10.6092/issn.2038-3460/18771
The lecture examines the emergence of the research field of climate migration from a philosophy of science and technology perspective. It explores the tensions between mobility and immobility by discussing three specific technologies and infrastructures that emerge from the notion of climate migration and push mobility to the extreme: interventionist policies that encourage managed retreat, experimental digital technologies that promote circulation, and a proposal for a climate passport. It then considers implications of this paradigm of mobility for STS, focusing on immobility as a concept that can deepen and challenge our understanding of a trinity of states, sovereignty, and territory under conditions of climate change and mobility. By reconceptualizing the relationship between mobility and immobility, the lecture proposes a nuanced and refined alternative to the emphasis on motion, movement, and mobility, with the aim of contributing to the discussion of how climate (im)mobilities and Anthropocene (im)mobilities unfold.
application/pdf
2038-3460
18771
2
en
Huub Dijstelbloem
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Tecnoscienza – Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
Anthropocene mobilities
Moving the Immovable: Climate Change and the Multiple Tensions between Mobility and Immobility
Text.Serial.Journal
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/
14
Lectures
2024-01-16
2023-12-18
2024-01-16
2024-01-16
51-68
TS
Huub Dijstelbloem
2023
10.6092/issn.2038-3460/18771
51
Institute for Advanced Study, University of Amsterdam
2038-3460
2
Anthropocene mobilities
en
68
Moving the Immovable: Climate Change and the Multiple Tensions between Mobility and Immobility
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/article/download/18771/17230
14
T/S                                                                                             INVITED LECTURE



Moving the Immovable: Climate Change and the Multiple
Tensions between Mobility and Immobility

Huub Dijstelbloem
Institute for Advanced Study of the University of Amsterdam

Corresponding author                     Abstract
Huub Dijstelbloem                        The lecture examines the emergence of the research field of climate migra-
University of Amsterdam,                 tion from a philosophy of science and technology perspective. It explores
Department of Philosophy, Oude           the tensions between mobility and immobility by discussing three specific
Turfmarkt 141-143, 1012 GC               technologies and infrastructures that emerge from the notion of climate
Amsterdam, The Netherlands               migration and push mobility to the extreme: interventionist policies that en-
  H.O.Dijstelbloem@uva.nl                courage managed retreat, experimental digital technologies that promote
                                         circulation, and a proposal for a climate passport. It then considers implica-
Submitted: October 22, 2023              tions of this paradigm of mobility for STS, focusing on immobility as a con-
Accepted: December 20, 2023              cept that can deepen and challenge our understanding of a trinity of states,
                                         sovereignty, and territory under conditions of climate change and mobility.
                                         By reconceptualizing the relationship between mobility and immobility, the
                                         lecture proposes a nuanced and refined alternative to the emphasis on mo-
                                         tion, movement, and mobility, with the aim of contributing to the discussion
                                         of how climate (im)mobilities and Anthropocene (im)mobilities unfold.

                                         Keywords
                                         climate migration; (im)mobility; extreme infrastructures; mobility para-
                                         digm; Anthropocene mobilities.




1. Introduction

   Composite terms, concepts that combine different notions like “platform economy”,
“identity politics”, or “urban mental health”, do several things. They define a new phenom-
enon, suggest a relationship between the composing terms, often a causal relationship, and
point to a direction in which the current situation in economics, politics, or health problems
is moving: the emergence of platforms, expressions of identity, and urban environments are
putting pressure on existing ideas about economics, politics, and health. The same is true of
the term “climate migration”. As a relatively new concept or subcategory or specification of
environmental migration, it calls attention to a presumably novel phenomenon, namely that
existing forms and patterns of migration will be affected by climate change, that new cate-
gories of migrants will emerge, and that the number of migrants is likely to increase due to
the devastating effects of climate change. Direct effects, such as drought incidence, increased
cyclone intensity such as by hurricanes and typhoons, and sea level rise but also heath waves

TECNOSCIENZA. Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies                     © The Author(s) 2023
14(2) pp. 51-68 ISSN 2038-3460                                                    Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
DOI: 10.6092/issn.2038-346/10 871                                                 www.tecnoscienza.net
Dijstelbloem                                                                                 52

and floodings, as mentioned by the IPCC (2023), that will damage communities, villages and
cities, complicate agriculture, and economic trade or human existence directly, because it will
deprive entire regions of water, or will make life simply too vulnerable or even impossible.
But there are also indirect consequences, because climate change can be a source of conflict,
or because states fail to take the required measures, willingly or not, or because economic and
political investment simply anticipates the consequences and withdraws. Here we already see
the beginning of the complications of the notion of climate migration.
   The scientific discussion and political consequences of the concept of climate migration can
be described by applying the STS approach of controversy studies. To contribute to the con-
ference theme “Interesting Worlds to come. Science & Technology Studies facing more-than-
human challenges” of the 2023 STS Italy conference in Bologna, I will first unpack the notion
of climate migration to see how STS can help understand the development of an emerging
field of knowledge, policy, migration, and climate adaptation management. Thereafter I will
discuss some of STS key concepts and assumptions as well, namely about what we exactly
mean when we say we study networks and relationships, how we distinguish between relation-
ships and causal relationships in those networks and which kinds of causal relationship we use.
For that reason, I will focus on how STS research engages with the notion of mobility, not only
as an object of research but also as an ontological assumption, or perhaps sometimes even as
mobility-bias. My claim is not that STS should be seen as still following the “mobility turn” in
the social sciences since the 1990s (Urry 2000). If only because the real “mobility turn” took
place ages ago when the Aristotelian metaphysics of the “unmoved mover” and the subsequent
Christian theology was replaced by the dominant concepts of movement and event (Blumen-
berg 1983; 1996). As Peter Sloterdijk once put it, “nowadays, only real estate brokers believe
in immovable property” (Sloterdijk 2020, 50). And even that statement is questionable today.
   Attending to the tensions between mobility and immobility is also a way of advancing
the political theory component of STS. Critical reflection on the notion of mobility is also
required as the control over mobility is one of the key aspects of today’s state control – and
international cooperation between states. John Torpey (1999) developed a powerful analogy
in his book The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship and the State. Drawing on
arguments from Marx and Weber, he sought to demonstrate that modern states and the inter-
national state system of which they are part have deprived individuals and private entities of
the legitimate means of movement (Torpey 1999, 5-6). While Max Weber argued that states
expropriated the means of violence from individuals and private entities, Torpey claims that
modern states have acquired a “monopoly on the legitimate means of movement”. Whether
states have acquired a monopoly on the control of mobility in the same way that they have
acquired a monopoly on violence is still the subject of academic debate. What is becoming
clear, however, is that climate change is putting pressure not only on the presumed control
over the movement of people and the situations of migration, refuge, exile, and statelessness,
but also on the situation of being stuck and stagnant. Meanwhile, the relationship between
climate change, mobility and immobility is inextricably intertwined with a configuration of
other factors that complicate the determination of direct and indirect causes and consequenc-
es. STS research seems well placed to explore this area, provided that it succeeds in developing
a refined perspective on the understudied notion of immobility.
53                                                                            Tecnoscienza. 2023. 14(2)

