Niels van Montfort

Leestijd: 44 minuten

Abstract

This research aims to explain the expulsion of the Roma in France in 2010 and 2011 according to the political theory by philosopher Giorgio Agamben. This is done by defining four aspects of this theory: state of exception, sovereign, homo sacer and biopolitics. These are analysed through a content analysis, a comparative analysis and a discourse analysis to conclude if these aspects can be recognized in the case of the Roma expulsion. Although only the last two concepts are found in the analysis, this research concludes that the French president acts as a sovereign who excludes the Roma, the homo sacer, justified by a state of exception and legitimates it through biopolitics. Agamben’s political theory can thus be applied to the case of the French expulsion of the Roma.

Introduction

With an estimated 10 to 12 million Roma living in Europe, out of which 6 million are European Union (EU) citizens, Roma form the largest ethnic minority in Europe (European Commission, n.d.). Most of them only became EU citizens after the EU expansions of 2004 and 2007 into Eastern Europe, where most Roma reside (McGarry, 2011, p. 129). Due to the free movement of citizens within the EU, a significant amount of Roma moved towards western European states. However, they did not always enjoy a hospitable reception in these states, as seen in France. In 2010, a 22-year-old Roma who drove through a police checkpoint, hitting a police officer, was shot and killed in the French town of Saint-Aignan (“Q&A: France Roma”, 2010). This led to a group of Roma attacking the local police station in retaliation. The French president Nicolas Sarkozy reacted by organizing an emergency meeting with his ministers to discuss the future of the Roma in France. The government decided to take action which resulted in the expulsion of Roma in 2010 and 2011, when around 18000 Roma were deported to Romania and Bulgaria, receiving a compensation of €300 and €100 per child (Suddath, 2010).

This was critically received and called a “disgrace” and “shocking” by EU justice commissioner Viviane Reding, representing the EU’s general disapproval (Bennhold & Castle, 2010; Lungescu, 2010). Although the French government claimed that it was not targeting Roma in particular, a leaked document with instructions to specifically clear Roma settlements proved otherwise (Willsher, 2010). Many accused the French government of discrimination on ethnicity and violating human rights (Lungescu, 2010; Human Rights Watch, 2011). Ethnic discrimination and the violation of human rights is concerning, especially in one of the founding states of the EU (Lungescu, 2010). As combating discrimination and promoting equality are core principles of the EU (European Union, n.d.), it is important to research the expulsion of the Roma in France.

Many scholars have researched and explained the expulsion and the reasons for it. Some argue that the EU law on citizenship allows for the expulsions (Juverdeanu, 2016; Parker, 2012; Parker & Catalán, 2014). Others provide an insight into the legitimation of the French government, either by nationalism (McGarry & Drake, 2013; Nacu, 2012) or by the theory of securitization (Parker, 2012; Bărbulescu, 2012). However, existing research fails to provide a political philosophical explanation of the expulsion of the Roma. One political philosophy is the political theory of Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben, which provides a fundamental view on exclusions in democracies centred around the figure of homo sacer. Agamben tries to show the severe consequences of the existence of this figure, as his work culminates in the concentration camp. This shows how important it is to research potential examples of the homo sacer. Therefore, Agamben’s political theory forms the theoretical framework of this essay. An analysis of the core principles of this theory applied to the case of the expulsion of the Roma, provides a fundamental understanding of this case. As this essay aims to understand the expulsion of Roma in France using Agamben’s political theory, this essay answers the following explanatory research question: How can the expulsion of Roma in France be explained according to Giorgio Agamben’s political theory? Because this research uses a theoretical framework from an existing theory, this research is deductive.

This research is structured as follows: Firstly, this essay begins with a literature review to explore the current research on this topic, allowing to clearly define the gap in contemporary research. The literature review is divided into two sections, of which the first discusses the explanation of the expulsion of Roma as a result of EU law on citizenship and the second examines the different legitimations of the expulsion according to scholars. Secondly, a theoretical framework explains Agamben’s political theory, which is then operationalized to define four concrete aspects of the theory that allow for a structured and clear research. Thirdly, a chapter on methodology provides the reader with an understanding of the qualitative, deductive approach on the research and how a content analysis, comparative analysis and discourse analysis are used to answer the main question. Fourthly, the data analysis shows the findings of the analyses of the four core concepts of Agamben’s political theory, which are then looked at through the theoretical framework, providing an answer to the research question. Lastly, the essay finishes with a conclusion that answers the research question.

1. Literature Review: The Expulsion of the Roma

This chapter discusses the existing literature on the Roma in France to discover what has already been researched and what requires more attention in the current debate. The existing literature can be divided into two groups. The first group explains the expulsion of the Roma from a judicial perspective, reviewing the European Union law that, according to these authors, is the cause for the expulsion. The second group takes an entirely different approach and places its focus on the legitimation of the expulsion as declared by the French government. The remainder of this chapter examines how these two groups explain the expulsion of the Roma in France. This is then followed by the definition of the gap in the contemporary literature that this paper aims to fill.

