In recent years, especially after the ‘refugee crisis’ in 2015, a trend can be figured out whereby migrants and refugees that try to reach the EU are no longer met with a humanitarian approach and...Show moreIn recent years, especially after the ‘refugee crisis’ in 2015, a trend can be figured out whereby migrants and refugees that try to reach the EU are no longer met with a humanitarian approach and policies that secure their rights but are increasingly perceived as a security problem and accordingly treated by the European agencies. This also finds expression in the externalization of European borders to North Africa in the form of third country agreements. However, since these migration management policies that are guided by a security concept are at the same time justified by the protection of human rights, this reveals a clear paradox the thesis will bring to light. Among the cooperation of the Frontex mission ‘Sophia’ with the Libyan coastguard, it is shown that a humanitarian legitimization is used for its implementation. This differs from th actual practices that are characterized by violations of migrants’ rights. Frontex uses surveillance technologies and encounters migrants as a ‘security threat’, whereby a securitization of migrants takes place through the actual practices in the Mediterranean. Thereby, private military and security companies (PMSCs) play a crucial role in lobbying Frontex, shaping policies towards a security nexus. In this study, it is argued that the securitization of human rights can explain this paradox. With the externalization policies and outsourcing of migration management tasks, human rights are used strategically to implement a security agenda that aims to keep migrants out of the EU.Show less
The market for private military and security companies (PMSCs) has expanded drastically since the end of the Cold War. Although PMSCs are highly controversial security providers (with Blackwater as...Show moreThe market for private military and security companies (PMSCs) has expanded drastically since the end of the Cold War. Although PMSCs are highly controversial security providers (with Blackwater as the best-known example), these companies have become increasingly involved in UN peacebuilding. This prompts the question: Does the widespread use of PMSCs in UN peacebuilding enhance or undermine the effectiveness of peacebuilding missions? This study maintains that PMSCs have an innate tendency to harden (i.e. militarize) security risk management. They encourage humanitarian organizations to protect their personnel with barbed wired fences, security guards, protected convoys, and secure aid compounds, even if security risks are relatively low. This needlessly militarizes humanitarian space. Not only does it create a threatening environment around peace programs, it also increases physical and psychological barriers between humanitarian personnel and local communities. This disrupts the integration of interveners with their local environments and undermines some of the key requirements for effective peacebuilding.Show less
