Border security and the digitalisation of sovereignty: insights from EU borderwork

References

• Access Now (and 30 other NGOs), 2021. Subject: fundamental rights concerns about the EURODAC reform. Letter to Mr Buxadé, MEP, Shadow Rapporteurs, and Members of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), 8 September. Available from: https://www.amnesty.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/EURODAC-Open-letter-8-Sept-2021.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Adler-Nissen, R. and Gammeltoft-Hansen, T., 2008. Epilogue: three layers of a contested concept. In: R. Adler-Nissen and T. Gammeltoft-Hansen, eds. Sovereignty games. Intrumentalizing state sovereignty in Europe and beyond. London: Palgrave, 197–210.
   Google Scholar
• Alencar, A., Kondova, K., and Ribbens, W., 2018. The smartphone as a lifeline: an exploration of refugees use of mobile communication technologies during their flight. Media, culture and society, 41 (6), 828–844.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amelung, N., Granja, R., and Machado, H., 2021. Modes of bio-bordering: the hidden (dis)integration of Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Amoore, L., 2006. Biometric borders: governing mobilities in the war on terror. Political geography, 25 (3), 336–351.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amoore, L. and Raley, R., 2017. Securing with algorithms: knowledge, decision, sovereignty. Security dialogue, 48 (1), 1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aneesh, A., 2006. Virtual migration: Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Aneesh, A., 2009. Global labor: algocratic modes of organization. Sociological theory, 27 (4), 347–370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aradau, C. and Blanke, T., 2018. Governing others: anomaly and the algorithmic subject of security. European Journal of international security, 3 (1), 1–21. doi:10.1017/eis.2017.14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balibar, É., 2002. Politics and the other scene. London: Verso, 75–86.
   Google Scholar
• Barrinha, A. and Christou, G., 2022. Speaking Sovereignty: The EU in the Cyber Domain. European Security, 31 (3), 356–376.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellanova, D., Carrapico, H. and Duez, D. 2022. Digital/Sovereignty and European Security Integration. An introduction. European Security, 31 (3), 337–355.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellanova, R. and de Goede, M., 2022. The algorithmic regulation of security: an infrastructural perspective. Regulation & governance, 16 (1), 102–118. doi:10.1111/rego.12338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellanova, R. and Duez, D., 2012. A different view on the ‘making’ of European security: the EU passenger name record system as a socio-technical assemblage. European foreign affairs review, 17 (2), 109–124.
   Google Scholar
• Bellanova, R. and Glouftsios, G., 2020. Controlling the Schengen information system (SIS II): the infrastructural politics of fragility and maintenance. Geopolitics. doi:10.1080/14650045.2020.1830765.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benjamin, R., 2019. Assessing risk, automating racism. Science, 366 (6464), 421–422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bialasiewicz, L., 2012. Off-shoring and out-sourcing the borders of Europe: Libya and EU border work in the Mediterranean. Geopolitics, 17 (4), 843–866.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bigo, D., 2014. The (in)securitization practices of the three universes of EU border control: military/navy – border guards/police – database analysts. Security dialogue, 45 (3), 209–225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bigo, D., 2020. The socio-genesis of a guild of ‘digital technologies’ justifying transnational interoperable databases in the name of security and border purposes: a reframing of the field of security professionals? International journal of migration and border studies, 6 (1/2), 74–92. doi:10.1504/IJMBS.2020.108689.
   Google Scholar
• Bigo, D., Bonditti, P., Olsson, C., 2011. Mapping the European field of security professionals. In: D. Bigo et al., eds. Europe’s 21st century challenge: delivering liberty, 49–64. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bigo, D., Isin, Engin, and Ruppert, Evelyn, eds, 2019. Data politics: worlds, subjects, rights. Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Birhane, A., 2021. The impossibility of automating ambiguity. Artificial life, 27 (1), 44–61. doi:10.1162/artl_a_00336.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolhuis, M.P. and van Wijk, J., 2021. Seeking asylum in the digital era: social-media and mobile-device vetting in asylum procedures in five European countries. Journal of refugee studies, 34 (2), 1595–1617.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunyan, T., 2018. The “point of no return” interoperability morphs into the creation of a Big Brother centralized EU state database including all existing and future Justice and Home Affairs databases. Statewatch Analysis, July. Available from: https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/analyses/no-332-eu-interop-morphs-into-central-database-revised.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Calderaro, A. and Blumfelde, S., 2022. Artificial Intelligence and EU Security: the false promise of Digital Sovereignty. European Security, 31 (3), 415–434.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrera, S., et al., eds., 2018. The EU external faces of migration, borders, and asylum policies. Amsterdam: Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Creta, S., 2021. European funds for African IDs: migration regulation tool or privacy risk? Euronews, 30 July. Available from: https://www.euronews.com/2021/07/30/european-funds-for-african-ids-migration-regulation-tool-or-privacy-risk.