2. Unpacking climate migration with STS

   In Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climate Regime, Latour (2018) argued that “migra-
tions, explosions of inequality, and the New Climate Regime” are “one and the same threat”.
“The climate crisis”, he wrote, “is forcing people they do not welcome to cross their forties;
hence the response: ‘Let’s put up impenetrable borders and we’ll escape from the invasion!’”
However, he continued, “the New Climate Regime has been sweeping across all our bor-
ders for a long time, exposing us to all the winds, and no walls we can build will keep these
invaders out”. But, he claimed, “neither state sovereignty nor inviolable borders can take the
place of politics any longer” (Latour 2018, 8). The political question, according to Latour,
is “how to reassure and shelter all those persons who are obliged to take the road, even while
turning them away from the false protection of identities and rigid borders?” (Latour 2018,
11). “How”, he asked,

     can we reweave edges, envelopes, protections; how can we find new footing while simultane-
     ously taking into account the end of globalization, the scope of migration, and also the limits
     placed on the sovereignty of nation-states that are henceforth confronted by climate change?
     (Latour 2018, 11)

   If indeed this is the big question we are facing, I propose we start with unpacking the con-
cept of climate migration. Climate research and migration research are broad and mixed dis-
ciplines themselves, existing of all kinds of older and newer fields and approaches. Although
there is not much overlap between the fields, in terms of scientific approaches and scientific
researchers, they do have something in common: both can be considered as crisis-disciplines,
fields of research that operate at a moment in time and study situations, patterns and devel-
opment, interventions, causes and effects where things are in crisis, either because of the dev-
astating consequences of climate change and the seize and urgency of the measures that are
required in order to prevent things from even being worse, or because of the terrible human-
itarian consequences of some of the causes of forced migration – violent conflicts, discrim-
ination, prosecution, death sentences and the unworthy circumstances and sheer violence
migrants meet when trying to reach other destinations.
   The two fields meet, or rather, the study of migration is situated in a broader context of scarce
resources, vulnerable regions, changing environments, political instability, and conflicts, when
it concerns the relationship between climate change and migration. The combination of the
research fields of climate change research and migration research connects the latter to what
Edwards (2013) called “the vast machine”, the development of climate models, including simu-
lation models, reanalysis models, and data models and the theoretical, methodological, and infra-
structural integration of various fields of study, including weather and climate observing systems.
   The relationship between climate change and migration is complicated and at certain points
even highly contested. One can even argue that it is hardly worth paying attention to this no-
tion because migration researchers and environmental policy scholars already carefully decon-
structed the concept. In a 2019 Comment in Nature Climate Change, Ingrid Boas and col-
leagues identified the most important myths. Below, I will focus on three of them. First, there
Dijstelbloem                                                                                           54

is already a considerable body of evidence to suggest that migration is not driven by climate
change alone. Instead, it is influenced by a mix of climatic, socio-economic, cultural, and po-
litical factors (Boas et al. 2019, 902). Second, it is often assumed that climate change will lead
to increased international mobility, especially to European and North American countries.
However, empirical evidence suggests that most climate-related mobility tends to occur at the
national or regional level (Szaboova 2020, 6). Third, climate change does not always lead to mo-
bility. While it may lead to increased willingness to move, climate change may also undermine
the vital capital and resources needed to migrate, leaving some of the most vulnerable and poor-
est unable to move in response to climatic and environmental risks (Black and Collyer 2014).
   These arguments seem to consign the concept of climate migration to the academic dust-
bin. However, there is still an argument to be made in favor of the notion of climate migra-
tion, namely the commonsense notion that people are already being confronted with the
consequences of climate change, and there is no doubt that these consequences are only going
to get worse. It may be true that “the discourse of apocalyptic climate change-induced mass
migration is now past its prime” because:

     an ever-rising number of studies shows […] that relations between climate change and hu-
     man migration are often indirect, small-scale, and taking shape in context-specific ways,
     influenced by a host of other socio-economic and political factors. (Boas et al. 2022, 3365)

   However, detecting the refined relations between climate change and human mobility in
all kinds of context, situations and events will only become more important as the debate
shifts towards anthropocene mobilities (Baldwin et al. 2019). The challenge ahead is to be
more precise about the kinds of relationship between climate change and migration, espe-
cially because the notion of climate migration has a political connotation. The term has a
performative effect. It rings alarm bells, not just by introducing this new category but also by
adding the numbers. To explain this effect, I will first consider the theoretical construction of
climate migration research. After that, I will discuss three possible consequences – of political
interventions, of technologies and of infrastructures – that this way of thinking can lead to.


3. The under-explored notion of immobility

  Despite the attempts to debunk the myth of climate migration, there is an increasing
amount of literature arguing climate change will stimulate mass migration from vulnerable
regions in low-income countries to other destinations. Various politicians and scientific poli-
cy advisors have raised the red flag. Lord Stern, author of the Stern Review, was quoted in The
Guardian in 2013, stating that:

     Hundreds of millions of people will be forced to leave their homelands because their crops and
     animals will have died. The trouble will come when they try to migrate into new lands, how-
     ever. That will bring them into armed conflict with people already living there. Nor will it be
     an occasional occurrence. It could become a permanent feature of life on Earth. (McKie 2013)
55                                                                    Tecnoscienza. 2023. 14(2)

