Unpacking the unintended consequences of European migration governance: the case of South American migration policy liberalisation

Author(s):  
Leiza Brumat ◽  
Luisa Feline Freier
2006 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 290-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Straubhaar

Race & Class ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 40-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tazreena Sajjad

Through a critical examination of European immigration policy and using the case of Afghan asylum seekers in the European continent, this article argues that the politics of labelling and the criminalisation and securitisation of migration undermine the protection framework for the globally displaced. However, the issue goes deeper than state politicking to circumvent responsibilities under international law. The construction of migrants as victims at best, and as cultural and security threats at worst, particularly in the case of Muslim refugees, not only assists in their dehumanisation, it also legitimises actions taken against them through the perpetuation of a particular discourse on the European Self and the non-European Other. At one level, such a dynamic underscores the long-standing struggle of Europe to articulate its identity within the economic, demographic and cultural anxieties produced by the dynamics of globalisation. At another, these existing constructions, which hierarchise ‘worthiness’, are limited in their reflection of the complex realities that force people to seek refuge. Simultaneously, the labels, and the discourse of which they are part, make it possible for Europe to deny asylum claims and expedite deportations while being globally accepted as a human rights champion. This process also makes it possible for Europe to categorise turbulent contexts such as Afghanistan as a ‘safe country’, even at a time when the global refugee protection regime demands creative expansion. Ultimately, the politics of European migration policy illustrates the evolution of European Orientalist discourse – utilised in the past to legitimise colonisation and domination, now used to legitimise incarceration and deportation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 677-692
Author(s):  
Rachael DICKSON

The so-called European migration crisis has sparked significant attention from scholars and raises questions about the role of solidarity between states and the European Union (EU) in providing policy solutions. Tension exists between upholding the rights of those seeking entry and pooling resources between Member States to provide a fair and efficient migration system. This article deconstructs the shifts that have occurred in EU migration policy since 2015 to highlight how narratives of health have become tools of governance. It does so to illuminate how health narratives operate to minimise the impact that conflicts on the nature and substance of EU solidarity have on policy development in response to the perceived crisis. A governmentality lens is used to analyse the implications of increasingly prescribed policy applications based on screening and categorising, and how measures operate to responsibilise migrants and third-countries to act according to EU values. It is argued this approach to governance results in migrants facing legal uncertainty in terms of accessing their rights and excludes them from the EU political space, which is problematic for how EU governance can be understood.


1994 ◽  
Vol 73 (6) ◽  
pp. 171
Author(s):  
Fritz Stern ◽  
Sarah Collinson

Author(s):  
Katrina J. Davis ◽  
Joanna Alfaro-Shigueto ◽  
William N.S. Arlidge ◽  
Michael Burton ◽  
Jeffrey C. Mangel ◽  
...  

AbstractGlobally, the populations of many marine mammals remain of critical concern after centuries of exploitation and hunting. However, some marine mammal populations (e.g. pinnipeds) have largely recovered from exploitation, and interactions between these species and fisheries—particularly small-scale fisheries—is once again of concern globally. The large scope and widespread scale of interactions highlights the local disconnect between two global policies: marine mammal conservation and small-scale fisheries protection. In this research, we explore these conflicting global policies by assessing the perceptions of coastal small-scale fishers in Peru and Chile regarding their interactions with pinnipeds, including the South American sea lion (Otaria flavescens) and South American fur seal (Arctocephalus australis). We surveyed 301 gill net fishers and assess perceptions using a best-worst scaling methodology. We find that fishers are chiefly concerned with the increase in pinniped populations, perceive that their interactions with pinnipeds have significantly increased over the past 80 years, and report pinniped-driven catch and income losses ≥ 26 per cent. Surprisingly, fishers do not believe that compensation schemes will resolve this issue—instead they overwhelmingly call for pinniped population culls. The reported number of pinnipeds illegally killed by fishers suggests the potential for large negative impacts on these protected species, and a loss of legitimacy in marine regulation. Collectively, our results portray a sense of marginalisation from fishers’—that global policy treats them as less “important” than marine mammals. Our results highlight the increasing disconnect in global policy, which on one hand seeks to protect threatened marine mammal populations, and on the other seeks to promote the welfare of small-scale fishers.


2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 487-496
Author(s):  
Victoria Finn ◽  
Cristián Doña-Reveco

Regional Consultative Processes (RCPs) have become a central component of migration governance; these are the loci of interstate migration policy discussions. Currently, 15 RCPs meet worldwide in every region, except the Caribbean, to form non-binding agreements and to coordinate migration policy approaches. Building on previous reports, migration governance literature, and existent thematic analyses specific to the region, we evaluate RCPs’ multilevel migration policy coordination by comparing national laws to regional topics and accords. We compare two decades of national legislation in all 12 South American countries to regional discussion at the South American Conference on Migration (SACM) since its first annual meeting in 2000. We find synergies and discrepancies between translating regional migration governance strategies from the RCP into national-level migration management. The SACM has reinforced the member states’ focus on regional integration and provided a space for dialogue to agree on approaches and best practices. Yet, countries have not uniformly incorporated these into national legislation. Our multilevel analysis reveals the complexities that RCPs face in overcoming regional-national discrepancies in immigration policy coordination.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document