Abstract
Even though torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (CIDT) is prohibited absolutely under international law, it continues to occur worldwide. This is particularly the case when it comes to the torture and CIDT of migrants and refugees. As people on the move migrate to new countries, they endure brutal forms of treatment at the hands of state officials and non-state actors. Although many scholars have shown how migration deterrence policies are making migrants and refugees more vulnerable to torture by securitising borders, closing migration routes, and undermining human rights protections, what has not been adequately explored are the psychosocial dynamics that enable state actors to justify, legitimise, and promote these policies in the face of so much human suffering. Drawing upon social psychology, this paper examines how moral disengagement has been crucial in not only maintaining migration deterrence policies but in perpetuating and condoning the torture of migrants and refugees. Focusing on content and document analysis of Hungarian migration deterrence policies, this study shows how moral disengagement helps actors ameliorate and suppress the moral dilemmas that result from engaging in the torture of others, allowing actors to harm others and continue to live with themselves. Exploring the psychosocial dynamics of migration deterrence policies sheds new light on the factors that are contributing to the torture of people on the move as well as build interdisciplinary bridges between social psychology, international relations, and international law to help identify factors that inhibit conformity with the international international law.
Presenters
Jamal BarnesSenior Lecturer, School of Arts and Humanities, Edith Cowan University, Western Australia, Australia
Details
Presentation Type
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session
Theme
Vectors of Society and Culture
KEYWORDS
Ethics, Refugees, Rights, Deterrence, Law