   In his 2015 State of the Union speech, European Com¬mission president Jean-Claude
Juncker stated: “Climate change is one of the root causes of a new migration phe¬nomenon.
Climate refugees will become a new challenge – if we do not act swiftly” (Juncker 2015). The
Economist, on Nov 18th 2022, wrote that “Climate change is likely to increase migration”
but rightfully added that “three-quarters of such migrants stay within their own country”
(Dobbs 2022). Assumptions about a causal link between global warming and migration are
also found in the scientific literature. Based on their research (Xu et al. 2020) Scheffer esti-
mates that global warming is likely to drive billions of people out of the so-called “climate
niche” in which humanity has flourished for millennia (Carrington 2023). Also the popu-
lar-scientific literature on climate change and migration is increasing, see for instance Gaia
Vince’s (2022) Nomad Century. How to Survive the Climate Upheaval. Vince begins with a
prediction of a dystopian future, based on scientific projections of a world that will soon be
warmer than at any time in tens of millions of years. The consequences will be devastating.
Coastlines altered by rising seas and stronger tropical storms, forests ravaged by wildfires,
drought-stricken fields left barren, and deserts expanding to swallow villages and towns. Oth-
er communities will be wiped out by terrible floods or abandoned for lack of rainfall. As a
result, Vince argues, humans will do what we have done throughout our evolutionary histo-
ry: we will move. But this time it will be in our billions, on an unprecedented scale. At this
point Vince’s story becomes utopian. According to her, the coming migration of billions of
people from the tropics to the northern hemisphere can be planned. New cities will have to
be built to house the climate migrants and give them a chance to build new lives in Alaska,
Canada, Greenland, northern Europe and Russia, as well as in Patagonia, Tasmania, New
Zealand and Antarctica, as they leave warmer latitudes in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
She is extremely optimistic about the possibilities of successfully integrating migrants into
their new communities through enlightened policies.
   Such optimism is a rarity. More to the point of this lecture, assuming so much causality
between climate change and migration is also exceptional – and questionable. There is some
general agreement about which kinds of countries are likely to be affected most by climate
change and out-migration. The least developed countries (LDCs), landlocked developing
countries (LLDCs) and small island developing States (SIDS) are among the most vulnerable
groups of countries in the world. They are disproportionately affected by the negative im-
pacts of climate change due to their structural constraints and geographical disadvantage. In
2016, 13 out of the 15 countries with the highest vulnerability to natural hazards were from
the LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS groups (IOM 2019). But it is misleading to suggest a direct
re¬lationship between climate change and migration. The effects of climate change depend
on the local or regional conditions, the ways a region is susceptible to change, whether re-
sources will be affected, and whether the provision of food, agriculture, housing, health care,
and many other infrastructures will last (Benveniste et al. 2022). The form and intensity of
the consequences of climate change highly depend on responses by governments and inter-
national organizations, measures that are or are not taken. As a cause of migration, climate
change, in short, is not an independent driver but part of an assemblage of life circumstances,
development, environmental conditions, state governance, and interna¬tional relations. The
terminology is contested as well. Previously, the notion of climate refugees briefly prevailed,
Dijstelbloem                                                                                             56

but disappeared quickly and never made it into a policy term as it does not exist as a category
in international law. The IOM and the United Nations suggest speaking of cli¬mate mi-
grants which does not require a legal formulation. The UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency,
prefers the notion of dis¬aster displacement and environmental migrants. Climate migration
or Climate Change Induced Migration (CLICIM) is a very general term, with quite some
complications as we just saw.
  Given this taxonomical variety and the unclarity of the relationship between different terms,
different forms and situations of climate change and different modes of (im)mobility, inte-
grating climate change as a driver of migration into migration research and, to some extent,
to pursue an integration and synthesis of climate and migration research, is complicated. Not
only due to practical and methodological problems, but also due to some central assumptions
in migration research. As Pisarevskaya, Levy, Scholten, and Jansen (2020) have pointed out:

     As a broadly-based research field, migration studies has evolved at the crossroads of a variety
     of disciplines. This includes disciplines such as sociology, political science, anthropology, ge-
     ography, law and economics, but increasingly it expands to a broader pool of disciplines also
     including health studies, development studies, governance studies and many more, building
     on insights from these disciplines. (Pisarevskaya et al. 2020)

   Meanwhile, migration research has been criticized for lacking a general theory and for be-
ing based on – or biased by – some key assumptions: first, it is state-centered; second, it
reproduces colonial representations; and third, and this is the point I want to focus on, it
suffers from a mobility bias.
   The latter may sound strange: is accusing migration research of a mobility bias not the same
as saying that natural science pays too much attention to physical nature and that sociology
focuses too much on the social? After all, isn’t mobility the central object of research? Well,
it is, but just as Latour in Reassembling the Social (2005) once blamed the social sciences
for misunderstanding the social and mistaking the explanandum for the explanans, I would
argue that immobility is just as important for understanding migration patterns as mobility,
and we can’t fully explain the former by the latter.
   A first step to understand this issue is by taking a closer look at the contract between na-
tion-states, territory and sovereignty. An argument brought forward in migration research
is that the notion of “migration” itself is a particular way to conceive of human mobility,
namely as movement in a world governed by states, jurisdictions, and borders regimes. The
risk of designating human mobility as “migration” is that it naturalizes the border. The by
now famous saying holds that “if there were no borders, there would be no migration – only
mobility” (de Genova 2017). On the other hand, it has been argued that “if there were no
state borders, other kinds of borders would likely emerge, in different shapes, at other loca-
tions” (Dijstelbloem 2021, 16-17). The core of the discussion is that migration studies are
held captive in a misleading picture that naturalizes the nation-state. The existence of states
is taken for granted and situated as a starting point to analyze human mobility. However,
territory and sovereignty and “the control over the means of movement” as Torpey called
it are much more loosely related and come in more variegated combinations than is often
57                                                                         Tecnoscienza. 2023. 14(2)

assumed (Dijstelbloem 2021). Two assumptions often underlie the literature on state forma-
tion, sovereignty, borders and migration. The first is that the modern form of state power and
the relationship between nation-states and borders was born in the European state, starting
with the Peace of Westphalia. The second is that this form of governing and controlling mo-
bility has spread globally from the West (Vigneswaran 2020, 2). In contrast, institutional-his-
torical archival research on the development of international migration policy suggests that
“extra-European actors played a significant role in both originating and defining the nature
of European sovereign territorial and transnational mobility norms” (Vigneswaran 2020, 3).
Territorial migration control also arose outside Europe and migration policy in European
countries was more the result of international negotiations and exchanges than bearing a
Westphalian mark (Dijstelbloem 2021).
   This state-focused legacy continues in migration research regarding the issue of immobili-
ty. To clarify that, I will attend to some recent proposals that aim to contribute to theory con-
struction in the field and show how immobility is conceptualized as an unmovable immobile.
Of course, there are many studies that deal with immobility: refugee camps in Kenya, Bangla-
desh, Jordan, Tanzania, or Pakistan where migrants are trapped for years, forced immobility,
the relationship between immobility and time, and especially during the Covid-19 pandemic
with its lockdowns and travel restrictions, the issue of immobility became more important.
But the question is if we can explain immobility as a category on its own.
   To answer that question, let us take a closer look at the recent development of the migra-
tion research field. The discussion has been fueled by Schewel (2020). She recalls the basic
elements a satisfactory theoretical account of international migration ought to contain. Ac-
cording to Massey et al. (1999) concluded there are four basic elements:
   1. The structural forces that promote emigration from origin areas;
   2. The structural forces that attract immigrants into destination areas;
   3. The social and economic structures that connect origin and destination areas;
   4. The aspirations and motivations of those people who respond to these structural forces
        by migrating.
   And indeed, theoretical frameworks based on these elements have proven to be succesful.
Migration research left the older push-pull models and rational choice cost-benefit analysis
according to which people move from low income to high income countries behind. Instead,
it opted for a more multidimensional model. However, according to Kerilyn Schewel:

     these elements alone are insufficient to explain real-world migration trends. The structur-
     al forces that constrain or resist migration in and between origin and destination areas, as
     well as the aspirations of actors who respond to these same forces by staying, must also be
     included. (Schewel 2020, 329)