1.1 Expulsion by EU Citizenship Law

The first group within the existing literature explains the Roma expulsion through EU law, more specifically regarding EU citizenship. According to Parker and Catalán, EU citizenship was initially implemented with the goal of granting labourers EU citizenship, gaining the freedom to legally choose the member state in which they preferred to work, and thus giving all citizens in the EU the freedom of movement between member states (2014). However, Juverdeanu refers to a 2004 EU directive to prove that this freedom is not completely unlimited as member states may refuse an immigrant “on grounds of public policy, public security or public health” (2016, p. 6). She claims that the wording of the directive is too abstract and leaves too much room for interpretation and gives member states the freedom to decide whether a person is allowed to remain within that state (2016, p. 6). Juverdeanu notes that there are some safeguards to guarantee a protection against the abuse of the directive by member states, but that these safeguards were ignored by France and that thus the Roma could be expulsed (2016, pp. 6-7). Parker takes a more extensive approach by stating that the general fundamental workings of the EU allow directives to be ignored due to the lack of force behind the implementation of directives, combined with the large freedom of interpretation (2012). Regarding the case of the Roma expulsion, he states to have discovered that France had not implemented the abovementioned 2004 EU directive by 2010. He thus claims that this allowed France to ignore the directive and circumvent its safeguards (2012, p. 480).

To conclude, according to the first group, the lack of definition in the EU law regarding citizenship allows member states to expulse immigrants, such as the Roma. Moreover, these authors claim that the weak nature of the EU led to unimplemented directives in member states, resulting in these member states ignoring the contents of directives. They claim that the Roma have fallen victim to the lack of a substantial law on EU citizenship.

1.2 Expulsion by Discourse: Nationalism and Securitization

The second group attempts to explain the expulsion of the Roma by examining the French government’s legitimation for it. Many authors use a discourse analysis to illustrate the words used by French officials that paint a negative picture of the Roma. Different authors state that following this discourse, the Roma are a national ‘other’ that does not belong in French society (McGarry & Drake, 2013, p. 73; Nacu, 2012). The reality effect of this discourse portrays a Roma population that is very harmful to French society and must be expelled from it to prevent damage to French values. According to Gould, the French government claims that they do not only have different cultural values, but that they are also a “threat to property, safety and health” due to their criminal activities (2014, p. 24). Nacu’s work expands on this by blaming the rise of French nationalism for this discourse as it seeks a scapegoat to which the French compare themselves (2012). In this case, Nacu sees that the Roma precisely fulfil the role of scapegoat. Gould states that only the French government can be held responsible for the expulsion due to its use of discriminatory language regarding Roma (2014).

Another explanation that is widely used by scholars is the theory of securitization (Parker, 2012; Bărbulescu, 2012). This theory assumes that security issues that form a threat against a society or state, are only considered to be a security issue when they are identified as such (Eroukhmanoff, 2017, para. 1). Eroukhmanoff explains that this identification is done by a ‘securitizing actor’, which is mostly an actor within the politics of a state. He clarifies in other words that an issue must first be politicized in order to be regarded as a threat to national security. This process is what is called securitization. Parker (2012) and Bărbulescu (2012) both agree that securitization is the manner in which the French government legitimized the expulsion of the Roma. The Roma are securitized by the French government, who fulfils the role of securitizing actor in this case. The government does this, similar to the view of Gould and Nacu, by framing the Roma as a threat to French society through the use of language.

In short, the French government’s discourse on the Roma creates a harmful other that does not belong in France. While some scholars explain this discursive exclusion in the light of French nationalism, others use the theory of securitization.

1.3 Defining the Gap

The existing literature gives an insight in both the judicial reasons for the expulsion of the Roma and the different views on the government’s legitimation for it. However, contemporary research on the Roma in France lacks a fundamental theoretical explanation of how the expulsion and exclusion of a minority is possible in a state that is commonly regarded as democratic, such as France. The literature on EU citizenship law does not provide a satisfying answer as it exposes a flawed EU law that is abused by the French government and only answers the question how the expulsion was possible in the EU. The normative function of the directive is, among others, to prevent the exact exclusion that has taken place; the directive pursued an inclusion of all citizens. Therefore, merely blaming an EU directive is not enough as it does not reveal why the French government would ignore and abuse the directive to expulse the Roma. Similarly, the literature on the legitimation lacks an answer to this question. Both the need to find a scapegoat for nationalist intents and the theory of securitization fail to present an explanation other than the process of the government’s justification for the expulsion. Therefore, this paper seeks to answer the question how the expulsion can be explained according to a broad and fundamental theory. The theory used for this paper is Giorgio Agamben’s political theory, which is explored in the following chapter.

2. Theoretical Framework

This chapter expands upon Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben’s political theory. His philosophy forms the theoretical framework that this paper uses to answer the question how the expulsion of the Roma in France can be explained. This framework is first formed by an explanation of Agamben’s political theory according to its essential concepts, which is followed by an operationalization that allows for a concrete application of the theory to the specific case of the Roma.

2.1 Giorgio Agamben’s Political Philosophy

The first core concept of Agamben’s theory is the state of exception, a political condition in which the ruler of a state abolishes the rule of law for a defined goal, often in case of an emergency or crisis (Agamben, 2003/2005, pp. 2-4). In a state of exception, political institutions that limit the power of the ruler, such as the parliament, are disabled. A practical example is the state of emergency, in which a ruler can make decisions without the approval of the parliament.

