conceptual framework that deepens our understanding of nonviolent resistance and its potential to challenge oppressive regimes. Hunger strikes as a non-instrumental act of radical recognition So far, an argument has been made that, first, migrant hunger strikes constitute a form of civic participation, specifically as an act of (political) resistance, and second, that this resistance is paradoxically peaceful, as its inherent violence is solely self-directed. Many studies and public discourse frame migrant resistance as motivated by the aim of obtaining asylum. While this approach—often the target of ‘blackmail’ accusations—can partially explain aspects of migrant resistance, it falls short of explaining its ‘expressive’ aspect (Bargu, 2017: 7). Bodily selfviolence in the form of hunger strikes can also serve an instrumental purpose, albeit in a more indirect manner than straightforward demands, if understood as a means of communicating suffering in the absence of other options or as a last resort (Aitchison and Essex, 2024: 790). Focusing on the specifically self-directed violence of migrant hunger strikes sharpens the analytical lens beyond mere instrumentality, highlighting their expressive dimension. The suffering of migrant detainees, obscured through their illegalization, is ‘brought into view through attention to the hunger strike’s ambiguous relationship to violence’ (Aitchison, 2021: 11). A plea for respect Migrant hunger strikes, under a border criminology framework, can be seen as detainees’ plea for respect in the midst of an all-encompassing detention and deportation system that is democratically deficient and deprives them of agency. The conditions to which detainees are subjected, in many countries around the world, ‘are an affront to human dignity’ (CPT, 2020: 14), and detainees are stripped of any reliable means of institutional redress. In Aitchison’s and Essex’s study, a detainee stated that he believed that ‘Australia is run by a democratic government. But for us, there is no democracy,’ while another detainee mentioned that, ‘We had access to no judiciary system, courts, judges, nothing… there are no jurisdictions that you can rely on’ (2024: 790). Fiske’s research with former detainees at the Woomera detention centre in Australia, who called for the resumption of claim processing and better detention conditions, highlights their struggle for recognition as human beings within the detention regime. Without prompting, all participants asserted, ‘I am human’ or ‘We are human’. One detainee stressed the need for basic respect: ‘I’m not asking for perfection, just to be treated as human, not an object’ (Fiske 2016: 25). Another linked respect to humanity: ‘Animals obey because you feed them; they don’t understand respect. But humans do’ (ibid: 19). Another noted, ‘Refugee or criminal—we’re all treated the same’ (ibid: 20). At its core, ‘We are human’ resists the dehumanization imposed by illegalization. As Bargu (2017: 10) notes, similar to traditional forms of protest, migrant hunger strikes can draw attention to the dire conditions and the catastrophic inadequacies of detention. They expose legal limbo, indefinite confinement, lack of counsel, and unchecked discretion in * Published as Kourakis, F. (2025). Migrant hunger strikes as radical recognition. Justice, Power and Resistance, 1-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1332/26352338Y2025D000000053