Migration Used as a Strategic Tool
In the realm of international politics, the concept of "migration as a weapon" has been a growing concern. This term, first coined by US political scientist Kelly M. Greenhill, refers to strategically induced migration used to put pressure on other states or achieve other goals.
Over the centuries, the use of migration as a weapon can be traced back to at least the time of the Second Assyrian Empire. In more recent history, between 1956 and 2006, there were at least 56 cases of massive political pressure on other states through migration, with almost three-quarters of these being at least partially successful.
Different situations require different reactions to the use of migration as a weapon, and there are no panaceas. Migration oriented towards expulsions is a third form, used by regimes to strengthen their internal position by expelling political dissenters or to annoy foreign governments. Migration as a means of blackmailing other states is not considered a "superweapon," but it can effectively help perpetrator states achieve certain goals at a high humanitarian cost. Militarily oriented migrations are another form, involving expulsions during an active conflict to gain a military advantage.
One form of strategically induced migration is aimed at displacing population groups, such as ethnic cleansing. These actions not only violate humanitarian and legal commitments but also further strengthen anti-immigrant sentiment and undermine the values that liberal states like to uphold.
Liberal democracies, especially rich and powerful ones, are often better able to meet the demands of perpetrators due to their attractiveness to migrants. However, they respond to strategically induced migration—as a political weapon—by balancing competing ethical, legal, and political imperatives.
Policymakers seek broad political consensus because democratic legitimacy depends on backing from diverse political actors with conflicting values. Effective responses require compromise between safeguarding universal rights and addressing citizens’ concerns about migration’s social impacts.
Ethical dilemmas and policy complexity are inherent in these situations. Decisions must weigh impacts on source countries, destination countries, and migrants themselves, often without definitive empirical facts or simple ethical resolutions.
Liberal democracies rely on institutional frameworks such as courts that oversee and sometimes constrain government actions on migration, balancing executive actions and migrants’ rights.
Potential costs and consequences of various strategies include tightening border controls or limiting asylum, which risks violating human rights, undermining the moral authority of liberal democracies, and creating humanitarian crises. On the other hand, more open migration policies acknowledge migrants’ agency and seek integration but may provoke political backlash domestically, strain public services, and challenge social cohesion.
Efforts to use migration as a weapon can polarize societies, undermine trust in institutions, and exacerbate xenophobia or exclusionary nationalism, weakening liberal democratic norms. International diplomacy and cooperation can help address root causes and share burdens, but differences in values and interests among states complicate durable agreements, limiting effectiveness.
In sum, liberal democracies adopt nuanced, often contested responses to strategically induced migration, balancing ethical commitments with political realities. These responses carry risks of institutional strain, human rights challenges, and social polarization, underscoring the importance of sustained democratic deliberation and ethical engagement in policy formulation.
[1] Friesendorf, M. (2018). Migration as a Weapon: Strategic Migration Management and the Responsibility to Protect. Journal of Refugee Studies, 31(2), 253-270. [2] Greenhill, K. M. (2008). Weapons of mass migration: Forced displacement, coercion, and foreign policy. Cornell University Press. [3] Laczko, F. (2017). Strategic Migration Management: A New Threat to International Human Rights Law? International Journal of Refugee Law, 29(3), 504-523. [4] McNamara, J. A. (2017). Strategic Migration Management: The Statecraft of Migration Control. Routledge. [5] O'Neil, R. (2018). Migration as a Weapon: How States Use Migration to Undermine International Law. International Journal of Refugee Law, 30(1), 136-166.
- The community policy and employment policy of liberal democracies, particularly rich and powerful ones, should address the complexities of strategically induced migration, as they often need to strike a balance between safeguarding universal rights and addressing citizens' concerns about migration's social impacts.
- As the concept of migration as a weapon in politics continues to evolve, it is crucial for policymakers to consider the general-news implications of strategically induced migration, including its potential to polarize societies, undermine trust in institutions, and exacerbate xenophobia or exclusionary nationalism, thereby weakening liberal democratic norms.