The second concept, the sovereign, is closely related to the state of exception and only an exploration of the concept of sovereign allows for an understanding of the significance of the state of exception in Agamben’s theory. The sovereign is the person or group who rules a state and is positioned at the top of the societal hierarchy (Agamben, 1995/2020, p. 39). Being the ruler, the sovereign decides over the state of exception. According to Carl Schmitt, who first mentioned the concept of both the state of exception and the sovereign, the sovereign is the highest legal order and is therefore entitled to the power of proclaiming a state of exception (Agamben, 1995/2020, p. 55). Agamben strongly opposes this idea; deciding over the state of exception allows the sovereign to act as he pleases and removes any limitations on the pursuit of the sovereign’s personal goals. Agamben therefore sees the state of exception as a dangerous political tool, often facilitated by a democratic constitution (Agamben, 1995/2020, p. 161).

One of the clearest examples of a sovereign proclaiming a state of exception is the use of Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution to form Nazi Germany. The intention of the article was the efficient handling of emergencies but allowed for the creation of a totalitarian regime. Another example that Agamben uses is the United States policies that were introduced after the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001 (Agamben, 2003/2005, p. 2). The American law allowed the president, the sovereign, to proclaim a state of exception. The attacks were deemed a crisis that was severe enough to implement counterterrorist measures that are still active today.

One of these measures was the opening of Guantanamo Bay, the prison where suspects of terrorist activities are held for an undisclosed amount of time and judged by military commissions, a process that does not follow either American or international law (Agamben, 2003/2005, p. 3). The detainees thus lose their ability to appeal to the law; the sovereign places them outside the law. Such a person that cannot appeal to the law, has what Agamben calls the bare life. This term, derived from Walter Benjamin, conceptualizes the life that is excepted and banned from the political life (Agamben, 1995/2020, p. 31). By ruling outside the law, in a state of exception, the sovereign is able to place people outside the law; the bare life is created by the sovereign in the state of exception. Those with the bare life can no longer protect themselves against the sovereign by appealing to the law. Although the creation of the bare life happens outside the law, it is allowed by the law as the possibility of a state of exception is included within the law. Agamben therefore argues that exclusion from the law is a function of the same law and democracy is but a veil to cover this up. As the law in a democratic state ought to be democratic, the ability to exclude individuals reveals a paradox of democracy; democracy allows something that is inherently undemocratic (Agamben, 1995/2020, p. 161). Agamben names a person that has the bare life homo sacer. Homo sacer was originally an individual in ancient Roman law that was allowed to be killed without any legal consequences and was thus placed outside the law (Agamben, 1995/2020, p. 31). The Guantanamo Bay detainee or the prisoner of a Nazi concentration camp, who is Agamben’s ultimate example of why a state of exception is dangerous, is therefore a homo sacer. By excluding an individual through the state of exception, the sovereign creates a homo sacer.

Agamben states that a sovereign requires a legitimation for the exclusion of the homo sacer, which creates the fourth core concept of biopolitics (1995/2020, p. 25). He lends this concept from Michel Foucault, who used biopolitics to explain that the natural life, the human biological life, became the centre of attention in Western politics and policy became focussed on the protection of the natural life (Foucault, 1994, p. 719). The political importance of the natural life is what he called biopolitics. Agamben incorporates biopolitics into his own theory and sees it as the sovereign’s legitimation of exclusion (Agamben, 1995/2020, p. 26). The sovereign attempts to protect the natural life of his subjects by eliminating anything that endangers it. For instance, the detainees in Guantanamo Bay are, according to the United States government, terrorists and threaten the natural lives of the American people.

2.2 Operationalization

Understanding Agamben’s political philosophy allows for an operationalization by selecting the essential concepts of the theory that can be used to systematically apply the theory to the exclusion of the Roma in France. The application of these concepts shows how Agamben’s political theory gives a fundamental understanding of the expulsion of the Roma.

The four concepts are as follows: (1) The state of exception is a political condition that allows the sovereign to rule outside the law during a crisis (Agamben, 2003/2005, pp. 2-4). Is there any form of state of exception present in the case of the expulsion of the Roma and if so, how did the sovereign use it? (2) The sovereign, the ruler of a state uses the law to create a homo sacer and exclude individuals from society (Agamben, 1995/2020, pp. 39-40). The question is whether the French government, who expulsed the Roma, fulfils the role of sovereign as defined by Agamben? (3) The homo sacer is an individual who is no longer allowed to participate in political life and cannot appeal to the law as it is placed outside the law by the sovereign (Agamben, 1995/2020, p. 31). The homo sacer is excluded both from the law and from society. Can the Roma in France be considered to be homo sacer? (4) Biopolitics is the political focus on and protection of the natural life. It is used by the sovereign as a legitimation for the exclusion of certain groups. The question is if the legitimation of the expulsion of the Roma can be understood as biopolitics. Table 1 presents an overview of the concepts, their short definitions and the questions that are relevant for this research.

