Border Extraterritoriality or Cosmopolitan Responsibility? Conceptualizing the Possibility of Asylum Claims in absentia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An emergent issue for critical migration studies concerns the technological and diplomatic capacities of Western nation-states to externalize bordering practices. The extraterritorialization of border enforcement presents a dual problematic for migrants, intellectuals, activists, and civil-society members. They must navigate, on one hand, a pressing need to respond to the pre-emptive foreclosure of a “right to presence,” while on the other hand rethinking institutions of asylum to be capable of operating from a distance. In the following, I construct a new manner of thinking about border extraterritorialization in general, and in response, formulate rightful claims to asylum as articulated in absentia. Extraterritorialization practices and their logics are characterized by pro-jection, through which they give rise to a “general domain of ends” predicated on nation-state irresponsibility, outside of law and outside of their territories. I then elaborate upon a notion of cosmopolitanism that characterizes grassroots actions attempting to address these bordering practices, ones that challenge state-centric frameworks of politics. In advancement of this position, I discuss how a relation of responsibility may be constructed from a distance through civil society initiatives (private sponsorship), counter-public networks (exemplified by WatchTheMed), and counter-institutions (the International Parliament of Writers). All these examples represent a form of communicative reach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.081 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".