Peer-reviewed Journal Articles by Lorenzo Vianelli
Political Geography, 2022
The Common European Asylum System aims to establish common standards for refugee status determina... more The Common European Asylum System aims to establish common standards for refugee status determination among EU Member States. Combining insights from legal and political geography we bring the depth and scale of this challenge into sharp relief. Drawing on interviews and a detailed ethnography of asylum adjudication involving over 850 in-person asylum appeal observations, we point towards practical differences in the spatio-temporality, materiality and logistics of asylum appeal processes as they are operationalised in seven European countries. Our analysis achieves three things. Firstly, we identify a key zone of differences at the level of concrete, everyday implementation that has largely escaped academic attention, which allows us to critically assess the notion of harmonisation of asylum policies in new ways. Secondly, drawing on legal-and political-geographical concepts, we offer a way to conceptualise this zone by paying attention to the spatiotemporality, materiality and logistics it involves. Thirdly, we offer critical legal logistics as a new direction for scholarship in legal geography and beyond that promises to prise open the previously obscured mechanics of contemporary legal systems.
Social Inclusion, 2022
This article explores the temporal dimension of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) by expos... more This article explores the temporal dimension of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) by exposing its teleological character and the effects of the latter on the governance of asylum in the European Union. Drawing on EU policy documents, the article shows how the CEAS has been presented since its inception as a teleology, that is, a process that is inexorably unfolding towards a specific outcome to be reached in an indefinite time in the future. The outcome consists in the establishment of a common area of protection constituted by a level playing field in which asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection will be treated alike regardless of the place of residence. Such a teleological narrative informing the CEAS paves the way to overly optimistic expectations on the possibilities of implementation, which in turn result in an overestimation of the potential of harmonisation. By discussing the limitations of harmonisation in relation to the reception of asylum seekers, this article calls into question the possibility of a homogeneous area of protection where equivalent conditions are offered to all asylum seekers across the EU. Such a homogeneous space is utopian because harmonisation does not aim to eradicate differences but rather to mitigate them, thus tolerating diverse arrangements. The article, therefore, argues that the level playing field projected by the CEAS constitutes a promise that has two key effects: First, it depoliticises the CEAS itself by framing problems as technical issues, requiring technical solutions; second, it paves the way to further EU intervention in this field.
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 2022
This article employs the analytical perspective of logistics to explore a key, yet quite overlook... more This article employs the analytical perspective of logistics to explore a key, yet quite overlooked, aspect of the functioning of the EU border regime: the reception and associated territorial distribution of newly arrived asylum seekers. Drawing on qualitative data collected at the height of 'refugee reception crisis' in multiple contexts in Italy and Sweden, the article shows how reception is undergoing a process of 'logistification'. In this process, organisational and logistical concerns prevail over the care for those who are assisted, and reception is turned into a logistical matter of moving and accommodating asylum seekers. Crucial to this process of 'logistification' is the warehousing of asylum seekers-an art of government that seeks to objectify asylum seekers through their depersonalisation, victimisation and (im)mobilisation. The article argues that the 'logistification' of reception not only has dehumanising effects on asylum seekers, but also exposes the attempt to make profit out their management and transfer. This creates the conditions for the development of a reception industry in which the very presence of asylum seekers is valorised for the profit of a whole range of actors who ensure the reproduction, transfer, knowledge and control of those hosted in reception facilities.
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 2022
This article diagnoses and critiques a type of governmentality associated with waiting during pro... more This article diagnoses and critiques a type of governmentality associated with waiting during protracted asylum appeal procedures by drawing upon data from a multi-methodological study of asylum adjudication in Europe. Focusing on Austria, Germany and Italy, we explore the use of integration-related considerations in asylum appeal processes by looking at the ways in which these considerations permeate judges’ decision-making, particularly, but not exclusively, on the granting of national, non-EU harmonised protection statuses. Building on insights from the literature on conditional integration we question the implicit socio-political biases and moral assumptions that underpin this permeation. We show that the use of integration-related considerations in asylum appeals transforms migrant waiting into a period of probation during which rejected asylum seekers’ conducts are governed and tested in relation to the use of time. More than simply waiting patiently, rejected asylum seekers are expected to wait productively, whereby productivity is assessed through the neoliberal imperatives of entrepreneurship, autonomy and self-improvement. We thus contribute to scholarship on migrant waiting by showing how time is capitalised by state authorities even when – and actually because – it offers opportunities for migrants.