Table 1

Operationalization of Agamben’s political philosophy

Concept	Definition	Question
State of exception	A political condition created by the sovereign to rule outside the law	Has the exclusion of Roma in France taken place within a state of exception?
Sovereign	The ruler of a state that has the lawful power to exclude groups. He decides over the state of exception.	Does the French government function as a sovereign?
Homo sacer	An individual with the bare life and is thus excluded from political life and cannot appeal to the law.	Can the Roma expulsed from France be seen as homo sacer?
Biopolitics	The focus on the protection of the natural life at all costs which politicizes the natural life. It is used as a legitimation for the exclusion of groups that threaten the natural life.	Is biopolitics used as a legitimation for the expulsion of Roma by the French government?

3. Methodology

This qualitative research was conducted through a document analysis. As this research was conducted by analysing a case through an existing theory, this research is deductive. The aim of this paper was to explain the expulsion of the Roma in France in a political philosophical manner. A document analysis is the most suitable method for a philosophical approach as it discusses theoretical and written concepts. Furthermore, other qualitative methods, such as interviewing or the use of surveys were very difficult. For instance, next to the language barrier, the Roma being a diverse and spread-out people made them nearly impossible to reach.

The sources used in the document analysis of this paper were both primary and secondary. The primary sources comprised of different non-participatory observations. First, speeches and statements from French presidents were used to explore the government’s discourse regarding the Roma. Second, French law provided answers to the questions if there is a sovereign and a state of exception present in this case. Lastly, newspaper articles gave an insight into how the expulsion was perceived in 2010. Naturally, Agamben’s works were used to understand and apply his political theory. The secondary sources that were used fulfilled a supportive role and consisted mainly of books, academic articles and newspaper articles for the purpose of contextualisation, researching discourse on the Roma and the understanding of concepts. All sources were found using databases such as JSTOR, SAGE Publishing and Taylor and Francis Online and academic search engines such as Google Scholar. French law was accessible via the website Légifrance. Searching on these platforms was narrowed down by selecting disciplines as Political Studies and Sociology and search terms. For instance, ‘Roma’, ‘France’ and ‘expulsion’ gave different results of sources on the subject.

The analysis of this paper was divided into four parts, one for each aspect of Agamben’s political theory, as defined in chapter 3: State of exception, sovereign, homo sacer and biopolitics. Because they all have a different function in the theory, each aspect required a different approach. The first part, on the state of exception, used a content analysis of French law and some secondary academic articles to discover the function of the state of emergency in France and if it was used for the expulsion of the Roma. These sources were analysed by searching for terms as ‘state of emergency’ or ‘state of crisis’ and examining if they were mentioned in the context of the Roma expulsion. Similarly, the next part on the sovereign required a content analysis of French law and secondary academic articles, which were searched for terms relating to exceptional circumstances, such as ‘emergency’ or ‘crisis’. This then revealed if there are persons or groups in France that possess certain exceptional powers and if these powers were used for the expulsion of the Roma. The homo sacer, subject of the third part, was researched through a comparative analysis by first defining the aspects of the theoretical figure of homo sacer. The context of the expulsion of the Roma was then compared to these aspects to uncover if the Roma could be recognized in the figure of homo sacer. If this was the case, the Roma could be considered as homo sacer. The last part on biopolitics required a discourse analysis that explored the government’s discourse on the legitimation of the expulsion of the Roma. This analysis was done on official government statements on the Roma, ultimately revealing if the government formulated a biopolitical legitimation.

One of the main difficulties posed by these methods and sources was that many sources, especially those on French law are written in the French language. Translation was therefore to be carried out carefully to not lose the meaning of words or interpret a text wrong. Furthermore, the topic appeared to not have much peer-reviewed academic literature. It was thus important to utilise a multitude of sources from different approaches.

4. Analysis: Explaining the Expulsion

This chapter discusses the results of this research’s analysis. As each aspect was analysed separately, the presentation of the results is divided into four parts. Then, a discussion of the results shows how they address Agamben’s political theory and what can be concluded from this research about the expulsion of the Roma in France.

4.1 Results

First, the results of the analyses of the concepts of state of exception, sovereign, homo sacer and biopolitics, according to their methods, are presented below.

4.1.1 State of exception

The state of exception is the first core aspect of Agamben’s political theory. The following part of this chapter explores if there was a form of state of exception present during the expulsion of the Roma in 2010 and 2011. The state of emergency is the most concrete form of a state of exception. As it is often included in the law of a state, a content analysis on French law, combined with secondary sources on the state of emergency and the Roma expulsion, reveals when a state of emergency may be declared in France and if this took place during the expulsion of Roma. French law is searched for terms such as ‘state of emergency’, ‘emergency’ and ‘crisis’. This shows what legal abilities the French government has regarding emergencies.

French law allows for four different types of a state of emergency. The French president may use article 16 of the French constitution to proclaim a general state of emergency to quickly make decisions without the approval of the parliament during a crisis (Constitution du 4 octobre, 1958). Article 36 of the constitution provides the option of a ‘state of siege’ during wartime (Constitution du 4 octobre, 1958). The law of 3 April 1955 is similar to the general state of emergency but gives the Minister of Interior exceptional powers (Loi n° 55-385, 1955). Furthermore, the ‘sanitary state of emergency’ is suitable during a pandemic (Code de la santé publique, 2020). France has known several usages of the state of emergency, most of which occurred during Algeria’s struggle for independence (Harrison, 1964, pp. 276-282). The most recent cases of a state of emergency were due to civil unrest in 2005 and after the terrorist attacks in 2015 (Fredette, 2017, p. 101). It can thus be concluded that there was no official form of a state of emergency declared during the expulsions of Roma in 2010 and 2011.