  In recent work, De Haas (2021, 25) has proposed a proper theory of migration that also
addresses the category of non-migration (Figure 1).
  The theory is erudite and ambitious but can still be questioned. For instance, the different
concepts that are related in the model come from very different disciplines and approaches.
The idea of distinguishing between a negative and a positive sense of the term “liberty” was
Comparative Migration Studies        (2021) 9:8                                                                             Page 25 o


         Dijstelbloem                                                                                                58




          Fig. 2 Expanded aspirations–capabilities framework for conceptualising migratory agency


                                                            Figure 1.
         shape trends and patterns of migration, because negative and positive liberties often
                                                       De Haas (2021, 25)
         impinge in quite different ways – and sometimes opposite directions – upon migration
         aspirations and capabilities. This renders the analysis of the effects of macro-structural
         conditionsbyon
         proposed          migration
                        Isaiah   Berlin. patterns
                                         “Aspiration”far from    straightforward:
                                                          is a category                although
                                                                           that requires            the deprivation
                                                                                           social science              of
                                                                                                            research and
         often  ethnographic
         negative   and positive fieldwork.
                                     libertiesTheandcapability
                                                      awareness  approach
                                                                     of betteris aopportunities
                                                                                   social justice approach
                                                                                                   elsewheredeveloped
                                                                                                                 may in-
         by Sen and
         crease       Nussbaum
                  people’s           to criticize
                             migration             traditional
                                           aspirations,          economicdeprivation
                                                           the absolute       models. Notwithstanding         this rather
                                                                                            of the same negative       or
         composite   and varied
         positive liberties,        origin,may
                                or both,     the model
                                                   prevent  follows
                                                               peoplethefrom
                                                                           structure  of theory
                                                                                 exerting          construction
                                                                                            migratory     agency. in  the
                                                                                                                    Con-
         social sciences. However, according to Schewel (2020, 335): “An important limitation of […]
         versely, while increases in negative and positive liberties may increase people’s mobility
         De Haas’s work is [the] relative neglect of the category and determinants of voluntary im-
         freedom, this does not necessarily lead to more migration as, under such conditions,
         mobility”. For that reason, Schewel (ibid.) introduced a fourth (im)mobility category to the
         more peoplenamely
         framework,      may also thatbeofable   to realiseimmobility
                                           acquiescent        their intrinsic    preference
                                                                           (Figure            to stay through
                                                                                    2). The category               an in-
                                                                                                          of acquiescent
         creased   ability to   meet   their  life aspirations    at home.     Likewise,   as we
         immobility highlights “those who do not wish to migrate and are unable to do so”. The wordhave   seen,  increas-
         acquiescent
         ing mobility  implies   non-resistance
                             freedoms       throughto constraints,    its Latin origins
                                                         the liberalisation         of meaning
                                                                                         migration   “to remain
                                                                                                         regimesat rest”.
                                                                                                                     may
            The tentativedecrease
         paradoxically      conclusion    at this point
                                       long-term,         is that it isemigration
                                                      permanent         a highly complicated
                                                                                     as it mayendeavor
                                                                                                  take away  to combine
                                                                                                                people’s
         different
         obsessionresearch     fields, such
                     with ‘getting     out’. as climate science and migration studies, without questioning
         the central assumptions of the research fields and identifying possible theoretical constraints
         or blind spots that might hinder future research. Ignoring the notion of immobility not only
         leads to a potentially limited view of migration and overstated assumptions about the causal
         The structural
         relationship       formation
                      between            of migration
                                 climate change         aspirations
                                                and human    mobility, and  capabilities
                                                                       but also does injustice to the dif-
         Figure  2  depicts  the various  ways in which  life
         ferent aspects, dimensions, and modes of immobility. aspirations and   capabilities are affected
         by structurally determined positive and negative liberties and how these may affect mo-
         bility freedoms and people’s migration decisions. Negative liberty affects both people’s
         life aspirations and capabilities; the interaction between these factors explains complex,
         sometimes counter-intuitive migration outcomes. For instance, while it may seem likely
         Schewel                                                                                       335
59                                                                                  Tecnoscienza. 2023. 14(2)


                                                   Capability to
                                                     Migrate




                                          Voluntary            Mobility
                                         Immobility

                    Aspiration to                                                Aspiration to
                        Stay                                                       Migrate

                                       Acquiescent            Involuntary
                                        Immobility            Immobility




                                                  No Capability
                                                   to Migrate


                                                  Figure
         Figure 2. (Im)mobility categories suggested     2. aspiration-capability framework.
                                                     by the
                                                Schewel (2019, 335)
         Second, the concept of capability more explicitly links the ability to migrate (and
         the ability to stay) with the notion of “freedom” and, thus, human rights (see also
4. Extreme        infrastructures
         Preibisch,   Dodd, and Su 2016). In this regard, De Haas (2014) argues that people
         derive well-being from having the freedom to move or to stay, regardless of
         whether they act upon that freedom.
   The relationship     between mobility and immobility returns in the discussion about the spe-
            An important limitation of both Carling’s and De Haas’s work is their relative
cific technologies   and   infrastructures
         neglect of the category              that are generated
                                     and determinants     of voluntaryfrom    the notion
                                                                           immobility.      of climate
                                                                                        Although        migration.
                                                                                                     Carling
This is the point
         (2002)    where thethe
                 introduces       notion  of what
                                    category         I call “extreme
                                                of voluntary            infrastructures”
                                                                immobility,                  enters the stage.
                                                                                his main theoretical     and The
notion of  “extreme”
         empirical       combines
                     focus            two connotations,
                             is the causes   and experience   namely    with regard
                                                                 of involuntary        to intensity
                                                                                    immobility.     DeinHaas
                                                                                                         the mean-
ing of exceeding   the ordinary
         (2003) focuses      on theand    becoming “radical”
                                      development       determinantsor aiming    at a “maximum”
                                                                         of migration      aspirationsorand
                                                                                                          “pushing
to the limits”  and a spatial
         capabilities,   rather meaning
                                  than the as   in situated of
                                            determinants      at the  farthest possible
                                                                  immobility.               point or about
                                                                                   Many questions      being at the
outer boundaries,     as is also apparent
         voluntary immobility,              in the Latin
                                     thus, remain.     Whatorigins
                                                              are theofaspirations
                                                                          the term “exterus”     meaningof“outer”
                                                                                       and capabilities
and “extremus”, “outermost”. With extreme infrastructures I refer to technologies, instruments
         those  who   do   not  wish  to migrate?    Within    the  category    of voluntary   immobility,
         one can distinguish between those with and without the capability to migrate and
and material   security policies that create, control or displace borders, for example by the exter-
         question whether the immobility of those without the capability to migrate is
nalization  of border control, and do so in extreme ways, by pushing the boundaries of legiti-
         voluntary in the same way as those who can migrate. I have found it useful to
mate state  actionsaby
         introduce        moving
                       fourth       jurisdiction
                                (im)mobility       to other
                                                category       countries
                                                           to the           or crossing
                                                                   framework,             legal boundaries
                                                                                  acquiescent    immobility by vi-
olating fundamental
         (see Figure 2),rights.    Obvious
                            to highlight     examples
                                          those   who doconcern
                                                            not wishtheto wall  in Europe,
                                                                            migrate  and are pushbacks,
                                                                                               unable to doand the
violenceso.
          used
             Thein word
                   the externalization     of border
                           acquiescent implies           control for instance
                                                    non-resistance                 by theits
                                                                       to constraints,     deals  between
                                                                                              Latin  originsthe EU
and Turkey    and the
         meaning    “to one
                         remainwithatTunisia   thatcategory
                                      rest.” The     is being ofdeveloped
                                                                   acquiescenttheseimmobility
                                                                                    days (Dijstelbloem
                                                                                                 challenges2021).
   Whenprevalent
          it comes neoclassical
                     to climate change,      migration
                                      and push-pull        and the relationship
                                                        perspectives     that assume between     mobilitytoand im-
                                                                                         the aspiration
mobility, the extreme consists of trying to make the unmovable move, pushing the
         migrate   should     be  greatest  among     those   who    have    the most   to  gain     mobility
                                                                                                   (often  in par-
adigm to the limit by creating ever more means of movement while ignoring the constraints of
immobility. Three potential infrastructures that push mobility to the extreme come into mind:
  1. Managed retreat;
  2. Humanitarian experimentation and protracted migration;
  3. Climate passports.
Dijstelbloem                                                                                    60