   Google Scholar
• Csernatoni, R. 2022. The EU’s Hegemonic Imaginaries: From European Strategic Autonomy in Defence to Technological Sovereignty. European Security, 31 (3), 395–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danaher, J., 2016. The threat of algocracy: reality, resistance and accommodation. Philosophy & technology, 29 (3), 245–268.
   Google Scholar
• De Guerry, O. and Stocchiero, A., 2018. Partnership or conditionality? Monitoring the migration compacts and EU trust fund for Africa. Brussels: CONCORD and CINI.
   Google Scholar
• Dijstelbloem, H., 2021. Borders as infrastructure: the technopolitics of border control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, 2017. High-level expert group on information systems and interoperability: Final report. Available from: http://ec.europa. eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetailDoc&id=32600&no=1.
   Google Scholar
• Duffield, M., 2007. Development, security and unending war. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• El Qadim, N., 2014. Postcolonial challenges to migration control: French–Moroccan cooperation practices on forced returns. Security dialogue, 45 (3), 242–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eu-LISA, 2018. Shared biometric matching service (sBMS) – feasibility study – final report. EL-04-18-248-EN-N, doi:10.2857/84504.
   Google Scholar
• Eu-LISA, 2020. Framework contract for implementation and maintenance in working order of the biometric part of the entry exit system and future shared biometrics matching system, 2020/S 085-200083, contract award notice. Available from: https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:200083-2020:TEXT:EN:HTML&tabId=1.
   Google Scholar
• EU Trust Fund for Africa, 2019. WAPIS-SIPAO: Un fichier de police pour le Niger. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/trustfundforafrica/all-news-and-stories/wapis-sipao-un-fichier-de-police-pour-le-niger_en.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission, 2016. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: stronger and smarter information systems for borders and security, 6 April, COM/2016/0205 final.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission, 2017. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council: Seventh progress report towards an effective and genuine Security Union. COM(2017) 261 final, Strasbourg 16.5.2017.
   Google Scholar
• European Data Protection Supervisor, 2018. Opinion 4/2018 on the proposals for two regulations establishing a framework for interoperability between EU large-scale information systems. Available from: https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/2018-04-16_interoperability_opinion_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament and Council, 2019. Regulation (EU) 2019/817 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on establishing a framework for interoperability between EU information systems in the field of borders and visa and amending regulations (EC) No 767/2008, (EU) 2016/399, (EU) 2017/2226, (EU) 2018/1240, (EU) 2018/1726 and (EU) 2018/1861 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council decisions 2004/512/EC and 2008/633/JHA, PE/30/2019/REV/1.
   Google Scholar
• Farrand, B. and Carrapico, H., 2022. Digital Sovereignty and Taking Back Control: From Regulatory Capitalism to Regulatory Mercantilism in EU Cybersecurity. European Security, 31 (3), 435–453.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Floridi, L. 2020. The Fight for Digital Sovereignty: What It Is, and Why It Matters, Especially for the EU. Philosophy & Technology, 33, 369–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00423-6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B., 2001. Making social science matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. 2007 [1978]. Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College de France 1977-1978. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Frowd, P.M., 2018. Security at the borders: transnational practices and technologies in West Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frowd, P., 2021. Borderwork Creep in West Africa’s Sahel, Geopolitics, doi: 10.1080/14650045.2021.1901082
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garkov, K., 2021. Subject: written questions from MEP Patrick Breyer related to contracts for information systems concluded by eu-LISA (and Frontex), 3 September. Available from: https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2021/09/euLISA_reply_MEP_Breyer_question_final.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hacking, I., 1990. The taming of chance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• IDEMIA, 2020. IDEMIA and Sopra Steria chosen by eu-LISA to build the new shared biometric matching system (sBMS) for border protection of the Schengen area. Available from: https://www.idemia.com/press-release/idemia-and-sopra-steria-chosen-eu-lisa-build-new-shared-biometric-matching-system-sbms-border-protection-schengen-area-2020-06-04.
   Google Scholar
• Iliadis A, Russo F., 2016. Critical data studies: An introduction. Big Data & Society, 3 (2). doi:10.1177/2053951716674238
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Interpol, 2021. WAPIS programme. Available from: https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Capacity-building/WAPIS-Programme.
   Google Scholar
• Interpol and ECOWAS, 2020. WAPIS Brochure. Available from: https://www.interpol.int/en/content/download/16378/file/20COM0209-WAPIS_Programme_21(21_08-2020_EN_03_24pagesLR_Optimized.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Jeandesboz, J., 2016. Smartening border security in the European Union: an associational inquiry. Security dialogue, 47 (4), 292–309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, C., 2019. Data protection, immigration enforcement and fundamental rights: what the EU’s regulations on interoperability mean for people with irregular status: London: Statewatch and Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants.