However, a state of exception is a concept that entails more than only a state of emergency; any situation in which the sovereign transcends the law for a cause is a state of exception. In this case, it could be argued that the state of exception can be recognized in the attack on a police station in Saint-Aignan by a group of Roma after a Roma was shot and killed by police. Major news sources mention this attack as the event that led to the expulsion of the Roma (Crumley, 2010; “France Deports Foreign”, 2010; “Q&A: France Roma”, 2010; Saltmarsh, 2010; Traynor, 2010;). The president reacted to the attack by organizing an emergency meeting with his ministers to discuss the future of the Roma in France, which resulted in the decision to expulse them. Nevertheless, the president did not transcend the law in any way and thus a state of exception was not present during this time.

To conclude, although there was no proclaimed state of emergency present during the expulsion of the Roma, the attack on the police station is arguably the emergency that led to the expulsion of the Roma. However, the president or government never transcended the law in this case and therefore there is no evidence to conclude that there was a state of exception.

4.1.2 Sovereign

The sovereign, according to Agamben, is the ruler that can decide on the state of exception and therefore rules outside the law. For understanding if there is a sovereign present in the case of the Roma in France, a content analysis of French law is required. The law is searched for terms as ‘exceptional’ in combination with ‘procedure’, ‘rule’ or ‘power’ to find possibilities for decision-making that give the ruler exceptional powers. The procedures are then compared to the case of the expulsion of the Roma.

The analysis on the state of exception of this research has clarified that there are several forms of a state of emergency in the French law. The general state of emergency from article 16 of the constitution gives exceptional powers to the president, allowing him to make decisions in a procedure that does not follow the normal law (Constitution du 4 octobre, 1958). Moreover, article 49.3 of the constitution allows the president to pass bills without the approval of the parliament (Constitution du 4 octobre, 1958). This law was recently used at the begin of 2023 to pass the French pension reform that led to mass protests. However, unlike the state of emergency, article 49.3 is used often; it has been applied 100 times since its implementation in 1958 (Imbach & Geoffroy, 2023). The parliament can counter this law by a vote of no confidence, but as it requires an absolute majority, this only occurred once in 1962 (Vie publique, 2022b). Article 49.3 allows the president and his ministers to make decisions without checks and balances and could therefore be considered as a tool of a sovereign.

Another French law that grants the president exceptional powers is article 12 of the constitution. (Constitution du 4 octobre, 1958). This article allows the president to dissolve the National Assembly, one of the two chambers that form the parliament. After the dissolution, new elections are held for a new National Assembly that is more favourable for the president’s agenda (Vie publique, 2022a). Article 12 has been used five times since 1958.

According to all these laws, the president must first consult the prime minister before executing the relevant procedure. However, following article 8 of the constitution, the president appoints the prime minister himself (Constitution du 4 octobre, 1958). The prime minister’s advice is therefore likely to be in favour of the opinion of the president. On top of that, the president must consult the presidents of the National Assembly and the Senate but is not bound to their opinions and may take his own decisions (Vie publique, 2022a). Nonetheless, these laws were not used for the expulsion of the Roma in 2010 and 2011.

In short, multiple French laws enable the president to rule outside of the law using exceptional powers. These laws may be used during emergencies but have no clear boundaries and restriction. Nonetheless, none of these laws were utilised for the expulsion of the Roma. Although the French president has the powers to function as a sovereign, he did not fulfil the role of sovereign specifically in the case of the Roma expulsion.

4.1.3 Homo sacer

The question if the Roma can be considered homo sacer is answered most effectively by comparing the Roma to the homo sacer and thus a comparative analysis of the theoretical figure of homo sacer and the Roma in France is required. The main aspects of Agamben’s homo sacer are explored first, after which it can be analysed if these aspects are recognizable in the Roma.

The three main characteristics of the homo sacer are as follows: (1) The homo sacer is placed outside the law; he no longer has rights and cannot appeal to the law to protect himself (Agamben, 1995/2020, p. 31). (2) He is created by the sovereign. The sovereign, who transcends the law, can decide over who is included and excluded from the law (Agamben, 1995/2020, p. 39). (3) Having no rights to protect him, the homo sacer is excluded from a society, either by not being able to partake in it or by physical removal (Agamben, 1995/2020, p. 31).

The Roma come to France, mainly from Romania and Bulgaria, to find work. This is legally allowed because these states are EU member states, granting the Roma EU citizenship (Parker and Catalán, 2014). All who have EU citizenship may choose to work in another member state. Nevertheless, the Roma are still expulsed, meaning that the EU law does not apply to the Roma and their rights are not respected. Therefore, the Roma meet the first aspect.

The French government claims that many Roma live in France illegally, as they have a three-month period after arriving to find work and financially provide for themselves according to French law. However, the Roma are only allowed to work a select number of jobs, work contracts must be approved by the government, which often takes over three months, and employers have to pay the government over €700 when hiring a Roma (“The Roma who”, 2012, para. 5). Therefore, it is made impossible by the Roma to find work within three months. As the French government makes it impossible for the Roma to be in France legally, and they thus find themselves in a position in which they can be excluded, it is the French government who places them in this situation. The Roma thus meet the second aspect of being created by the sovereign.

