Do Human Rights Reinforce Border Regimes? Differential Approaches to Human Rights in the Movement Opposing Border Regimes in Berlin

Abstract

Scepticism often dominates the debate regarding the potential of human rights for eroding border regimes. Powerful actors make use of human rights to justify migration control. However, subaltern groups can also rely on human rights to challenge oppression. In this article, I argue that the ambivalence of human rights must be contextualised within the wider human rights politics pursued by different social actors. By drawing on my ethnography of the social movement contesting border regimes in Berlin, I analyse how different social movement organisations contest deportation and I emphasise crucial differences in their approaches to human rights. More specifically, human rights NGOs, which I conceptualise as moderate organisations, draw on legal notions of human rights and oppose deportations only partially. In contrast, radical organisations oppose all deportations by elaborating non-legal notions of human rights. I contend that NGOs see human rights as imperatives that need to be upheld by the law and state institutions. In contrast, radical organisations conceive of human rights as aspirations for social justice and locate the source of human rights in social struggles. These differential approaches to human rights entail a distinctive potential for eroding border regimes as they underpin different models of migration governance.