Paper short abstract:

This paper studies the Bluewaters eviction proceedings against victims of xenophobic attacks from a safety site in Cape Town, and the way in which litigation shapes the performance of vulnerability and refugee identity. It explores the relationship between international refugee status and liminal spaces, as played out in the theatre of a local court.

Paper long abstract:

In May 2008, refugees and asylum seekers living in townships and informal settlements throughout South Africa were subjected to prolonged and violent xenophobic attacks by local residents, forcing them to flee their homes and seek shelter in 'safety sites' provided by the government. A year later, a group of refugees and asylum seekers resisted the City of Cape Town's attempt to evict them from one such site - Bluewaters. This paper considers the implications of the eviction proceedings in the High Court of South Africa, and the way in which the demands of litigation shape the performance of vulnerability and refugee identity. By mobilizing State-sanctioned definitions of vulnerability typically used to interpolate and classify refugee bodies, the group re/presented themselves through the same classifications in order to compel the State to provide meaningful protection. Refugees and asylum seekers insisted on their legal status, thus investing the local site with international significance and challenging the application of eviction laws to a refugee crisis. They also drew on the principle of ubuntu, thus reshaping Bluewaters from a site of displacement and exile into a space of self-emplacement and belonging. The invocation of an African ethical principal also firmly locates and localizes the site and the obligations of the State. Using Bluewaters as a case study, this paper explores the relationship between the apparent certainties of international legal status and the insecurities of liminal spaces, as played out in the theatre of a national court.