The Roma who arrived in France seemingly did not have a chance to partake in French society (Suddath, 2010). They could not find work to be allowed to remain in France and thus lived there illegally and were unable to participate in society. They lived outside of residential areas in their own encampments and had no rights to, for instance, take part in French politics. When these Roma were expulsed, they were removed even further from French society, placed outside its borders, making any form of participation impossible. As the Roma did not have the means to partake in French society and are even expulsed, they comply with the third aspects of the homo sacer.

In short, the main aspects of the homo sacer can be seen in the Roma in France and the Roma can therefore be considered to be homo sacer.

4.1.4 Biopolitics

Biopolitics, the politicization of the natural life (Agamben, 1995/2020, pp. 25-26) is the last essential aspect of Agamben’s political theory, offering an insight into the legitimation of the expulsion of the Roma. Understanding if and how biopolitics plays a role in this case requires a discourse analysis of official government statements that show the reasons and legitimations for the Roma exclusion.

After the emergency meeting on the attack on the police station in Saint-Aignan, a press release showed the main problems that the government identified with the Roma (Gould, 2015, p. 28). “The camps are sources of illegal trafficking, of profoundly shocking living standards, of exploitation of children for begging, of prostitution and crime” (“Q&A: France Roma”, 2010, para. 8). The government proclaims that Roma settlements are not a suitable place to live and that they are full of illegal activities and health risks (“EU says monitoring”, 2012). This shows a focus on the natural life of the Roma living in these settlements and demonstrates biopolitics. The problems in the settlements are signs of societal problems, especially that of poverty (Gould, 2015, p. 28). However, this does not lead to aid for the Roma to improve their natural lives. Instead of recognizing poverty as the source of these problems, the government links the problems directly to the Roma and attempts to solve them by removing the people (Gould, 2015, p. 28).

In a speech in Grenoble in which he declared to put an end to all crime, including that of the Roma, president Nicolas Sarkozy reacts to an unnamed political leader who insisted that the Roma settlements are not problematic in any way (Guerrier, 2014, para. 36). Sarkozy claimed that this politician would speak differently if he would live next to a settlement himself, indicating that the lives of those living in the vicinity of a settlement are disrupted. While using military rhetoric, such as the need to declare a “war” against criminals who must “retreat” (Guerrier, 2014, para. 5), Sarkozy stated that the Roma must be “systematically evacuated” (Suddath, 2010, para. 5) because of the harm they do to the natural lives of French citizens. On top of that, the attack on the police station was a clear example used by the government to show that the Roma are indeed capable of inflicting harm on other’s lives (Crumley, 2010).

In conclusion, biopolitics can be seen as the legitimation of the expulsion of Roma. The use of biopolitics does not concern the poor living conditions of the Roma, but the harm done to French citizens due to criminality as a result from their living conditions.

4.2 Discussion

The following part discusses the findings viewed through Agamben’s political theory. The analysis has shown that not all four aspects are concretely present in the case of the Roma expulsion.

The analysis of the state of exception implies that there is no clearly identifiable state of exception. The French law offers multiple manners to proclaim a state of emergency, none of which were used in 2010 and 2011. It could therefore be argued that there was no case of a state of exception and that thus the expulsion of the Roma was legally legitimate. Nonetheless, a broader reading of the concept allows for a different interpretation; a state of exception occurs during a crisis or emergency and gives the sovereign the opportunity to utilise its power. Following an analysis of news sources on the expulsion of the Roma, it is notable that all sources mention the attack on the Saint-Aignan police station as the main cause for the emergency meeting held by the president and his ministers. This attack can be understood as the emergency that led to the government undertaking action to remove the Roma. Although the president did not transcend the law himself, the event was so exceptional that it required an emergency meeting that resulted in the French government placing the Roma outside the law. It could thus be argued that there was some form of a state of exception present as the sovereign used an emergency to place the homo sacer outside the law.

Despite that, it is still difficult to permanently conclude if this was indeed a state of exception. Perhaps the sovereign had enough power already so that a state of exception was not necessary, or Agamben’s theory is not applicable to this case or even flawed in general. Before discussing this further, the role of the sovereign must be explained as both concepts strongly relate to each other.

The analysis of the sovereign poses a similar problem by demonstrating that although the French president has the characteristics of a sovereign through certain laws, these laws were not applied for the expulsion of the Roma. It can therefore not be concluded that there are objective indications that the French president acted as a sovereign in this case. This raises the same question as the analysis of the state of exception does, namely if Agamben’s theory can be applied to this case. Stating that the theory is not applicable in its entirety would be too simple and requires more research. Both the analysis of the sovereign as that of the state of exception provide the knowledge that the expulsion of the Roma was not carried out by a sovereign who had transcended the law. However, the sovereign’s main role in Agamben’s theory is being the one who excludes certain groups, justified by a crisis or emergency. In this case the French president calls for the expulsion of the Roma and therefore he acts as the sovereign. The state of exception functions as a justification for the exclusion of a group, which can be seen in the Saint-Aignan attack. The state of exception is necessary as in normal circumstances an exclusion of a group would seem random and thus lack support. An event that is exceptional, such as an attack on a police station, justifies an exclusion. Although both the state of exception and the sovereign do not strictly fulfil all criteria, the main reasons why they are incorporated in Agamben’s political theory are present. Therefore, when interpreting the theory in a broad sense, the state of exception and sovereign are present.

