International Relations

C13(a) - Global Governance 4: Migration in World Politics

Date: Jun 4 | Time: 01:45pm to 03:15pm | Location:

Chair/Président/Présidente : Jess Howsam (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Jamie Levin (St. Francis Xavier University)

Theorizing States’ Production of Statelessness among Migrants’ Descendants Allison Petrozziello, Toronto Metropolitan University Governing Mixed Migration through Rationalization and Ambiguity: the case of the IOM and the UNHCR Younes Ahouga, Toronto Metropolitan University Understanding the 2021 Afghanistan “Crisis” through U.S. Foreign Policy and Migration Diplomacy Kushan Azadah, Toronto Metropolitan University

Theorizing States’ Production of Statelessness among Migrants’ Descendants: Allison Petrozziello (Toronto Metropolitan University)
Abstract: Around the world migrants’ descendants face a heightened risk of statelessness—and not only in contexts of forced migration. As states securitize both identity and migration management systems, how might the introduction of ‘bordering practices’ prevent racialized people on the move from proving their identity and claiming citizenship—in any country—for their progeny? This paper advances an intersectional and multiscalar border theory of how states produce statelessness among migrants’ descendants by restricting access to birth certificates and proof of citizenship. It engages in mid-range theory building based on content analysis of the author’s global inventory of UN treaty body recommendations on birth registration issued to 58 countries across the five major world regions. The evidence demonstrates that far from being upheld as a fundamental human right, birth registration can function as a bordering practice for children born to those whom a given state is unwilling to recognize. A typology of bordering practices is proposed, comprised of corporeal, social, spatial, temporal, and discursive types. This enables researchers to analytically distinguish the types of state practices which produce intergenerational statelessness in diverse contexts of human mobility. The framework makes a novel and interdisciplinary contribution to international studies of migration, human rights, citizenship, statelessness, race, and gender.

Governing Mixed Migration through Rationalization and Ambiguity: the case of the IOM and the UNHCR: Younes Ahouga (Toronto Metropolitan University)
Abstract: The UN Global Compacts on Migration and Refugees failed to address the emerging regime complex governing mixed migration. They sidestepped the issue of migrants who are not refugees but who have protection needs and avoided establishing a clearer division of labour between the IOM and the UNHCR. This generates strategic ambiguity about the appropriate interactions between the two intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), while maintaining an epistemic ambiguity about the nature and causes of mixed migration and the tasks that should be implemented in response. This paper seeks to understand how the IOM and the UNHCR react strategically to this two-dimensional ambiguity by producing their own epistemic and strategic clarity. As ambiguity-reducing machines, IGOs define problems and break them down into manageable parts through practices of quantification, standardization and classification. Although these practices are central to the organizational routines of IGOs, they can fail and lead to further messiness. Moreover, IGOs can foster ambiguity to increase their autonomy and strengthen their position. The paper highlights the importance of rationalization and ambiguity in forging outcomes in regime complexity by examining documents through which the IOM and the UNHCR constitute mixed migration as a policy problem and determine their framework of cooperation.

Understanding the 2021 Afghanistan “Crisis” through U.S. Foreign Policy and Migration Diplomacy: Kushan Azadah (York University), Ethel Tungohan (York University)
Abstract: This paper examines the discourses and politics surrounding the strategic shift in U.S. foreign policy towards Afghanistan, moving from military occupation to diplomacy as a means of advancing security and counterterrorism objectives following NATO’s withdrawal. Through an interdisciplinary framework that combines multi-level governance and migration diplomacy approaches, this study conducts a critical discourse analysis of policy documents, international agreements, congressional hearings, and media reports to track the shifts in U.S. policy from February 2020, with the signing of the Doha Agreement, to August 2021, marking the formal end to the War in Afghanistan. The findings suggest that while key policy decisions prior to the withdrawal were framed through paternalistic and Orientalist portrayals of Afghan peoples and an assumption that successful Afghan governance would require Western oversight, these narratives were reframed in nuanced ways between 2020-2021 to justify military withdrawal. Racialized discourses subsequently influenced the discussion of diplomatic strategies among state actors, including the the use of a potential refugee crisis and sanctions as diplomatic tools to exert influence over the other states and actors, including the Taliban, Afghanistan’s neighboring countries, and NATO allies, in varying ways to align these actors with U.S. interests. The findings in this paper contribute to normative debates on foreign and migration policy approaches to Afghanistan and its displaced populations, while also advancing theoretical insights within migration diplomacy and multi-level governance by illustrating how state-led discourses may shape political climate of international and regional migration governance in post-conflict landscapes