Abstract
While the geopolitical legacies of the World War I peace negotiations are widely recognized, this article examines the often overlooked connection between the WWI Paris Peace Conference's spatial and geopolitical logics and contemporary refugee‐border dynamics. We argue that the spatial and geopolitical logics that framed the WWI Paris Peace Conference—the creation of new states, the propagation of the Western ideal of bounded sovereign states, the nationalist goals of self‐determination and homogeneous ethnic nations, and the establishment of a system of international governance—continue to impact refugee‐border dynamics and “crises” today. The categories, ideals, and practices of the international refugee regime that emerged over the last one‐hundred years stem in great part from these logics. In this paper, we urge critical contemplation about how these foundations—including the establishment of the post of High Commissioner for Refugees in 1921, the resultant Nansen Passports, the post‐WWI minority treaties, and lastly the 1933 Convention Relating to the International Status of Refugees—connect to contemporary human (im)mobility and border violence. We also introduce the articles in this special issue and highlight key themes and future directions for research in critical migration studies.
⋆ Emily and Karen, as the guest editors of this special issue, want to thank each contributor for sharing their timely and relevant work, along with the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful engagement with the papers. We’d also like to thank Dave Kaplan for his support, advice, and encouragement as we worked through the process of creating this special issue.
⋆ Emily and Karen, as the guest editors of this special issue, want to thank each contributor for sharing their timely and relevant work, along with the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful engagement with the papers. We’d also like to thank Dave Kaplan for his support, advice, and encouragement as we worked through the process of creating this special issue.
Notes
⋆ Emily and Karen, as the guest editors of this special issue, want to thank each contributor for sharing their timely and relevant work, along with the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful engagement with the papers. We’d also like to thank Dave Kaplan for his support, advice, and encouragement as we worked through the process of creating this special issue.
1. Bowman (Citation1921), upon returning from Paris, wrote that “The effects of the Great War are so far‐reaching that we shall have henceforth a new world.” This term has been used to signify several different shifts in the balance of world powers (e.g. the end of the Cold War and the recent rise of anti‐globalist authoritative regimes), but it is generally attributed to the post WWI world structure.
2. There are, of course, other logics, discourses, and practices that have impacted refugees today. Most notably racism, imperialism, and nationalism, and neoliberalism, but delving into each of these is outside the scope of this paper.
3. Other refugee focused institutions, like the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees coming from Germany (1933‐1938), also emerged during the interwar era.
4. Retrieved May 2019 https://www.unhcr.org/figures-at-a-glance.html/
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Karen Culcasi
Karen Culcasi, Associate Professor, Department of Geology and Geography, West Virginia University, PO Box 6300, Morgantown, WV 26505; [[email protected]].
Emily Skop
Emily Skop, Professor, Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, 1420 Austin Bluffs Pkwy, Colorado Springs, CO 80918; [[email protected]].
Cynthia Gorman
Cynthia Gorman, Assistant Professor, Department of Geology and Geography, West Virginia University, PO Box 6300, Morgantown, WV 26505; [[email protected]].