| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
080329
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The granting of political asylum is implicated in other often competing agendas and discourses, including national security, the obligation to provide safe haven, the histories of past immigrants and asylum seekers, and the criminalization of people who cross borders illegally, for whatever motive. Political asylum serves two sometimes contradictory ends: protection of the state and refuge for the applicant. This contradiction is at the root of the production of ignorance in a process that overtly seeks to generate knowledge. Restricted access to knowledge is part of persecution both as a form of control, and in the classification of knowledge as illicit, covert, or traitorous. We examine the conditions for producing knowledge and ignorance in the political asylum process in which the stories presented by applicants are evaluated by bureaucrats to determine whether they are credible and whether they meet the criteria of a well-founded fear of return to the homeland. We discuss narratives told by both asylum seekers in the United States and the United Kingdom and those who help them through the asylum process
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
080328
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Contemporary state policies in European and American societies mark a shift from older forms of governance focussed on the centrally concentrated state toward strategies that aim to limit governmental intervention by getting people to govern themselves. This means that individuals and communities are charged with carrying out roles and functions that were traditionally performed by the state. In this article I examine the conditions in which local people in an urban neighbourhood in the United Kingdom who were the objects of this new mode of governance came to negotiate and resist its policies and structures. Residents and community workers came together in opposition to the local Council to make demands that they considered to be of interest to the members of their neighbourhood across ethnic, racial, gender, and class boundaries. In so doing they crafted a multiracial neighbourhood identity that was more inclusive than the categories deployed by the state. This examination of collective initiatives that resist and challenge the state's strategies for local governance illuminates some of the complexities, contradictions, and limits of the contemporary state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
080327
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article addresses an arresting conjuncture: the fact that the international community's involvement in states' affairs frequently coalesces around a state's management of internal difference. I outline striking parallels in the ways relations between supranational bodies, some European states, and their minorities were reconfigured in two post-imperial moments: the decade following the Great War and the present period of post-socialist transformation. In both periods supranational bodies developed regimes of supervision whose rationale and focus were minority rights and the state's governance of difference. Examining a figure I call "the supervised state," I reflect on its implications for theorisations of state and sovereignty. I place these moments of intensified supervision of selected states within a larger history of supranational scrutiny and a political landscape that entailed a spectrum of sovereignties
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|