This article aims to examine the racialized forms of violence enacted by contemporary border regimes by rethinking border deaths as “forced disappearances." Although “forced disappearance” is often associated with military dictatorships, I extend it to border control policies that push migrants beyond the pale of the law, make it difficult to find out about their fates or whereabouts, and render their lives disposable. In thinking about border deaths as forced disappearances, I move beyond the strictly juridical meaning of this term (...) and foreground its phenomenological resonances to inquire into the conditions of appearance and disappearance, including the social structures, normative orders, and representational frameworks that make and unmake one’s relations to the world and other living beings. To undertake such an inquiry, I engage with Frantz Fanon's works and examine how borders establish racialized partitions among both the living and the dead. The analysis highlights how certain elements of colonialism—spatial compartmentalization, racial immobilization, routinized violence, legalized lawlessness—reappear within border governance. It also points to the crucial role that law plays in legitimizing racialized state violence in border control. (shrink)

This article provides a new interpretation of Hannah Arendt’s critical analysis of the ‘perplexities of the Rights of Man’ by drawing attention to its overlooked methodological orientations, especially its ‘aporetic’ nature. Arendt’s critique is aporetic as it centres on the paradoxes of human rights and analyses them by putting into practice a mode of inquiry that she associates with Socrates. The article challenges the conventional understanding of aporia as a paralysing impasse and suggests that aporetic thinking can create possibilities of (...) rethinking key concepts especially in times of crises. To make this point, I respond to Jacques Rancière’s criticism that the paradoxes introduced by Arendt paralyse thinking and doom human rights to an inevitable destiny of failure. I argue that, precisely because of its aporetic nature, Arendt’s critique attends to possibilities of rethinking and reinventing human rights, as can be seen in her articulation of ‘a right to have rights’. (shrink)

Giorgio Agamben presents us with one of the most powerful and controversial criticisms of human rights. He contests conventional understandings of human rights as normative setbacks on sovereign power, and shows instead how these rights reinforce sovereignty by producing bare lives that are irredeemably exposed to violence. This essay aims to understand the distinctive aspects of Agamben's critique and assess his concluding call for a politics beyond human rights. It suggests that this call is necessitated by a counternarrative of Western (...) politics that ties human rights inextricably to the logic Agamben ascribes to biopolitical sovereignty. Within this stringent logic, any politics organized around human rights cannot help but reproduce sovereign violence. The essay questions this counternarrative in two ways: First, it shows how this counternarrative, which aims to unveil all the myths that sustain sovereignty, ends up repeating what it identifies as the distinctive mythologizing gesture: rendering the contingent necessary. Second, it turns to Agamben's notion of ‘potentiality’ to break the binding spell of his narrative of fated necessity and reclaim the contingent, equivocal and unpredictable effects of modern rights declarations and struggles. The essay concludes with a discussion of contemporary rights struggles of sans-papiers to illustrate the strengths and limits of Agamben's critique of human rights. (shrink)

Constellations, Volume 28, Issue 4, Page 570-587, December 2021.

Zusammenfasung: In diesem Artikel fokussiere ich auf die Kluft zwischen dem Begriff des „Menschen“, der den Menschenrechten zugrunde liegt, und dem Konzept der universellen Rechtspersönlichkeit, das ich im Hinblick auf die mediterranen Flüchtlingsbewegungen untersuche. In Anlehnung an Arendts berühmtes Diktum vom „Recht, Rechte zu haben“ analysiere ich die Spannung zwischen den souveränen Rechten von Staaten und den Rechtsansprüchen von Migrant*innen, was wiederum auf das hinweist, was ich als „Grenzen der Menschenrechte“ bezeichne: Sie beziehen sich auf die Begrenztheit der Menschenrechte angesichts (...) der staatlichen Souveränität und sind in der Grenzkontrollpolitik der einzelnen Staaten und ihrer Grenzbehörden verkörpert. Wie ich unter Bezugnahme auf den Fall Hirsi vorschlage, sollte die Rechtspersönlichkeit von Migrant*innen jenseits territorialer Grenzen gedacht werden, während staatliche Funktionen, wie die Kontrolle der Staatsgrenzen, im Lichte der Menschenrechtsnormen überdacht werden müssen. (shrink)