»Von innen nach ausen und von ausen nach innen: COVID-19 und die Rekonfiguration von Europas Ausengrenzkontrollen«. The extension of border controls beyond Europe’s territory to regulate the flows of would-be migrants is a popular – and highly controversial – policy approach adopted by European governments. The present paper examines recent developments char-acterizing the externalization of border management in Europe, paying par-ticular attention to the changes that have occurred during the COVID-19 global pandemic. This represents a time when mobility has been severely re-stricted in most of Europe (and the rest of the world). The aim is to map the impact of the pandemic on relevant “externalizing” policy instruments (e.g., visas, extra-territorial patrolling and surveillance, external processing of asylum claims, and offshore detention of migrants) and to assess their future tra-jectories. The paper shows that during the pandemic, the externalization of border controls has expanded and adapted to the new conditions. As a result, some of the key dynamics that define this policy arrangement have been rec-reated internally, a phenomenon referred to here as the “internalization of externalized border controls.”. © 2021, GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. All rights reserved.

»Der Korper als Grenze: Eine neue Ara«. COVID-19 has reminded us of the significance of borders. In 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, many predicted that sealed gates would soon become relics of a bygone era. Today, we find a different reality. Instead of disappearing, borders are transforming. In this article, we build upon the shifting border logic to explore how responses to the global pandemic have accelerated processes of detachment of mobility control from a fixed territorial marker. From global travel bans to mandating pre-arrival proof of a negative test result taken within 48 or 72 hours prior to departure to requiring digital registration of a passenger’s travel history to enforcing strict post-arrival mandatory quarantine orders that arrest mobility, the shifting border paradigm has provided a template for policymakers to respond to a mounting global crisis. In addition to regulating movement across international borders and within countries, we trace the surprising return of subnational and inter-regional division lines in managing mobility, the erosion of the once taken for granted right to return to one’s home country, and the spatial and legal techniques used to block refugees from reaching terra firma during the pandemic. Next, we critically evaluate the authorization given under emergency regulations to deploy novel biometric and AI technologies, big data, and predictive algorithms to surveil moving bodies at real time and reprimand those deemed to have breached their quarantine or related governmental emergency measures. While drastic times call for drastic measures, techniques of movement control that “scan” and trace our bodies raise serious questions about justice, fairness, and the risk of discrimination, which may well remain with us even long after the pandemic is over. © 2021, GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. All rights reserved.

Infectious diseases pose a continuing threat to human life. In the case of pandemics, they can also grow into massive challenges for society as a whole – not only from a medical but also from an ethical perspective. This article takes the current COVID-19 pandemic as the occasion for an empirical medico-ethical analysis. It explores the ethical dimensions and discourses on COVID-19 and the Ebola epidemics (West Africa, Democratic Republic of Congo). Additional attention is paid to the question whether and to what extent the ethical issues raised differ and how the possible disparities can be explained. Using a methodological two-step approach (systematic literature review; qualitative content analysis), we were able to identify nine categories that map the ethical dimensions of recent outbreaks of these two diseases: (1) Prioritization of health, (2) Equitable access to resources, (3) Adequate information, (4) Health worker vulnerability, (5) Stigma and discrimination, (6) Research ethics, (7) Measures restricting freedom, (8) Global health justice, (9) Environmental ethics.