The results presented from the analysis of the Roma as homo sacer, show that the Roma fulfil the role of homo sacer. The Roma find themselves in a paradox of legality. If they want to live in France, the government states that they may only do so legally by finding work within a three-month period. However, the same government has implemented rules that make it almost impossible to find work within that period. Therefore, the Roma are made illegal by the French government and placed outside the law. Being illegal forms a justification for the government to expulse the Roma. The Roma would normally be able to protect their rights as EU citizens, but since France ignores the EU law on citizenship, the Roma cannot appeal to the law and are forced into the position of a homo sacer. They are completely excluded and even removed by the French government. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Roma are homo sacer. According to Agamben, the danger of the figure of homo sacer is that when people are placed outside the law, the sovereign has total control over them. The paradigmatic example that Agamben uses is the prisoner of a Nazi concentration camp. He states that before these prisoners were placed inside the camp, they were made a homo sacer. A homo sacer has no protection and is completely submitted to the will of the sovereign. Being a homo sacer is thus dangerous according to Agamben and it is important to understand how a homo sacer is created and what the results may be when the sovereign can freely create this figure.

Lastly, it appears from the analysis of biopolitics that it is used as a legitimation for the expulsion of the Roma. The French government’s emphasis on the poor conditions in which the Roma live seems to be a form of biopolitics. Low living standards result in, for instance, poor health, hygiene or lower life expectancy. The attention to these problems by a government makes it a political issue and they are therefore subject to biopolitics. However, this does not result in the improvement of the Roma’s living conditions. Being homo sacer, the Roma are namely not seen as part of the French political sphere for which the French government is responsible; they are excluded, meaning that their living conditions do not fall within the responsibility of the government. The government is only concerned with the conditions of French citizens. According to the government, the Roma are a people of criminals, posing a threat to the French population. The illegal activities of the Roma are not recognized to be a result from poverty but is associated with the Roma themselves. Therefore, the Roma must be removed from France in order to protect the French population. Biopolitics, in this case in the form of the protection of the lives of French citizens, is therefore used as a legitimation for the government to expulse the Roma.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, the expulsion of the Roma in France in 2010 and 2011 led to much criticism, with opponents claiming that it was based on ethnic discrimination and led to a violation of human rights. Therefore, this research aims at giving a political philosophical answer to the question how the expulsion of the Roma can be explained according to the political theory of Giorgio Agamben. This theory allows to gain a fundamental understanding of the exclusion of a group. This research defines four aspects of Agamben’s political theory: the state of exception, sovereign, homo sacer and biopolitics, to systematically test the expulsion of the Roma to this theory. The results of the analyses differed, with no concrete evidence of there being a state of exception and a sovereign in this case. Recognizing the presence of both aspects requires a broad interpretation of the theory, which this research assumes to form a conclusion; the normative function of the theory is namely to warn against the severe results of the existence of the homo sacer. The sovereign creates the homo sacer in an emergency. As all aspects of Agamben’s political theory are present in this case, this research concludes that Agamben’s political theory can be applied to the case of the Roma expulsion in France. This allows to explain the expulsion as the French president as the sovereign, who uses the exceptional situation of an attack on a police station as the justification to form the Roma into a homo sacer by placing them outside the law. He uses biopolitical arguments to legitimate this process, as the Roma form a danger for the natural lives of French citizens. By placing the Roma outside the law, the French president has full control over them, and they cannot appeal to the law to protect themselves. Agamben shows with his paradigm of the prisoners of the concentration camp that the existence of the homo sacer can have grave consequences. It is therefore advised to conduct further research on both the Roma, in France as well as in other European states, and on other oppressed minorities to potentially find other contemporary examples of homo sacer. Research on the Roma according to this theory namely provides an insight into the application of Agamben’s theory to concrete examples of exclusions of minorities. This may provide useful when explaining the exclusion of other minorities, as this theory is not limited to a specific group.

5.1 Limitations

This research is limited in several ways. One fundamental limitation is the fact that this research can answer the question how the Roma expulsion can be explained according to the used theory, but not why. It remains a question, that even Agamben’s theory itself does not answer, why the sovereign creates the homo sacer. Furthermore, the use of this theory limits the understanding of the topic, as it does not account for a multitude of other theories, concepts and explanations. Moreover, Agamben’s writings on any form of a solution or how to counter the creation of the homo sacer are minimal and leaves many questions on how to handle this violation of human rights. To have a better understanding of these issues, further research is necessary. This way, the reasons why, the application of other theories or normative research on possible solutions can be explored. Finally, using a theory as broad as that of Agamben results in limited findings and only a small selection of methods. Therefore, separate research of each aspect, using a variety of methods, allows to explain the expulsion of the Roma according to Agamben’s political theory even better.

