponize the gender and racial politics of exclusion in order to gain or remain in power.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Jennifer L Fluri

References

Affolter

(2022) Trained to disbelieve: the normalisation of suspicion in a swiss asylum administration office. Geopolitics 27(4): 1069–1092.

Alvarado

(2022) Migrant politics in the urban global south: the political work of Nicaraguan migrants to acquire urban rights in Costa Rica. Geopolitics 27(4): 1180–1204.

Aradau

(2022) Experimentality, surplus data and the politics of debilitation in borderzones. Geopolitics 27(1): 26–46.

Bellanova

Glouftsios

(2022) Controlling the Schengen Information System (SIS II): the infrastructural politics of fragility and maintenance. Geopolitics 27(1): 160–184.

Bilgin

(2022) The migrant crisis in the mediterranean as a threat to women’s security in the EU? A contrapuntal reading. Geopolitics 27(3): 773–790.

Bloch

(2022) For autoethnographies of displacement beyond gentrification: the body as archive, memory as data. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 3, 112–714.

Borrelli

Lindberg

Wyss

(2022) States of suspicion: how institutionalised disbelief shapes migration control regimes. Geopolitics 27(4): 1025–1041.

Borrelli

Pinkerton

Safouane

, et al. (2022) Agency within mobility: conceptualising the geopolitics of migration management. Geopolitics 27(4): 1140–1167.

Borrelli

(2022) Should (S)he stay or should (S)he Go? - Street-level suspicion and the construction of the ‘(Un)deserving Migrant’. Geopolitics 27(4): 1093–1116.

10.

Bose

(2022) The shifting landscape of international resettlement: Canada, the US and Syrian Refugees. Geopolitics 27(2): 375–401.

11.

Casaglia

(2022) Pornography at the border: ethnosexual borderscapes, gendered violence, and embodied control. Geopolitics 27(1): 185–205.

12.

Chattopadhyay

Tyner

(2022) Lives in waiting. Geopolitics 27(4): 1231–1256.

13.

Cheesman

(2022) Self-sovereignty for refugees? The contested horizons of digital identity. Geopolitics 27(1): 134–159.

14.

Dadusc

Mudu

(2022) Care without control: the humanitarian industrial complex and the criminalisation of solidarity. Geopolitics 27(4): 1205–1230.

15.

Darling

(2022) The politics of discretion: Authority and influence in asylum dispersal. Political Geography 94: 102560.

16.

Dempsey

(2022) Migrant agency and counter-hegemonic efforts among asylum seekers in the Netherlands in response to geopolitical control and exclusion. Geopolitics 27(2): 402–423.

17.

Dowle

(2021) Toward a (co)relational border? Order, care, and chaos at Nordic borders. Political Geography 90: 102455.

18.

Ehrkamp

Loyd

Secor

(2022) Trauma as displacement: observations from refugee resettlement. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 112, 715–722.

19.

Freemantle

Landau

(2022) Migration and the African timespace trap: more Europe for the world, less world for Europe. Geopolitics 27(3): 791–810.

20.

Jones

(2021) White Borders: The History of Race and Immigration in the United States from Chinese Exclusion to the Border Wall. Beacon Press.

21.

Jones

(2022) Nobody Is Protected: How the Border Patrol Became the Most Dangerous Police Force in the United States. Catapult.

22.

Haraway

(1988) Situated knowledge’s: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. JSTOR 14: 575–599.

23.

Hawthorne

(2022) Black Mediterranean geographies: translation and the mattering of Black Life in Italy. Gender, Place & Culture 1–24.

24.

Hyndman

Amarasingam

Naganathan

(2022) Diaspora geopolitics in Toronto: Tamil Nationalism and the Aftermath of War in Sri Lanka. Geopolitics 27(2): 424–443.

25.

Kallio

Meier

Häkli

(2021) Radical Hope in asylum seeking: political agency beyond linear temporality. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 47(17): 4006–4022.

26.

Kutz

Wolff

(2022) Urban geopolitics and the decentring of migration diplomacy in EU-Moroccan affairs. Geopolitics 27(3): 703–728.

27.

Leese

Noori

Scheel

(2022) Data matters: the politics and practices of digital border and migration management. Geopolitics 27(1): 5–25.

28.

Lemaire

Oesch

Vianelli

(2021) Convenors: The Grey Area of Government: Ambiguity, Inconsistency and Opacity in the Management of Forced Migration and Borders. Political Geography.

29.

Léonard

Kaunert

(2022) De-centring the securitisation of asylum and migration in the European union: securitisation, vulnerability and the role of Turkey. Geopolitics 27(3): 729–751.

30.

Lizotte

Bennett

Grove

(2022) Introduction: virtual forum on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Political Geography 97: 102673.

