scholarly journals Co-responsibility between countries of origin, transit and destination: Lessons from Spain’s experience with migration

European View ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharina Senge
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Subsequent Development ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
Refugee Crisis ◽  
Irregular Migration ◽  
Migration Policies ◽  
The Past ◽  
Common Goals ◽  
Human Rights Standards ◽  
External Migration

This article gives an overview of Spain’s experience of regular and irregular migration in the past and of the subsequent development of the EU’s framework for external migration policies. It argues for a realistic rather than ideological approach that involves co-responsibility between countries of origin, transit and destination, in compliance with human rights standards. Co-responsibility means a system in which migrants’ countries of origin, transit and destination share the burden of dealing with both regular and irregular migration whenever possible. Such a system is sometimes characterised by long and difficult discussions and negotiations to define common goals and balance interests in the spirit of a partnership of equals. This article first tackles immigration in Spain, with an emphasis on the 2006 Spanish refugee crisis or the ‘Cayucos crisis’. It then looks at EU migration policy, before recommending ways of improving it.

Re-Conceptualizing the Right to Seek and Obtain Asylum in International Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-332
Author(s):  
Salvatore Fabio Nicolosi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
Triggering Factor ◽  
The Right ◽  
Human Rights Standards

Over the past few years the issue of asylum has progressively become interrelated with human rights. Asylum-related stresses, including refugee flows and mass displacements, have mitigated the traditional idea of asylum as an absolute state right, in so far as international human rights standards of protection require that states may have the responsibility to provide asylum seekers with protection. Following this premise, the article argues that the triggering factor of such overturning is significantly represented by the judicial approach to the institution of asylum by regional human rights courts. After setting the background on the interrelation of asylum with human rights, this article conceptualises the right to asylum as derived from the principle of non-refoulement and to this extent it delves into the role of the two regional human rights courts, notably the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), in order to explore whether an emerging judicial cross-fertilisation may contribute to re-conceptualisation of the right to asylum from a human rights perspective.

scholarly journals The Politics of Negotiating EU Readmission Agreements: Insights from Morocco and Turkey

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Wolff
Keyword(s):  
Migration Policy ◽  
Irregular Migration ◽  
Similar Position ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Regional Factors ◽  
External Migration

Abstract The subject of this article is the politics of instrumentation of eu Readmission Agreement (eura) negotiations with Morocco and Turkey. Refusing to sign an eura for more than ten years, they share a similar position of ‘hard bargainers’. Recently though a ‘negotiation turn’ took place, Turkey initialling an eura in June 2012 and Morocco committing to sign an eura within the framework of a Mobility Partnership (mp) in June 2013. Unpacking the role of eu incentives and third countries’ preferences, this article reveals that beyond the function of this instrument to co-opt third countries in eu’s fight against irregular migration, a series of obstacles forced the eu to revise the design of eura and to take into account domestic and regional factors. This article engages with the meanings and representations carried by euras in third countries and implications for the logic of consequences and appropriateness within the framework of EU external migration policy.

Returning and Deporting Irregular Migrants: Not a Solution to the ‘Refugee Crisis’

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela DeBono
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Detailed Knowledge ◽  
Refugee Crisis ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Irregular Migrants ◽  
Returns Policy ◽  
Human Rights Standards ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Return Process

This article questions whether the presentation of the return and deportation of irregular migrants as a solution to the so-called ‘refugee crisis’ is ethical. Legally, the return of irregular migrants may be a legitimate activity by the state, but the current pressure by the European Commission on member-states to increase the current 40 percent rate of effective returns can lead them to operate returns below minimal human rights standards in a bid to increase the rate. Detailed knowledge of the impact of returns – including deportation from and to different countries – on migrants’ welfare and human rights is scarce. Based on studies on returns from EU member-states to different countries, I make three arguments. First, due to the complexity of the return process, statistics need to be unpacked better. Second, there are key conceptual problems underpinning current EU returns policy. Third, research strongly indicates that returns can render people vulnerable. In the absence of in-depth knowledge on the effects of return on migrants, I conclude with an appeal for returns to be treated with caution and their linking to the refugee crisis to be avoided.

scholarly journals Mathematical Models of Refugee Immigration and Recommendations of Policies

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qilong Cheng ◽  
Tiancheng Yu ◽  
Jingkai Yan ◽  
Ru Wang
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Mathematical Models ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Refugee Crisis ◽  
Racial Conflict ◽  
The Past ◽  
Modern Computing

<p><span lang="EN-US">Over the past two years, <span>the refugee crisis resulted from the racial conflict, persecution, generalized violence and violations of human rights has forced an enormous </span>number of refugees to flee to Europe. Aiming to address the problem caused by the flow of refugees, we analyzed the actual procedure of their movement and divide it into three major stages. We designed the gathering model, the entering model, the transferring model, even the health and safety model. Finally, we used the models described above to complete our assigned tasks. Also we put forward seven major policy recommendations to the committee. We accompanied every policy with a straightforward explanation so that people without any technical background can easily understand our insights. The main strength of our model is that it can forecast the flow of immigration and provide meaningful suggestions policies for refugees. With the help of modern computing software, we can track the current tendency and make judges efficiently.</span></p>

scholarly journals The Rise of Private Military and Security Companies in European Union Migration Policies: Implications under the UNGPs