  4.1 Example 1: Managed retreat

   The first example of how the unmovable is encouraged to move concerns so-called man-
aged retreat. Managed retreat involves the purposeful, coordinated movement of people and
buildings away from risks, in this case risks caused by climate change. As always, we should
be wary of the word “manage”. All too often, especially in the context of migration, it is a eu-
phemism used to mask forceful interventionist policies with far-reaching consequences. The
phrase “managed retreat” was coined by coastal engineers in the early 1990s (Pethick 1993).
It initially referred to the removal of infrastructure, such as sea walls, so the rising ocean could
encroach, particularly in Australia and the UK. Nowadays, the term is much more wide-
spread, although sometimes the much gentler notions of “resettlement” and “managed rea-
lignment” are used as well, as are the more aggressive notions of “strategic advance”.
   Managed retreat comes in different forms, varying from buyouts to community relocation
when entire towns are being picked-up. According to Siders et al. (2019) “Retreat has been
seen largely as a last resort, a failure to adapt, or a one-time emergency action; thus, little re-
search has focused on retreat, leaving practitioners with little guidance”. According to them,
“such a narrow conception of retreat has limited decision-makers’ perception of the tools
available and stilted innovation”. For that reason, they “propose a reconceptualization of re-
treat as a suite of adaptation options that are both strategic and managed”.
   The tension between immobility and encouraged or even forced mobility can have severe
consequences, because they are often based on a utilitarian logic that easily disregards the
rights, concerns, and aspirations of individuals. Displacement of communities can cause
significant disruption, uprooting people from their homes, neighborhoods, and social net-
works. It can lead to the loss of community cohesion, cultural heritage, and a sense of be-
longing. Community relocation disproportionately affects marginalized and vulnerable pop-
ulations who may not have the resources or support to move to safer areas. The acquisition
and relocation of property from individuals or communities is often required for managed
retreats. Respecting property rights and providing fair compensation can be complex and
contentious. Determining how to value property, addressing legal issues, and ensuring that
property owners are adequately compensated can be challenging – and so is ensuring that
decision-making processes are transparent, inclusive, and participatory to avoid excluding or
neglecting the voices and concerns of affected populations.

  4.2 Example 2: Humanitarian experimentation and protracted migration

   The second example of moving the immovable concerns the experimentation with data that
takes place upon displaced people and populations. In this case, the paradigm of mobility re-
turns as a means of creating financial circulation, while the circulation of people is at a stand-
still, with displaced persons and populations remaining in refugee camps. The stimulation of
circulation takes place with experiments with humanitarian data. As STS scholars know all too
well, experimentation has left the lab for long and has become part of business, government,
and NGO policies. It takes the shape of developing data supported decisions based on online
experiments with users as conducted for instance by Booking.com1 or living labs in cities (Tay-
61                                                                       Tecnoscienza. 2023. 14(2)

lor 2020). It can also take place in regulatory settings, such as regulatory sandboxes that offer
frameworks for experimentation. In the humanitarian context, examples of “humanitarian ex-
perimentation” include biometrics and data modelling (Sandvik et al. 2017), “humanitarian
wearables”, i.e., “smart devices that can be placed on or inside the bodies of aid beneficiaries for
many purposes, including tracking and protecting health, safety and nutrition” (Sandvik 2020)
or remote sensing imagery from satellites or drones in the case of natural disasters or conflict
situations. Whereas proponents emphasize that data gathering from for instance cell phones,
modeling, and machine learning improve targeting risk groups and support humanitarian aid
(e.g., Aiken et al. 2022), others warn for the ethical risks and argue a new form of extraction, da-
tacolonialism (Thatcher et al. 2016) or technocolonialism might be at stake (Madianou 2021).
   Situations of protracted migration lend themselves particularly well for this kind of hu-
manitarian experimentation. According to the UNHCR, “protracted refugee situations are
those in which at least 25,000 refugees from the same country have been living in exile for
more than five consecutive years. Refugees in these situations often find themselves trapped
in a state of limbo: while it is not safe for them to return home, they also have not been
granted permanent residence to stay in another country either” (UNHCR 2020). Tensions
between mobility and immobility, fixity and flux, are likely to arise when collaborations with
tech companies and industries, such as credit card and other financial companies, are aimed at
stimulating certain forms of financial circulation, while the human circulation remains stuck.

