Abstract
AbstractHow, when, and why does a state take repressive action against individuals residing outside its territorial jurisdiction? Beyond state-led domestic forms of control over citizens living within their legal borders, autocracies also seek to target those abroad—from African states’ sponsoring violence against exiled dissidents to Central Asian republics’ extraditions of political émigrés, and from the adoption of spyware software to monitor digital activism across Latin America to enforced disappearances of East Asian expatriates. Despite growing global interconnectedness, the field of international studies currently lacks an adequate comparative framework for analyzing how autocracies adapt to growing cross-border mobility. I argue that the rise of global migration flows has contributed to the emergence of “transnational authoritarianism,” as autocracies aim to both maximize material gains from citizens’ “exit” and minimize political risks by controlling their “voice” abroad. I demonstrate that governments develop strategies of transnational repression, legitimation, and co-optation that transcend state borders, as well as co-operation with a range of non-state actors. Bringing work on the international politics of migration in conversation with the literature on authoritarianism, I provide illustrative examples drawn from a range of transnational authoritarian practices by the fifty countries categorized as “Not Free” by Freedom House in 2019, covering much of Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and South America. I sketch an emerging field of international studies research around the novel means that autocracies employ to exercise power over populations abroad, while shedding light on the evolving nature of global authoritarianism.
Highlights
How, when, and why does a state take repressive action against individuals residing outside its territorial jurisdiction? Beyond state-led domestic forms of control over citizens living within their legal borders, autocracies seek to target those abroad—from African states’ sponsoring violence against exiled dissidents to Central Asian republics’ extraditions of political émigrés, and from the adoption of spyware software to monitor digital activism across Latin America to enforced disappearances of East Asian expatriates
Researchers working on authoritarian politics, international relations, as well as transnationalism and the sociology of migration have yet to integrate their findings into a unified body of scholarship
Do countries of origin across the Global South—frequently authoritarian—face a similar dilemma between maximizing economic gains and minimizing political and security risks from mass emigration? I argue for the existence of an illiberal paradox across authoritarian migration states: on the one hand, autocracies seek to control their borders and restrict emigration because of domestic political and security reasons—citizens’ right to travel abroad comes into conflict with autocracies’ wish to maintain order and eliminate dissent; on the other hand, autocracies wish to encourage emigration under an economic rationale that relies on free cross-border mobility to increase migrant remittances, lower unemployment, and address any pressures of overpopulation
Summary
Beyond state-led domestic forms of control over citizens living within their legal borders, autocracies seek to target those abroad—from African states’ sponsoring violence against exiled dissidents to Central Asian republics’ extraditions of political émigrés, and from the adoption of spyware software to monitor digital activism across Latin America to enforced disappearances of East Asian expatriates. Hollifield (2004) in conversation with each other, as well with research on the international politics of autocratic rule This maps the historical evolution of transnational authoritarianism: as autocracies identified that their closed-borders strategy was economically infeasible and shifted toward a policy that granted citizens the freedom to emigrate (or, to “exit”), they faced a novel political and security need of managing expressions of political dissent abroad (or, “voice”). I conclude by discussing how this analysis paves the way for a novel area of research in international studies, on the repertoires of authoritarianism across the Global South as well as Western democracies’ engagement in illiberal extraterritorial practices
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