31.

Loukinas

(2022) Drones for border surveillance: multipurpose use, uncertainty and challenges at EU borders. Geopolitics 27(1): 89–112.

32.

Lunstrum

Bose

(2022) Environmental displacement in the anthropocene. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 112: 644–653.

33.

McDowell

(2022) Geopoliticizing geographies of care: scales of responsibility towards sea-borne migrants and refugees in the mediterranean. Geopolitics 27(2): 444–461.

34.

McIlwaine

Evans

(2022) Navigating migrant infrastructure and gendered infrastructural violence: reflections from Brazilian women in London. Gender, Place & Culture 1–23.

35.

Metcalfe

(2022) Autonomy of migration and the radical imagination: exploring alternative imaginaries within a biometric border. Geopolitics 27(1): 47–69.

36.

Micko

Riegl

(2022) Towards a schmittian theory of border hardening: nomos, sovereignty, political unity and barriers in the middle east. Geopolitics 27(1): 206–237.

37.

Mitchell

Jones

Fluri

(2019) Handbook on Critical Geographies of Migration. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

38.

Moisio

(2022) Geopolitics of explaining Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the challenge of small states. Political Geography 97: 102683.

39.

Mountz

(2010) Seeking Asylum: Human Smuggling and Bureaucracy at the Border. University of Minnesota Press.

40.

Mountz

(2020) The Death of Asylum: Hidden Geographies of the Enforcement Archipelago. University of Minnesota Press.

41.

Mudu

Chattopadhyay

(2022) Rethinking the migrant position. Geopolitics 27(4): 1168–1179.

42.

Murphy

(2022) The modernist territorial order and the Ukraine crisis. Political Geography 97.

43.

Myadar

(2022) Place, displacement and belonging: the story of Abdi. Geopolitics 27(2): 462–477.

44.

Myadar

Dempsey

(2022) Making and unmaking refugees: geopolitics of social ordering and struggle within the global refugee regime. Geopolitics 27(2): 367–374.

45.

Noori

(2022) Suspicious infrastructures: automating border control and the multiplication of mistrust through biometric E-Gates. Geopolitics 27(4): 1117–1139.

46.

O’Loughlin

(2018) Thirty-five years of political geography and political geography: the good, the bad and the ugly. Political Geography 65(1): 143–151.

47.

Panebianco

(2022) Migration governance in the mediterranean: the siracusa experience. Geopolitics 27(3): 752–772.

48.

Rafiq

(2022) Linear borders, partition and identity in postcolonial South Asia. Geopolitics 27(2): 478–500.

49.

Roast

Conlon

Garelli

, et al. (2022) The need for inter/subdisciplinary thinking in critical conceptualizations of displacement. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 112: 626–635.

50.

Savio Vammen

Cold-Ravnkilde

Lucht

(2022) Borderwork in the Expanded EU-African Borderlands. Geopolitics 27(5): 1317–1330.

51.

Scheel

(2022) Reconfiguring desecuritization: contesting expert knowledge in the securitization of migration. Geopolitics 27(4): 1042–1068.

52.

Spathopoulou

Carastathis

Tsilimpounidi

(2022) Vulnerable refugees and voluntary deportations: performing the hotspot, embodying its violence. Geopolitics 27(4): 1257–1283.

53.

Strauss

(2022) Introduction to displacements. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 112(3): 621–625.

54.

Tazzioli

(2022) Extract, datafy and disrupt: refugees’ subjectivities between data abundance and data disregard. Geopolitics 27(1): 70–88.

55.

Torres

Swanson

Faria

, et al. (2022) Bordering through care and control: Policing and sheltering Central American migrant youth in Mexico. Political Geography 98: 102719.

56.

Torres

Glockner

Niño-Vega

, et al. (2022) Lockdown and the List: Mexican Refugees, Asylum Denial, and the Feminist Geopolitics of Esperar (Waiting/hoping). Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space. London: SAGE Publications Sage UK.

57.

Triandafyllidou

(2022) Decentering the study of migration governance: a radical view. Geopolitics 27(3): 811–825.

58.

Wahab

(2022) Hybrid governmentality in practice: Territoriality and biopolitics in the Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh. Political Geography 94: 102568.

59.

Wahab

Ashutosh

(2022) Rebordering South Asia: displaced persons and urbanization. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 112: 742–752.

60.

Weaver

(2022) Project kraken: surveillance and liminality ‘on the edge’ of land and water. Geopolitics 27(1): 333–359.

61.

Young

(2022) The border as archive: reframing the crisis mode of governance at the Canada-US border. Gender, Place & Culture 29: 568–588.

62.

Zardo

Wolff

(2022a) Decentering the study of migration governance in the mediterranean. Geopolitics 27(3): 687–702.