     4.3 Example 3: Climate passports

   The third and final example of making the unmovable movable concerns a well-known
object: the passport. Passports are a unique combination of an identify document and a travel
document. Whereas some governments for security reasons are increasingly in favor of dis-
connecting the two functions of the document, and whilst during the Covid-19 related travel
restrictions we saw the rise of all kinds of travel certificates combined with test results and vac-
cination certificates, the WBGU, the German Advisory Council on Global Change proposed
the climate passport in 2018 (WBGU 2018). Similar ideas, such as the proposal to distribute
Climate Humanitarian Visa, have been made by other scholars (Matias 2020) but the idea of
climate passports has been specified by Kira Vinke in her book Sturmnomaden (2022).
   The idea of the climate passport is based on the Nansen Pass, for which the Nansen Inter-
national Office for Refugees was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for implementing this pro-
ject in 1938. The Soviet government’s decision in 1922 to revoke the citizenship of 800,000
Russian citizens living in exile inspired the idea of the Nansen Pass. During and after the First
World War, these people were dispersed throughout Europe as refugees from the Russian
Civil War, or as exiles fearing repression by the newly formed government. To address this
deficiency, the “Arrangement Concerning the Issuance of Certificates of Identity for Russian
Refugees” was negotiated in Geneva from July 3 to 5, 1922, under the chairmanship of the
then High Commissioner for Refugees of the League of Nations, Dr. Fridtjof Nansen. To
enable the stateless people to move across borders in their search for a new home, the ratifying
states were obliged to issue them with passports. In this way, the trapping dynamics of state-
lessness were overcome (see Los 2020).
Dijstelbloem                                                                                      62

   The proposal of the German Advisory Council on Global Change for a climate passport
is based on this idea. On the one hand, this idea reads as a proposal to revive what John Tor-
pey called the control of states over the means of movement. On the other hand, it can be
argued that the selection of states to which this passport hypothetically refers is not based on
the notion of territory, but on an anthropocenic terrain. The passport is supposed to grant
holders not only the right to be admitted to other countries, but rights similar to citizenship.
The WGBU makes a distinction in order to identify those states that are obligated to receive
refugees and those individuals who would be entitled to a passport.
   Which countries should receive migrants? The WBGU suggests that the 10 countries with
the highest historical cumulative emissions and the 15 countries with the highest per capita
emissions should be primarily responsible. And which migrants should be the recipients of
the climate passport? Here the WBGU applies a different criterion. Although all those affect-
ed should be entitled to such a humanitarian instrument, the first step will be to protect those
people who will be affected by climate change at the earliest possible stage. But this will be
based on an expert review process.
   From the point of view that mobility and immobility are inextricably linked, the granting of
a climate passport to migrants must have consequences for those who do not move, including
those in the host countries. The mobility rights of the inhabitants will also have to be affected
to allow for the slightest bit of symmetry. This is where questions of climate justice, rights
and privileges come into play again, but now in the context of mobility. More importantly,
grounding the notion of a passport and the right to mobility on carbon footprints and histor-
ical cumulative emissions, rather than on the contract between states, sovereignty, territory,
and borders, leaves behind the notion of control over the means of movement and replaces it
with a concept of anthropocenic terrain on which human mobility and immobility take place.


5. Mobilizing the concept of immobility

   Now that we have analyzed the emphasis on mobility in migration and climate migration
research, and explored the possible consequences of proposing specific techniques and infra-
structures that elaborate the mobility paradigm, the inevitable question is how the develop-
ment of STS itself as a research field relates to the so-called mobility turn in the social sciences.
Seeing evidence of complicity is tempting. Actor-network theory, for instance, with roots in
Deleuzian philosophy and semiotics, exchanged a foundational philosophy or a social science
approach concerned with structures at different layers for a “plane of immanence”. Transla-
tion, circulation, articulation became key notions to debunk the relationships between sub-
jects and objects and focus on the coming into being of relationships in a non-reductionist
way. These notions imply that every relationship is a dynamic relationship in which a certain
interaction takes places. Something is exchanged, transferred, transformed when humans or
nonhumans meet. On the other hand, Latour and many others always emphasized the re-
lationship between mobility and immobility, for instance with the notions of “Centers of
calculation”, “Obligatory passage points”, “Immutable mobiles”, “Hybridization and puri-
fication”, and “Circulating reference”. They refer to events where mobility and circulation
63                                                                    Tecnoscienza. 2023. 14(2)

of facts, artefacts, people, and all possible combinations between them go hand in hand with
moments of stabilization and solidification. The same is true for those authors in the fields of
international relations and security studies who work closely with the science and technology
studies. To name a few, Barry (2001) studied the infrastructural movements of the EU as a
technological zone in Political Machines; in the two volumes of Making Things Internation-
al Salter and colleagues (2015; 2016) considered the movements of things and how they have
expanded our notions of globalization by investigating circuits and motion and catalysts and
reactions. De Goede traced and detected the interactions in security and finance to counter
terrorism in terms of a chain of security (2018). Pelizza (2021) emphasized the ruptures, fric-
tion and translations in infrastructures that organize asylum requests, data management of
displaced people and information flows about mixed migration. The author of this lecture is
also guilty as charged, because in Borders as Infrastructure (2021) I argue that borders them-
selves should be thought of as mobile entities. So, to support the STS case – and my own – I
think it is misleading to say that STS is entirely based on the mobility paradigm. That is to
say: I think there is a preoccupation with mobility as an object of study. We study movement,
circulation, mobility, networks, transitions, transformations, and translations. Theoretically,
however, things are more nuanced, and the most sophisticated STS approaches try to precise-
ly discern the relationships between what is or will be mobile and what remains, has been, or
will be immobile2. The challenge is that we can be more precise about what Brown called the
tension between fixity and flux in STS (Brown 2009, 180-183).
   If this is the paradigmatic position of STS, then the field seems sufficiently equipped to
think with and against the notion of climate migration, and in particular to offer a nuanced
and refined alternative to the emphasis on motion, movement and mobility. Motion and
movement are central concepts and topics of research in the social sciences, in science in
general, and climate research and migration studies are no exception to this. This dominance
concerns both a conceptual interest, in which movement figures as an ontological, epistemo-
logical, or political blueprint of the world, and an empirical interest, in which research fo-
cuses on specific phenomena related to movement, such as migration or the development of
infrastructures. The purpose of this lecture was to formulate an amendment to this mobili-
ty paradigm. Over-emphasizing notions of motion and mobility runs the risk of neglecting
situations of immobility, for instance when people are stuck or unwilling to move. Instead
of giving primacy to the notion of movement, the reconceptualization of the relationship
between mobility and immobility, conceptually and empirically, deserves more attention
as the discussion of climate mobilities and anthropocene mobilities unfolds (Adams 2016;
Baldwin et al. 2019; Boas et al. 2022; Schewel 2020; Wiegel et al. 2019). The aim of the above
was to contribute to the exploration of the relationship between mobility and immobility in
times of climate change and changing environments. Attending to these issues also allows
for deepening our understanding of how the trinity of states, sovereignty and territory is
affected (Dijstelbloem 2021) and the resulting regime of rights and citizenship in times of
global warming (Chandler 2019, 386).
   If we use the two constituent terms of STS, “science” and “technology”, as a lens to analyse
the notion of climate migration in terms of the emergence of a field of research and as an in-
terventionist program, does this mean that the concept should be abandoned? As a concept,
Dijstelbloem                                                                                  64

