1000 EPD: Society and Space 38(6) neo-fascist parties. Exclusion here works to maintain a liberal Europe through the effective management of disaster and an externalisation of responsibility.6 Therefore, in similar ways as refugee camps are representative of humanitarian government for both the wellbeing of refugee populations and the security of states, the hotspots share similar logics. In the rest of the article, I turn to these technocratic logics designed to bring order to both the management of life seekers as well as the individual compassion that characterised the flourishing of volunteering efforts from individuals from across-Europe and beyond in response to the ‘refugee crisis’. Building on this I argue in conclusion that the hotspot approach seeks to govern life seekers through processes of care and control but also aims to care for and control the well-being of European states. The management of disaster through the hotspots In policy documents and statements by EU officials management and order are repeated refrains when discussing the intended and current efforts of the hotspots. It is not my intention to forensically examine the presence of management and order in European narratives about the hotspots. The genealogy of the hotspot approach in European migration and border management and its slow gestation is worthy of a study in and of itself. Nor should the hotspot approach only be understood solely as a crisis or emergency response but as further consolidation of pre-existing logics of control using the mobilisation and productive nature of crisis (see Işleyen, 2018; Jeandesboz and Pallister-Wilkins, 2016). However, from their apparent first iteration the dual logics of protection or what I have termed care in this article and the restitution of order has been a present refrain. We see the dual logic of care and control, or control and care emerging from the first two paragraphs of the European Commission’s Fact Sheet on the ‘hotspot approach to managing exceptional migration flows’: The European Asylum Support Office (EASO), EU Border Agency (Frontex) EU Police Cooperation Agency (Europol) and EU Judicial Cooperation Agency (Eurojust) will work on the ground with the authorities of the frontline Member State to help to fulfill their obligations under EU law and swiftly identify, register and fingerprint incoming migrants. The work of the agencies will be complementary to one another. The Hotspot approach will also contribute to the implementation of the temporary relocation schemes proposed by the European Commission on 27 May and 9 September: people in clear need of international protection will be identified in frontline Member States for relocation to other EU Member States where their asylum application will be processed. (European Commission, 2015) These refrains also form a major component of reports for the European Parliament (Neville et al., 2016) to reports by the EU’s co-ordinator for the implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement, Maarten Verwey. My intention in the examination of how hotspots seek to effectively manage disasters through the complimentary presence and practicing of care and control is not to gauge how well they do this. From a range of reports (see HRW, 2017; MSF, 2017) and my own fieldwork experiences the extent of protection and care offered by the hotspots is highly contestable. My intention here is to examine how order comes to be re-established and maintained through the practicing of care and through claims to the logic of protection to highlight in part how care and control are concomitant and co-constitutive parts of not only the humanitarian regime but modern liberalism itself. Through this, I intend to continue to highlight, as critical humanitarianism studies has been attempting, the politics of humanitarianism. In the hotspots, the politics of protection takes