Zapruder, Finis Europae (a cura di Mattia Frapporti e Roberto Ventresca), 2020
Questo articolo interroga il processo di integrazione europeo prendendo come punto di osservazion... more Questo articolo interroga il processo di integrazione europeo prendendo come punto di osservazione il tentativo fallimentare di creazione di uno spazio comune di protezione per richiedenti asilo. La creazione di tale spazio è infatti alla base del Sistema Europeo Comune di Asilo (CEAS – Common European Asylum System), secondo il quale un richiedente asilo dovrebbe vedersi garantite, indipendentemente dal paese in cui ha presentato domanda di asilo, condizioni di accoglienza equivalenti e lo stesso trattamento rispetto alle disposizioni procedurali e alla determinazione dello status. A vent’anni dal Consiglio Europeo di Tampere che ha avviato la costruzione del CEAS, l’obiettivo dell’articolo è di proporre una narrazione alternativa del processo di europeizzazione delle politiche di asilo. A tale scopo, collocando tale processo in prospettiva storica, l’articolo dimostra come l’intera costruzione del CEAS sia divenuta in qualche modo necessaria a seguito dell’esclusione di richiedenti e titolari di protezione internazionale dai benefici dello spazio di libera circolazione definito dagli accordi di Schengen. Nonostante gran parte del dibattito attuale sulla riforma del CEAS ed in particolare del Regolamento Dublino si concentri sul fallimento di questi ultimi rispetto alla costituzione di meccanismi di solidarietà intra-europea e di condivisione delle responsabilità, la prospettiva storica proposta da questo contributo mostra come la costruzione di un presunto spazio di protezione sia stato subordinato fin dalle sue origini all’imperativo del controllo della mobilità di specifiche categorie di persone all’interno dello spazio Schengen. Il susseguirsi di crisi e fallimenti del regime di protezione degli ultimi anni possono quindi essere interpretati come una diretta conseguenza di queste fondamenta perverse. In quest’ottica, l’articolo sottolinea come una riforma del CEAS che davvero si ponga l’obiettivo di costruire un sistema comune non possa prescindere da un radicale ripensamento dei principi che ne hanno segnato la costruzione, volto ad includere richiedenti e titolari di protezione nello spazio di libera circolazione.
Etnografia e Ricerca Qualitativa, 2017
The article takes EUrope’s uneven geographies of reception as a privileged standpoint from which ... more The article takes EUrope’s uneven geographies of reception as a privileged standpoint from which to explore the ways in which EUrope is currently produced through the management of asylum seekers, as well as constantly contested by asylum seekers’ movements. Drawing from qualitative research in Italy and Sweden, the article calls into question the notion of a homogeneous EUrope that is promoted by EU asylum policies through the idea of a common area of protection in which asylum seekers are treated equally and fairly regardless of the place of reception. Such presumed homogeneity is radically challenged by an excess of contexts of reception, which is explored along spatial, institutional, and temporal lines, and by excessive movements, through which migrants attempt to take advantage of the unevenness characterising the EUropean space. The article argues that an emphasis on the excess of reception and on the excessive character of movements points to possible ways for rethinking Europe in terms in which unevenness is replaced by equal possibilities, living conditions, and welfare.
Africa e Mediterraneo, n. 80, pp. 32-35, Oct 2014
Special issues by Lorenzo Vianelli
Political Geography, 2022
https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/political-geography/special-issue/108LC7SV05J
Policy papers by Lorenzo Vianelli
This policy paper is based on the findings of the H2020 project CONDISOBS, which was conducted by... more This policy paper is based on the findings of the H2020 project CONDISOBS, which was conducted by Lorenzo Vianelli at the University of Luxembourg, thanks to funding received from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 838722. CONDISOBS explored the governance of the mobility of asylum seekers in the European Union through a multi-sited qualitative study based on in-depth semi-structured interviews with state officials, representatives of international organisations and non-governmental organisations, lawyers, members of advocacy groups, social workers and activists. Interview material was integrated by an extensive review of academic literature, policy documents and institutional and non-governmental reports. Data was collected between October 2020 and June 2021. This policy paper is part of a series on the hotspot approach, which also includes a policy paper on the features of this mechanism in a broad sense and one on its implementation in Italy. All policy papers, as well as other research outputs, are freely accessible on the project website.
This policy paper is based on the findings of the H2020 project CONDISOBS, which was conducted by... more This policy paper is based on the findings of the H2020 project CONDISOBS, which was conducted by Lorenzo Vianelli at the University of Luxembourg, thanks to funding received from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 838722. CONDISOBS explored the governance of the mobility of asylum seekers in the European Union through a multi-sited qualitative study based on in-depth semi-structured interviews with state officials, representatives of international organisations and non-governmental organisations, lawyers, members of advocacy groups, social workers and activists. Interview material was integrated by an extensive review of academic literature, policy documents and institutional and non-governmental reports. Data was collected between October 2020 and June 2021. This policy paper is part of a series on the hotspot approach, which also includes a policy paper on the features of this mechanism in a broad sense and one on its implementation in Greece. All policy papers, as well as other research outputs, are freely accessible on the project website.