climate migration appears in three different forms. First, in its most factual form, as a name
for a phenomenon that exists, that can be described and explained, and that can be studied
and intervened upon. In the second, as an alarmist term, the concept is waved as a red flag,
to emphasize migration is likely to increase and that more border security is needed. Thirdly,
climate migration is seen as something that, when it occurs, should be facilitated, or even en-
couraged on a humanitarian basis to promote the movement and circulation of people. How-
ever, there are important risks and more generally the term over stresses the causal relation
between migration and climate change. For that reason, we need a more plural approach that
does justice to the variety of interactions between different forms of climate change, its entan-
glement with policy interventions, socio-economic aspects, conflict situations and material
circumstances, and different forms of (im)mobility. We need to pay attention to the multi-
plication of categorizations, and the relationship between mobility and immobility that is at
stake, such as in the examples of managed retreat, humanitarian experimentalism, and climate
passports. What do mobility and immobility mean in those contexts? How are they related?
How do they constitute each other? What does “becoming” mobile or immobile mean? What
does “remaining” mobile or immobile mean? A refined understanding between mobility and
immobility is required to deal with the challenges of climate change and human (im)mobility.
An important reason to pay attention to immobility is not only because it is empirically and
theoretically understudied as a category, and because it is an important issue in thinking about
migration and climate change. Conceptually, the concept of immobility has the potential to
be a counterweight and a resistance to too much thinking in terms of mobility. However,
especially when climate migration becomes a security policy concept, more attention to the
relationship between theory construction and the development of infrastructures is required.
   As hopefully demonstrated above, an STS analysis of the notion of climate migration shows
that applying a mobility perspective and reproducing key assumptions of migration research
that are state-centred, pursue colonial legacies and tend to disregard the immobility of people,
as in proposals for managed retreat, humanitarian experimentalism, and climate passports,
runs the risk of prioritizing movement over attachment to place. It may be going too far to say
that movement and mobility are the key concepts driving research on migration, but other-
wise it is no exaggeration to say that research on immobility and fixity is underdeveloped. This
does not imply that what is needed now is a counter turn, an anti-Copernican backlash against
mobility, or a revaluation of a grounded and territorial ethic that assigns rights to inhabitants
and residents. The direction that needs to be explored further is twofold. The first task is to
further develop the science and technology perspective on how theory construction takes place
and how explanations or causal relations are determined when different disciplines or research
methodologies are integrated, such as in the case of climate science and migration studies. The
second task is to recognize immobility as a reservoir of potentialities, and how attachment to
land, place, and location can be understood in relation to mobility and movement.
   Having analysed the emergence of the research field of climate migration from a philosophy
of science perspective in the first part and having discussed different infrastructures and tech-
nologies, namely an interventionist policy, an experimental digital technology and a proposal
for a document, in the second part, and having reflected on the dominance of the notion
of mobility and the question of whether STS itself suffers from a mobility paradigm, the
65                                                                                 Tecnoscienza. 2023. 14(2)

task ahead is still complicated and demanding. The exploration that has taken place so far
can hopefully lead to some guidance to navigate the next set of questions. These questions
include how to unfold the potential of immobility, how to typify the differences between dif-
ferent modes of immobility, how to define the different modes that relate movement and flow
to immobility, and how to identify the transfers that occur between the two. Addressing these
questions will hopefully contribute to a deeper understanding of what it means to be attached
to a place under conditions of climate change. The tensions between mobility and immobility
will challenge the trinity of states, borders, and sovereignty and call for an Anthropocene view
on the connection between humans, mobility and immobility, and the earth.


Acknowledgements

  The author would like to thank Claudia Aradau, Jonathan Luke Austin, Ingrid Boas, Mark Brown,
Georgios Glouftsios, Hein de Haas, Colin Hickey, Jef Huysmans, Esther Miedema, Noortje Marres,
Annalisa Pelizza, Timothy Raaijmakers, Delf Rothe, Linnet Taylor, Darshan Vigneswaran and William
Walters for sharing their thoughts in the preparation of this lecture and its aftermath. Their work is a
constant source of inspiration. The responsibility for the content of this lecture obviously lies on my
shoulders. I hope that this lecture will contribute to our conversations and that it will succeed in inspir-
ing the community of science and technology studies.



Notes
   1 See https://booking.ai/.
   2 A fine example is the work by Matthias Leese and Stef Wittendorp (2018), who attend to immobile in-
frastructures and argue that a focus on security and mobility is not a plea to get rid of the category of fixity.



References

Adams, Helen (2016) Why populations persist: Mobility, place attachment and climate change, in
   “Population and Environment”, 37, pp. 429-448.
Baldwin, Andrew, Fröhlich, Christian and Rothe, Delf (2019) From climate migration to anthropocene
   mobilities: Shifting the debate, in “Mobilities”, 14(3), pp. 289-297.
Barry, Andrew (2001) Political Machines: Governing a Technological Society, London, Athlone Press.
Benveniste, Hélène, Oppenheimer, Michael and Fleurbaey, Marc (2022) Climate change increases
   resource-constrained international immobility, in “Nature Climate Change”, 12(7), pp. 634-641.
Black, Richard and Collyer, Michael (2014) Populations “Trapped” at Times of Crisis, in “Forced
   Migration Review”, 45, pp. 52-56.
Blumenberg, Hans (1996) Shipwreck with Spectator: Paradigm of a Metaphor for Existence, Cambridge
   (MA), The MIT Press.
Blumenberg, Hans (1983) The Legitimacy of the Modern Age, Cambridge (MA), The MIT Press.
Dijstelbloem                                                                                           66

