in the UK, Immigration Minister Caroline Nokes justified official warnings to hunger strikers at Yarl’s Wood by warning of possible accelerated deportation (The Guardian, 2018). Unlike other forms of sacrificial resistance, hunger strikes confront institutional power by ‘setting the biological rhythms of the human body against the institutional time of a bureaucratic system whose power rests to a great extent on deferral and delay’ (Ó Dochartaigh, 2021: 166). A psychological and moralistic framing of hunger strikes strips them of their political meaning, allowing authorities to evade accountability and shifting attention away from the grievances fueling protest. This marginalizes the structural violence of detention. A border criminology perspective challenges these narratives, revealing how punitive and medical responses work together to delegitimize protest and uphold carceral systems of border control. Basic tenets of border criminology The language used by authorities and the media—depicting migrants as ‘illegals’, ‘invaders’, or ‘bogus asylum seekers’ (e.g. Bhatia, 2018) fuels hostility and legitimizes punitive measures that deny basic protections. Legal frameworks further entrench this dehumanization, exposing non-citizens to prolonged detention, deportation, and systematically denying them access to justice (Barker, 2024: 377). These developments have produced a parallel system of control that punishes non-citizens without full legal protections (Kourakis, 2025). In this context, border criminology studies how states actively frame non-citizens as ‘illegals’, criminals, or economic burdens, rather than as individuals with rights. Importantly, border criminology is not a unified or monolithic framework. It spans diverse perspectives, from empirical and human rights critiques of detention practices, to legal and socio-legal analyses of ‘crimmigration’ (Stumpf, 2006). This paper draws on the justice framework proposed by Barker (2024), which is organized around three principles: (1) respect for persons, (2) nonviolence, and (3) civic engagement. Respect, in this account, extends beyond legal status, national origin, or territorial boundaries. It challenges state authority, disrupts social hierarchies, and subverts the status quo (Barker, 2024: 376). It entails a commitment to recognizing all individuals—citizens and non-citizens alike—as moral equals with the capacity to participate in social and political life. Nonviolence challenges the normalization of state violence, particularly when directed at marginalized or racialized populations. By embracing self-destruction, hunger strikers challenge the border violence which is frequently justified in the name of national security and identity, reinforcing racialized hierarchies (Bowling and Westenra, 2020). Civic engagement manifests through direct action, legal advocacy, and solidarity networks. Hunger strikes, for example, mobilize human rights organizations, legal teams, and activist groups to amplify detainees’ voices and demand accountability. These movements aim not only to improve detention conditions but to transform the structures that define political belonging. These principles offer a normative lens to view migrant hunger strikes as acts of radical recognition—asserting the strikers’ humanity and claim to fundamental respect. Recognition here is not about affirming a group-specific identity but about acknowledging individuals as full participants in social life (Fraser, 2000: 113). Misrecognition is more than a distortion of identity; it signifies social subordination that denies individuals equal participation (ibid). * Published as Kourakis, F. (2025). Migrant hunger strikes as radical recognition. Justice, Power and Resistance, 1-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1332/26352338Y2025D000000053