This policy paper is based on the findings of the H2020 project CONDISOBS, which was conducted by... more This policy paper is based on the findings of the H2020 project CONDISOBS, which was conducted by Lorenzo Vianelli at the University of Luxembourg, thanks to funding received from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 838722. CONDISOBS explored the governance of the mobility of asylum seekers in the European Union through a multi-sited qualitative study based on in-depth semi-structured interviews with state officials, representatives of international organisations and non-governmental organisations, lawyers, members of advocacy groups, social workers and activists. Interview material was integrated by an extensive review of academic literature, policy documents and institutional and non-governmental reports. Data was collected between October 2020 and June 2021. This policy paper is part of a series on the hotspot approach, which also includes a policy paper on the implementation of the approach in Greece and another one on its implementation in Italy. All policy papers, as well as other research outputs, are freely accessible on the project website.
Articles by Lorenzo Vianelli
Forced Migration Review, 2020
Les études menées dans un certain nombre de juridictions européennes suggèrent qu’au stade du rec... more Les études menées dans un certain nombre de juridictions européennes suggèrent qu’au stade du recours, les formations collégiales améliorent la qualité et l’équité du processus de détermination du statut de réfugié (DSR).
Revista Migraciones Forzadas, 2020
Los estudios realizados en diversas jurisdicciones europeas sugieren que el empleo de comisiones ... more Los estudios realizados en diversas jurisdicciones europeas sugieren que el empleo de comisiones judiciales compuestas por varios miembros en la fase de apelación mejora la calidad y la equidad de la DCR.
Forced Migration Review, 2020
Research across a range of European jurisdictions suggests that the use of multi-member judicial ... more Research across a range of European jurisdictions suggests that the use of multi-member judicial panels at appeal stage improves the quality and fairness of RSD.
Forum für Politik, Gesellschaft und Kultur in Luxemburg, n. 398, 2019
La recherche sur l’accueil des réfugiés, en Europe et de par le monde, porte une attention croiss... more La recherche sur l’accueil des réfugiés, en Europe et de par le monde, porte une attention croissante au rôle des acteurs dits locaux. Jusqu’à peu, l’accueil était considéré comme une question quasi exclusivement nationale. Il est vrai que les Etats centraux gardent toute leur importance, notamment en ce qui concerne les processus de décision. Cependant, l’accueil se joue aussi à une échelle locale, en particulier pour la mise en oeuvre des politiques. Quel est donc le rôle des acteurs locaux dans l’accueil des demandeurs et bénéficiaires de protection internationale au Luxembourg ?
Blog posts by Lorenzo Vianelli
Border Criminologies, 2019
Reports by Lorenzo Vianelli
With Lucas Oesch and Birte Nienaber, in CEASEVAL Research on the Common European Asylum System n. 22, 2019
The national report on the governance of the reception system in Luxembourg is one ... more The national report on the governance of the reception system in Luxembourg is one of the seven country reports that are produced within Work Package 3 of the H2020 project CEASEVAL. The report provides an overview of the Luxembourgish reception system. More specifically, it focuses on recent transformations that have affected the system, processes of implementation at the national and local levels, and sources of heterogeneity within the national system. It is based on document analysis as well as on 19 semi-structured interviews with a range of different stakeholders who are directly or indirectly involved in the Luxembourgish reception system. The report first provides some historical background on the reception of asylum seekers in Luxembourg by paying specific attention to the main legislative instruments that shaped the initial design of the national reception system. Then, the main revisions that affected the system in the period 2009-2018 are explored alongside their related decision-making processes. This paves the way for an overview of the formal structure of the Luxembourgish reception system. After the discussion of the formal organisation of reception policies in the country, the report moves on to explore the actual functioning of the reception system by investigating implementation practices at the national and local levels. Finally, some examples of heterogeneity in the current provision of reception are discussed, in an attempt to identify drivers of convergence and divergence in the implementation of reception policies.
