Volume 30, Number 2
April 2025
ARTICLE

Can States Resist Migration Blackmail While Protecting Migrants?

Volume 30, Number 2, April 2025, Pages 295–328
https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v30i2.3519
PDFPDF

Abstract

Migration blackmail occurs when one state threatens to engineer a “migration crisis” on the borders of a target state by creating or permitting an irregular migration flow unless political or economic concessions are made by the target state. States may have legitimate interests in resisting migration blackmail. However, migrants have strong interests in accessing international protection and avoiding harm. These goals may seem to stand in tension and generate a dilemma: it may seem that there is no way for target states to effectively resist and deter blackmail while adequately respecting migrants’ interests. This paper explores what is problematic about migration blackmail and how states may permissibly respond to it. I argue that target states are not permitted to close their borders in response to migration blackmail but instead must respect the right to seek asylum. I offer four complementary arguments for this conclusion: (1) not all cases of migration blackmail are dilemmatic; (2) target states have often contributed to the circumstances that give rise to migration blackmail and so may bear some responsibility for the situation; (3) the interests of migrants in accessing protection and avoiding harm outweigh states’ interests in resisting blackmail; and (4) states have options available to resist migration blackmail without contravening the right to asylum.
Copyright © 2025 Daniel Sharp
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.
|

The Naturalization of the Vulnerable: An International Responsibility with Demanding Implications

Davide Pala

Doing and Allowing Harm to Refugees

Bradley Hillier-Smith

Must States Do It Themselves? A Rights-Based Theory of Delegating State Coercion

Vincent Chiao

Why (and How) States Protect Children

Nicholas Hadsell

Can We Eat Animals Whose Existence Depends on It?

Karri Heikkinen

Beyond Ought-Implies-Can: Impersonal Obligatoriness Implies Historical Contingency

Peter B. M. Vranas

The Right to Emigrate: Exit and Equality in a World of States

Daniel Sharp

Can We Have Moral Status for Robots on the Cheap?

Sebastian Köhler

How We Can Make Sense of Control-Based Intuitions for Limited Access Conceptions of the Right to Privacy

Björn Lundgren

Why Extending Actions Through Time Can Violate a Moral Right to Privacy

Björn Lundgren

Can Streumer Simply Avoid Supervenience?

Luke Elson

Can “More Speech” Counter Ignorant Speech?

Maxime Lepoutre

Portico