| 1. |
- Gunneflo, Markus, et al.
(författare)
-
Discourse or Merely Noise? Regarding the Disagreement on Undocumented Migrants
- 2010
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Migration and Law. - 1388-364X. ; 12:2, s. 173-191
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Drawing on Jacques Ranciere's theorising of the political, this article analyses the disagreement on undocumented migrants in recent legislation in Sweden and within the European Union as well as in Swedish labour union practice. Both the consensus understanding of the issue of undocumented migrants and the materialisation of dissensus through the political activities of undocumented migrants are studied. The aims of the article are: firstly, to show that undocumented migrants in Sweden engage in a political struggle that is not recognised as such, to analyse the structure or conditions of possibility of this non-recognition, and finally, to analyse the ways in which these conditions might be undone through the political activities of undocumented migrants. The theoretical claim is that the issue of undocumented migrants involves intimately core aspects of both politics and law and that the struggle of undocumented migrants is a process in which our understanding of political and legal subjectivity is called into question. In conclusion we reflect on the question of political change against the background of the theoretical and empirical findings of the analysis.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Gunneflo, Markus
(författare)
-
The Life and Times of Targeted Killing
- 2014
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Against the background of the ongoing shift in the perception of the legality and legitimacy of extraterritorial lethal force in counterterrorism, this thesis analyses the emergence of so-called “targeted killing” in the history of Israel and the US, as well as in international law. It finds that the relationship between targeted killing and law, particularly international law, is not a straightforward case of more or less determinate and legally binding norms being applied to state measures adopted in situations of insecurity (in this case, those of the second Intifada and 9/11) but rather one of a much longer and mutually productive relationship. Making use of the work of Roberto Esposito, Walter Benjamin and Carl Schmitt, and with due attention to the particular historical contexts and the legal and political conditions in which Israel and the US took up their policies of targeted killing, the thesis highlights both the general problem of the precarious relationship between violence and law in the sovereign protection of the political body and the more particular question of the mutually productive relationship between targeted killing and international law. The emergence of targeted killing is accounted for by an analysis of the enactment of certain conceptions of sovereignty, law and political community in the articulation of problems and threats; the provision of answers, definitions and interpretations; and the shaping and gaining in importance of practices over time. In the case of the US, the study goes back to the early 1980s; with Israel, it goes as far back as the birth of the state. Recognising that the question of the lawfulness of targeted killing is far from settled, the thesis argues that targeted killing has the effect of renewing international law’s sanctioning of lethal force in an individualising and deterritorialising fashion that defies conceptions of universal and inalienable human rights by either subordinating human rights to the law of armed conflict or by merging the two, with the effect of simultaneously restraining and licensing targeted killing.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Gunneflo, Markus
(författare)
-
The targeted killing judgment of the Israeli Supreme Court and the critique of legal violence
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Law and Critique. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0957-8536 .- 1572-8617. ; 23, s. 67-82
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The targeted killing judgment of the Israeli Supreme Court has, since it was handed down in December 2006, received a significant amount of attention: praise as well as criticism. Offering neither praise nor criticism, the present article is instead an attempt at a ‘critique’ of the judgment drawing on the German-Jewish philosopher Walter Benjamin’s famous essay from 1921, ‘Critique of Violence’. The article focuses on a key aspect of Benjamin’s critique: the distinction between the two modalities of ‘legal violence’—lawmaking or foundational violence and law-preserving or administrative violence. Analysing the fact that the Court exercises jurisdiction over these killings in the first place, the decision on the applicable law as well as the interpretation of that law, the article finds that the targeted killing judgment collapses this distinction in a different way from that foreseen by Benjamin. Hence, the article argues, the targeted killing judgment is best understood as a form of administrative foundational violence. In conclusion Judith Butler’s reading of Benjamin’s notion of ‘divine violence’ is considered, particularly his use of the commandment, ‘thou shalt not kill’, as a non-violent violence that must be waged against the kind of legal violence of which the targeted killing judgment is exemplary.
|
|