Book chapters by Lorenzo Vianelli
Antropologia applicata. A cura di A.L. Palmisano. Pensa Editore, San Cesario di Lecce (LE) (Applied Anthropology), Dec 2014
Etnografia dell'accoglienza. Rifugiati e richiedenti asilo a Ravenna. A cura di B. Sorgoni. Cisu, Roma (Ethnography of reception practices. Refugees and asylum seekers in Ravenna), 2011
With Giulia Gianfagna and Rossella Urru, in I confini dei diritti. Antropologia, politiche locali e rifugiati. A cura di G. Gozzi e B. Sorgoni. Il Mulino, Bologna (Rights' borders. Anthropology, local policies, and refugees), 2010
Uploads
Peer-reviewed Journal Articles by Lorenzo Vianelli
Special issues by Lorenzo Vianelli
Policy papers by Lorenzo Vianelli
Articles by Lorenzo Vianelli
Blog posts by Lorenzo Vianelli
Reports by Lorenzo Vianelli
Book chapters by Lorenzo Vianelli
Drawing from fieldwork in Italy and Sweden, the paper discusses three possible and interrelated explanations underpinning the failure that characterises the EU asylum regime. The first one relates to the “excess of reception”, that is to say reception’s highly embodied and contextual nature, which translates in a great heterogeneity of reception practices within and across EU member states. The second one concerns the excess of subjective practices, which are always already irreducible to the attempts to control, manage, and organise, and therefore subvert governmental plans. The third one concerns all the frictions, conflicts, and misunderstandings that might happen between different levels of government or institutions, therefore undermining the linearity of governmental policies and practices.
In conclusion, the paper argues that the failure of the policy of harmonisation of reception is productive insofar as it allows the incorporation of asylum in the neoliberal logic of valorisation of mobility, despite its historical framing in the language of protection and rights.
Drawing from fieldwork in Italy and Sweden, the paper highlights two aspects, which complicate the linear narrative of the “common area of protection” and its unitary and neutral representation of EUrope. The first one concerns the great heterogeneity of the forms of reception, which resists the attempt to harmonise reception conditions. Such heterogeneity invites to describe the EU asylum regime as a machine for differentiation, which multiplies asylum seekers’ experiences along geographical and institutional lines, notwithstanding the supposed identical juridical status. The second aspect concerns a kind of heterogeneity that develops through time, as it refers to the different support programs, welfare arrangements, job opportunities available to those granted asylum. Such multiplicity of possibilities and future outlooks shows that the “common area of protection” can be experienced in extremely diverse ways depending on where an asylum seeker ends up.
In conclusion, the paper stresses three possible features of EUrope that the perspective of asylum seekers illuminates. First, EUrope's inherent unevenness and fragmentation concerning levels of development, employment, and welfare provisions. Second, EUrope's nature as a space of conflict between governmental attempts to control and manage mobility and the "turbulence" of the practices of mobility. Third, EUrope's permanent effort to foster mobility in order to exploit and valorise it.
L’intervento ha innanzitutto contestualizzato la condizione dell’operatore sociale dell’asilo all’incrocio di due importanti tendenze che si possono individuare all’opera negli ultimi anni: le trasformazioni del welfare, con i conseguenti processi di precarizzazione del lavoro e la crescente enfasi su produttività e flessibilità nella gestione dei progetti, e l’approccio emergenziale e privo di programmazione che caratterizza le politiche di accoglienza in Italia.
L’intervento ha poi evidenziato come tali dinamiche (precarizzazione, efficienza, emergenza) siano funzionali ad una progressiva depoliticizzazione del lavoro sociale ed alla promozione di un’accoglienza a bassa soglia, limitata ai bisogni primari. In questa prospettiva, è stato inoltre sottolineato come il regime dell’accoglienza sembri operare attraverso una progressiva erosione delle basi per un lavoro sociale efficace e conseguentemente imbrigliando tanto i suoi presunti beneficiari quanto, seppur a gradi di intensità molto differenti, gli stessi operatori.
Infine, l’intervento ha posto l’accento sulla paradossale condizione dell’operatore – ingranaggio e al tempo stesso vittima del regime dell’accoglienza – evidenziando come le potenzialità di tale posizionamento possano essere attivate soltanto a partire da una presa di consapevolezza politica del ruolo.
Drawing from ethnographic fieldwork and in-depth interviews among voluntary workers and refugees, this paper intends to stress three main issues. First, it calls into question the framing of the help offered by voluntary workers in terms of unselfish gift. Indeed, their involvement is better located within a continuum between self-interest (gratitude, self-esteem, intercultural exchange) and altruism. Second, it describes the relationship between voluntary workers and beneficiaries as an asymmetrical power relation between the one who helps and the one being helped. Besides reproducing the victimization of refugees, this asymmetrical relationship solicits their gratitude for the help received. Third, it shows how voluntary workers tended to evaluate their help in emotional terms (listening, talking, encouraging), thus eliciting refugees to share their feeling by talking about their flight, family, and memories. This resulted both in hurting beneficiaries and in jeopardizing voluntary workers’ emotional stability.
http://storieinmovimento.org/2020/05/20/cinquantunesimo-numero/