Boas, Ingrid, Farbotko, Carol, Adams, Helen, Sterly, Harald, Bush, Simon et al. (2019) Climate migra-
   tion myths, in “Nature Climate Change”, 9, pp. 901-903.
Boas, Ingrid, Wiegel, Hanne, Farbotko, Carol, Warner, Jeroen and Sheller, Mimi (2022) Climate mobil-
   ities: Migration, im/mobilities and mobility regimes in a changing climate, in “Journal of Ethnic and
   Migration Studies”, 48(14), pp. 3365-3379.
Brown, Mark (2009) Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation, Cambridge
   (MA), The MIT Press.
Carrington, Damian (2023, May 22) Global heating will push billions outside “human climate niche”.
   The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/22/global-heat-
   ing-human-climate-niche (retrieved on December 14, 2023).
Chandler, David (2019) Forum 2: The migrant climate: Resilience, adaptation and the ontopolitics of
   mobility in the Anthropocene, in “Mobilities”, 14(3), pp. 381-387.
de Genova, Nicholas (ed.) (2017) Introduction: The Borders of “Europe” and the European Question, in
   The Borders of “Europe”: Autonomy of Migration, Tactics of Bordering, Durham and London, Duke
   University Press, pp. 1-35.
de Goede, Marieke (2018) The Chain of Security, in “Review of International Studies”, 44(1), pp. 24-42.
de Haas, Hein (2021) A theory of migration: The aspirations capabilities framework, in “Comparative
   Migration Studies”, 9(8), pp. 1-35.
Dijstelbloem, Huub (2020) Bordering a Hybrid World: Infrastructural Isolation and the Governance of
   Human and Nonhuman Mobility, in “Global Perspectives”, 1(1), 12789.
Dijstelbloem, Huub (2021) Borders as Infrastructure: The Technopolitics of Border Control, Cambridge
   (MA), The MIT Press.
Dobbs, Rachel (2022, November 18) Climate change is likely to increase migration. But three-quarters
   of such migrants stay within their own country. The Economist. Available at: https://www.econo-
   mist.com/the-world-ahead/2022/11/18/climate-change-is-likely-to-increase-migration (retrieved
   on December 14, 2023).
Edwards, Paul (2013) A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global
   Warming, Cambridge (MA), The MIT Press.
IOM (2019) Climate Change and Migration in Vulnerable Countries: A Snapshot of Least Developed
   Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States [Report]. Inter-
   national Organization for Migration (IOM). Available at: https://publications.iom.int/books/cli-
   mate-change-and-migration-vulnerable-countries.
IPCC [Core Writing Team, Lee, Hoesung and Romero, José (eds.)] (2023) Climate Change 2023: Synthe-
   sis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergov-
   ernmental Panel on Climate Change [Report]. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Juncker, Jean-Claude (2015, September 9) State of the Union 2015: Time for Honesty, Unity and Solidarity
   [Speech]. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_15_5614
   (retrieved on December 14, 2023).
Latour, Bruno (2005) Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory, New York,
   Oxford University Press.
Latour, Bruno (2018) Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climate Regime, London, Polity Press.
Leese, Matthias and Wittendorp, Stef (2018) The new mobilities paradigm and critical security studies:
   Exploring common ground, in “Mobilities”, 13(2), pp. 171-184.
67                                                                               Tecnoscienza. 2023. 14(2)

Los, Robert (2020, December 31) Climate Passport: A Legal Instrument to Protect Climate Migrants –
    A New Spirit for a Historical Concept. Available at: https://earthrefuge.org/climate-passport-a-legal-
    instrument-to-protect-climate-migrants-a-new-spirit-for-a-historical-concept/#_ftn11 (retrieved on
    December 14, 2023).
Madianou, Mirca (2021) Nonhuman humanitarianism: When “AI for good” can be harmful, in “Infor-
    mation, Communication & Society”, 24(6), pp. 850-868.
Massey, Douglas S., Arango, Joaquin, Hugo, Graeme, Kouaouci, Ali, Pellegrino, Adela and Taylor, Ed-
    ward J. (1999) Worlds in Motion: Understanding International Migration at the End of the Millen-
    nium, Oxford (UK), Clarendon Press.
Matias, Denise Margaret (2020) Climate Humanitarian Visa: International Migration Opportunities
    as Post-Disaster Humanitarian Intervention, in “Climatic Change”, 160(1), pp. 143-156.
McKie, Robin (2013, May 12) Climate change “will make hundreds of millions homeless”. The Guard-
    ian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/12/climate-change-ex-
    pert-stern-displacement (retrieved on December 14, 2023).
Pelizza, Annalisa (2021) Identification as translation: The art of choosing the right spokespersons at the
    securitized border, in “Social Studies of Science”, 51(4), pp. 487-511.
Pethick, John (1993) Shoreline Adjustments and Coastal Management: Physical and Biological Processes
    under Accelerated Sea-Level Rise, in “The Geographical Journal”, 159(2), pp. 162-168.
Pisarevskaya, Asya, Levy, Nathan, Scholten, Peter and Jansen, Joost (2020) Mapping migration studies:
    An empirical analysis of the coming of age of a research field, in “Migration Studies”, 8(3), pp. 455-481.
Salter, Mark B. (ed.) (2015) Making Things International 1: Circuits and Motion, Minneapolis and
    London, University of Minnesota Press.
Salter, Mark B. (ed.) (2016) Making Things International 2: Catalysts and Reactions, Minneapolis and
    London, University of Minnesota Press.
Sandvik, Kristin Bergtora, Jacobsen, Katja Lindskov and McDonald, Sean Martin (2017) Do no harm:
    A taxonomy of the challenges of humanitarian experimentation, in “International Review of the Red
    Cross”, 99(1), pp. 319-344.
Sandvik, Kristin Bergtora (2020) Wearables for something good: Aid, dataveillance and the production
    of children’s digital bodies, in “Information, Communication & Society”, 23(14), pp. 2014-2029.
Schewel, Kerilyn (2020) Understanding Immobility: Moving Beyond the Mobility Bias in Migration
    Studies, in “The International Migration Review”, 54(2), pp. 328-355.
Siders, A. R., Hino, Miyuli and Mach, Katharine (2019) The case for strategic and managed climate
    retreat, in “Science”, 365(6455), pp. 761-763.
Sloterdijk, Peter (2020) Infinite Mobilization, Cambridge (UK), Polity Press.
Szaboova, Lucy and Colón, Cristina (2020) Concepts, Contexts and Categorisations of Climate Mobility
    [Background paper], in “UNICEF – Climate Mobility and Children: A Virtual Symposium”.
Taylor, Linnet (2020) Exploitation as innovation: Research ethics and the governance of experimentation
    in the urban living lab, in “Regional Studies”, 55(12), pp. 1902-1912.
Thatcher, Jim, O’Sullivan, David and Mahmoudi, Dillon (2016) Data colonialism through accumula-
    tion by dispossession: New metaphors for daily data, in “Environment and Planning D: Society and
    Space”, 34(6), pp. 990-1006.
Torpey, John (1999) The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship and the State, Cambridge
    (UK), Cambridge University Press.
Dijstelbloem                                                                                         68

UNHCR (2020, January 28) Protracted Refugee Situations Explained. UNHCR – The UN Refugee
   Agency. Available at: https://www.unrefugees.org/news/protracted-refugee-situations-explained/
   (retrieved on December 14, 2023).
Urry, John (2000) Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century, London, Routledge.
Vigneswaran, Darshan (2020) Europe Has Never Been Modern: Recasting Historical Narratives of
   Migration Control, in “EPC: Politics and Space”, 37(8), pp. 1471-1488.
Vince, Gaia (2022) Nomad Century: How to Survive the Climate Upheaval, New York, Allen Lane.
Vinke, Kira (2022) Sturmnomaden: Wie der Klimawandel uns Menschen die Heimat raubt, Munich, dtv.
WBGU (2018) Just & In-Time Climate Policy: Four Initiatives for a Fair Transformation, Berlin, WBGU.
Wiegel, Hanne, Boas, Ingrid and Warner, Jeroen (2019) A mobilities perspective on migration in the
   context of environmental change, in “WIREs Climate Change”, 10(6), e610.
Xu, Chi, Kohler, Timothy A., Lenton, Timothy M., Svenning, Jens-Christian and Scheffer, Marten
   (2020) Future of the human climate niche, in “PNAS”, 117(21), pp. 11350-11355.