   Google Scholar
• Jumbert, M.G., Bellanova, R., and Gellert, R., 2018. Smart phones for refugees: tools for survival, or surveillance? Oslo: PRIO Policy Brief 04/2018.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufmann, M., Egbert, S. and Leese, M., 2019. Predictive Policing and the Politics of Patterns. British Journal of Criminology, 59 (3), 674–692.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krasner, S.D., 1999. Sovereignty. Organized hypocrisy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lavenex, S., 2006. Shifting up and down: the foreign policy of European immigration control. West European politics, 29 (2), 329–350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leese, M., 2016. Exploring the security/facilitation nexus: Foucault at the ‘smart’ border. Global society, 30 (3), 412–429.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leese, M., 2020. Fixing state vision: interoperability, biometrics, and identity management in the EU. Geopolitics. doi:10.1080/14650045.2020.1830764.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemberg-Pedersen, M., 2019. Manufacturing displacement. Externalization and postcoloniality in European migration control. Global affairs, 5 (3), 247–271.
   Google Scholar
• Martins, B.O. and Jumbert, M.G., 2022. EU border technologies and the co-production of security ‘problems’ and ‘solutions’. Journal of ethnic and migration studies, 48 (6), 1430–1447. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2020.1851470.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martins, B.O. and Strange, M., 2019. Rethinking EU external migration policy: contestation and critique. Global affairs, 5 (3), 195–202.
   Google Scholar
• Morozov, E., 2013. To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Optimism. Public Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• OJEU, 2019. Regulation (EU) 2019/818 on establishing a framework for interoperability between EU information systems in the field of police and judicial cooperation, asylum and migration. L 135/85.
   Google Scholar
• Pradella, L. and Taghdisi Rad, S., 2017. Libya and Europe: imperialism, crisis and migration. Third world quarterly, 38 (1), 2411–2427. doi:10.1080/01436597.2017.1350819.
   Google Scholar
• Privacy International, 2020. Here’s how a well-connected security company is quietly building mass biometric databases in West Africa with EU aid funds, 10 November. Available from: https://privacyinternational.org/news-analysis/4290/heres-how-well-connected-security-company-quietly-building-mass-biometric.
   Google Scholar
• Pötzsch, H., 2015. The emergence of iBorder: bordering bodies, networks, and machines. Environment and planning D: society and space, 33 (1), 101–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Queiroz, M.B., 2019. The impact of EURODAC in European migration law: the era of crimmigration? Market and competition Law review, 3 (1), 157–183.
   Google Scholar
• Rumford, C., 2008. Introduction: citizens and borderwork in Europe. Space and polity, 12 (1), 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Stambøl, E.M., 2021a. Borders as penal transplants: control of territory, mobility and illegality in West Africa. Theoretical criminology, 25 (3), 474–492.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stambøl, E.M., 2021b. Border externalization to West Africa: three logics of border security technologies. Border Criminologies blog, 7 September. Available from: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreborder-criminologies/blog/2021/09/border.
   Google Scholar
• Statewatch, 2021. EU: expansion of biometric policing and migration databases runs into delays. Statewatch News, 14 October. Available from: https://www.statewatch.org/news/2021/october/eu-expansion-of-biometric-policing-and-migration-databases-runs-into-delays/.
   Google Scholar
• Strange, M. and Martins, B.O., 2019. Claiming parity between unequal partners: how African counterparts are framed in the externalization of EU migration governance. Global affairs, 5 (3), 235–246.
   Google Scholar
• Thales, 2020. Eurodac: the European Union’s first multinational biometric system. Available from: https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/markets/digital-identity-and-security/government/customer-cases/eurodac.
   Google Scholar
• Trauttmansdorf, P. and Felt, U. 2021. Between infrastructural experimentation and collective imagination: the digital transformation of the EU border regime. Science, technology and human values. Aviailable from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/01622439211057523.
   Google Scholar
• Vaughan-Williams, N., 2008. Borderwork beyond inside/outside? Frontex, the citizen–detective and the war on terror. Space and polity, 12 (1), 63–79.
   Google Scholar
• Vaughan-Williams, N., 2015. Europe’s border crisis: biopolitical security and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vavuola, N., 2015. The recast eurodac regulation: are asylum seekers treated as suspected crimminals? In: C. Bauloz et al., eds. Seeking asylum in the European Union: selected protection issues raised by the second phase of the common European sylum system, 247–273. Amsterdam: Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Zandonini, G., 2019. Biometrics: the new frontier of EU migration policy in Niger. The New Humanitarian, June. Available from: https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news-feature/2019/06/06/biometrics-new-frontier-eu-migration-policy-niger.
   Google Scholar