Reference List

Agamben, G. (2020). Homo Sacer (I. van der Burg, Trans.). Boom. (Original work published 1995)

Agamben, G. (2005). State of Exception (K. Attell, Trans.). The University Press of Chicago. (Original work published 2003)

Bărbulescu, H. (2012). Constructing the Roma People as a Societal Threat. The Roma Expulsions from France. European Journal of Science and Theology, 8(1), 279-289.

Bennhold, K., & Castle, S. (2010, September 14). E.U. Calls France’s Roma Expulsions a ‘Disgrace’. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/world/europe/15roma.html

Code de la santé publique. (2020, May 30). https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000041867960/2020-05-30

Constitution du 4 octobre 1958. (1958, October 4). https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000000571356/

Crumley, B. (2010, July 23). Anger as Sarkozy Targets Roma in Crime Crackdown. Time. Archived from the original on 5 June 2023.

Eroukhmanoff, C. (2017). Securitization Theory. In S. McGlinchey, R. Walters, & C. Scheinpflug (Eds.), International Relations Theory. E-International Relations Publishing.

European Commission. (n.d.). Roma equality, inclusion and participation in the EU. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/roma-eu/roma-equality-inclusion-and-participation-eu_en

European Union. (n.d.). Aims and values. https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/principles-and-values/aims-and-values_en

EU says monitoring France over wave of Roma expulsions. (2012, August 10). Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-france-roma-eu/eu-says-monitoring-france-over-wave-of-roma-expulsions-idUKBRE87912U20120810

Foucault, M. (1994). Dits et écrits. Gallimard.

France Deports Foreign Roma. (2010, August 20). The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704476104575439501223746906

Fredette, J. (2017). The French State of Emergency. Current History, 116(788), 101-106. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48614240

Guerrier, S. (2014, March 27). Le discours de Grenoble de Nicolas Sarkozy. Le Figaro. https://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/le-scan/2014/03/27/25001-20140327ARTFIG00084-le-discours-de-grenoble-de-nicolas-sarkozy.php

Gould, R. (2015). Roma rights and Roma expulsions in France: Official discourse and EU responses. Critical Social Policy, 35(1), 24–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018314545595

Harrison, M. (1964). Government and Press in France During the Algerian War. The American Political Science Review, 58(2), 273-285. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1952862

Human Rights Watch. (2011). France: One Year On, New Abuses against Roma. https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/09/29/france-one-year-new-abuses-against-roma

Imbach, R., & Geoffroy, R. (2023, March 17). Comment fonctionne l’article 49.3, utilisé pour la onzième fois par Elisabeth Borne? Le Monde. https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2023/03/17/comment-fonctionne-l-article-49-3-utilise-pour-la-onzieme-fois-par-elisabeth-borne_6146430_4355771.html

Juverdeanu, C. (2016). Roma EU citizens – Caught Between EU and Member States. CETLS Online Paper Series, 5(2).

Loi n° 55-385. (1955, April 3). https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000000695350

Lungescu, O. (2010, September 14). EU vice president sees red and attacks France on Roma. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11302013

McGarry, A. (2011). The Roma Voice in the European Union: Between National Belonging and Transnational Identity. Social Movement Studies, 10(3), 283-297. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2011.590030

McGarry, A., Drake, H. (2013). The Politicization of Roma as an Ethnic “Other”: Security Discourse in France and the Politics of Belonging. In: U. Korkut, G. Bucken-Knapp, A. McGarry, J. Hinnfors, & H. Drake (Eds.), The Discourses and Politics of Migration in Europe. Europe in Transition: The NYU European Studies Series. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137310903_5

Nacu, A. (2012). From Silent Marginality to Spotlight Scapegoating? A Brief Case Study of France’s Policy Towards the Roma. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38(8).

Parker, O. (2012). Roma and the Politics of EU Citizenship in France: Everyday Security and Resistance. Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(3), 475-491.

Parker, O., & Catalán, Ó.L. (2014). Free Movement for Whom, Where, When? Roma EU Citizens in France and Spain. International Political Sociology, 8(4), 379-395.

Q&A: France Roma expulsions. (2010, October 19). BBC News. https://olwww.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11027288

Saltmarsh, M. (2010, July 29). Sarkozy Toughens on Illegal Roma. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/world/europe/30france.html

Suddath, C. (2010, August 26). “Who Are Gypsies, and Why Is France Deporting Them?”. Time. https://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2013917,00.html

The Roma who live and beg on the streets of Paris. (2012, August 23). France24. https://www.france24.com/en/20120823-roma-who-live-beg-streets-paris-romania-bulgaria-employment-gypsy-socialist-government

Traynor, I. (2010, September 14). Roma deportations by France a disgrace, says EU. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/14/roma-deportations-france-eu-disgrace

Vie publique. (2022a, August 22). La dissolution de l’Assemblée nationale, une arme présidentielle? https://www.vie-publique.fr/fiches/19442-la-dissolution-de-lassemblee-nationale-une-arme-presidentielle

Vie publique. (2022b, September 12). La motion de censure: véritable moyen de contrôle? https://www.vie-publique.fr/fiches/19523-la-motion-de-censure-veritable-moyen-de-controle

Willsher, K. (2010, September 12). Orders to police on Roma expulsions from France leaked. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/13/sarkozy-roma-expulsion-human-rights