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daria DAVITTI
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Refugee Crisis ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Migration Policies ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Current Context ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Security Companies

AbstractThis article examines the involvement of Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs) in both shaping and implementing the European Agenda on Migration (European Agenda), launched by the European Union in May 2015. The migration policies which have since been adopted have increasingly enabled the outsourcing to private security contractors of various border control operations, including those related to forced returns, administrative detention and security services for the Italian and Greek ‘hotspots’. The article argues that PMSCs frame, shape and entrench militarized responses in the European Agenda. It also contends that the current context of the European refugee ‘crisis’ meets the conditions of a high-risk context, as understood within the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). This re-definition of the refugee ‘crisis’ as a high-risk context, in turn, enables the identification of heightened human rights obligations of home states and responsibilities of companies when implementing the UNGPs.

Social work with refugees: Examining social workers’ role and practice in times of crisis in Greece

2021 ◽  
pp. 002087282110469
Author(s):  
Dimitra-Dora Teloni ◽  
Sofia Dedotsi ◽  
Alexis Lazanas ◽  
Aristeidis Telonis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Social Justice ◽  
Social Work ◽  
Social Workers ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Public Institutions ◽  
Refugee Crisis ◽  
Restricted Access ◽  
Migration Policies ◽  
The Social

Since the so-called ‘refugee crisis’ in 2015–2016, the hostile EU migration policies, the restricted access of refugees to welfare and neoliberalism have put social work in a rather difficult position. This self-funded quantitative research was carried out from June to August 2018 in Greece, addressing social workers working with refugees in various organizations, such as NGOs, public institutions and EU-funded projects. This article will present and discuss social work’s day-to-day practice with refugees and the social workers’ role as human rights defenders and claimants of social justice in the context of systematic violation of the human rights of refugees.

The dignity approach to human rights and the impaired autonomy objection

Human Affairs ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 273-285
Author(s):  
Luigi Caranti
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Contemporary Philosophy ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Past ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Standards ◽  
Kant's Ethics ◽  
Major Objection ◽  
Philosophical Questions

Abstract There is little need to argue for the importance of human rights (HRs) in our world. If one looks at the role they play today, it is hard to deny that their impact has increased beyond anything the drafters of the 1948 Universal Declaration could have hoped or imagined. However, even though human rights today have a far greater impact on politics than in the past, the philosophical reflection that surrounds them has had a less fortunate history. It is doubtful whether we are today in a better position than we were in 1948 to answer any of the philosophical questions surrounding them, including, and perhaps most crucially, the question about their foundation. Why are human rights standards—of whatever sort—that we should adopt, or even just take seriously? The first two parts of this paper summarize my recent work on the above question (Caranti, 2017) and the third takes it a step further. I will 1) show why the main orientations in the contemporary philosophy of human rights all fail to yield a satisfactory foundation, 2) sketch an alternative foundation that exploits Kant’s account of human dignity in a rather critical way; and 3) address one major objection my approach is bound to attract (and in a certain form has already attracted). Since my foundation suggests that we have dignity (and as a consequence human rights) because we are autonomous, that is, capable of moral behavior, some scholars have argued that I am bound to the counterintuitive conclusion that people with a temporary or permanent lack of rational capacity, which would cause a condition of “impaired autonomy,” are not entitled to the protection of human rights. While this objection does nothing but reformulate in the language of human rights an old, classical objection to Kant’s ethics, replying to it requires mobilizing new intellectual resources.

Provision of Remedies for Violation of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: A Comparative Study of the United Nations, Inter-American and African Human Rights Systems

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 298-318
Author(s):  
Roman Girma Teshome
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Regional Monitoring ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
The Past ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
To Receive

The effectiveness of human rights adjudicative procedures partly, if not most importantly, hinges upon the adequacy of the remedies they grant and the implementation of those remedies. This assertion also holds water with regard to the international and regional monitoring bodies established to receive individual complaints related to economic, social and cultural rights (hereinafter ‘ESC rights’ or ‘socio-economic rights’). Remedies can serve two major functions: they are meant, first, to rectify the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained by the particular victim, and second, to resolve systematic problems existing in the state machinery in order to ensure the non-repetition of the act. Hence, the role of remedies is not confined to correcting the past but also shaping the future by providing reforming measures a state has to undertake. The adequacy of remedies awarded by international and regional human rights bodies is also assessed based on these two benchmarks. The present article examines these issues in relation to individual complaint procedures that deal with the violation of ESC rights, with particular reference to the case laws of the three jurisdictions selected for this work, i.e. the United Nations, Inter-American and African Human Rights Systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document