Who wants \u2018the worst of the worst\u2019? Rationales for and consequences of third country resettlement of Guantanamo Bay detainees

Gaia Rietveld,Maarten P Bolhuis,Joris Van Wijk

doi:10.1007/s10611-020-09932-z

Gaia Rietveld, Maarten P Bolhuis + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-020-09932-z

Copy DOI

Abstract

Against the backdrop of countries increasingly being confronted with undesirable but unreturnable non-citizen terrorist suspects, this article describes the resettlement process of 150 cleared but unreturnable Guantanamo Bay detainees. Merely 13% of these detainees have been resettled in full democracies, compared to 52% in authoritarian regimes. Using Starkley et al.’s concept of ‘zone agreement’ the article explains how the U.S. particularly managed to incentivize pragmatically oriented – rather than idealistically motivated – governments to engage in third country resettlement [16]. From the perspective of the U.S. the resettlement scheme can be considered relatively successful, while the experiences of resettlement countries and the resettled detainees themselves have been very mixed.

Highlights

In recent years there has been increased attention for the ‘securitisation of migration’ and ‘crimmigration’
States are ever more confronted with undesirable non-citizens who are considered to pose a threat to national security, but cannot be deported to their country of origin
It aims to: 1) provide an empirical overview of states that resettled cleared and unreturnable Guantanamo Bay detainees; 2) explain why some states resettled these undesirable but unreturnable’ migrants (UBUs) while others have not; and 3) discuss to what extent, from the perspective of U.S, the resettlement countries and the resettled detainees themselves, the resettlement process can be considered a successful ‘way out of limbo’ or not

Summary

Introduction

In recent years there has been increased attention for the ‘securitisation of migration’ (the presentation of migration as a security problem; [1]) and ‘crimmigration’ (the merger of criminal law and immigration law; [2]). Countries have developed strategies in dealing with UBUs, ranging from strictly monitoring their whereabouts and keeping them in long-term detention, to requesting diplomatic assurances that they will not be subjected to mistreatment upon return Many of these approaches have been critiqued for being ad hoc and inconsistent character, unregulated, overly restrictive and failing “to provide a sensible or sustainable solution to either the legal and political concerns of the State or the anomalous situation of the individual involved” [6]. In light of the wider discussion on the merger between national security and migration law and the question how states can deal, should deal or do deal with UBUs, this article offers an empirical analysis on the resettlement process of unreturnable Guantanamo Bay detainees. From the perspective of the U.S the resettlement scheme can be considered relatively successful, but the experiences of resettlement countries and the resettled detainees themselves have been very mixed

Methodology

Findings

Conclusion