Historicising 'asylum' and responsibility

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract (may include machine translation)

Territorial rule 'begins' with an assertion of who deserves protection and who does not. The question of responsibility and its limits is integral to the making and maintenance of a nation state. But a modern refugee rights regime externalises the question of asylum. Asylum claims are made by strangers dealt with by bureaucracies. How has this come to pass? How has responsibility become thought in terms of the territorial state and the society and order it begets? In this article, I try to make the case through a historical example that asylum is not external to the constitution of the nation state, rather territorial rule begins by figuring out who to protect and who not to. At the core of these ideas about protection and responsibility is a notion of political subjectivity, which is graduated, hierarchical and centred on the state. The privileging of an ahistorical idea of how political subjectivity has been so limited has contributed to the externalisation of asylum, where the troubling questions of to whom we are responsible and whom not barely figure because asylum claims become the subject of a technicalised procedure. In this article, I focus on the British colonial authority's encounter with native slaves seeking asylum in Perak.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)681-696
Number of pages16
JournalCitizenship Studies
Volume17
Issue number6-7
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2013

Keywords

  • asylum
  • political agency
  • subjectivity
  • territory

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Historicising 'asylum' and responsibility'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this