2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 110
Author(s):  
Baskoro Wicaksono

This study describes the border management policy conducted by the central government, provinceof East Kalimantan and Nunukan. Policies such as the establishment of regulatory, institutionalstrengthening, programs and infrastructure development. The policy is getting good responsefrom the elite and the masses. On the other hand policy makers have expectations of localcommunities border synergism Sebatik Island in order to build and develop the border areas so asto break the chain of dependence on Malaysia. The research was conducted in Sebatik Island,East Kalimantan province Nunukan with the formulation of the problem (a) what policies areoriented to maintain borders, (b) How is the public response to government policy, (c) What areyour expectations of policy makers in local communities to regional border. This study usedqualitative methods to phenomenological research strategy. Techniques of data collection in thisstudy using two ways, namely in-depth interviews and secondary data view Results indicate thatthe existing policy of both the central and provincial to district borders do not solve the problembecause it is made on the island of Sebatik with other border regions. The policy does not includelocal knowledge, where it is desperately needed by the people Sebatik. In addition to policies onprograms and infrastructure development of the center, the district adopted a policy of inactionagainst the illegal cross-border trade, which on the one hand against the rules but if enforced thenpeople can not perform economic activities that impact well-being. Policies like this gets a positiveresponse from the public. Expectations for the future border policy is to load local content orlocal knowledge.Keyword: border policy, local knowledge, dependent relationship


Author(s):  
Christelle Fischer‐Bovet ◽  
Patrick Sänger
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-48
Author(s):  
Kate Ogg ◽  
Chanelle Taoi

Abstract COVID-19 has presented a number of challenges for the international refugee protection regime. An issue that has received little attention is the relationship between states tightening their borders in an effort to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and their non-refoulement obligations. This raises the question of how international law responds when non-refoulement obligations may conflict with other international human rights such as the rights to life and health. Further, the legal analysis of whether a particular COVID-19 border policy is in violation of non-refoulement obligations must take into account how the travel restriction will be implemented. This article provides an overarching analysis of non-refoulement provisions in international refugee and human rights law and which COVID-19 international travel restrictions may be in breach of these obligations. We examine different types of COVID-19 travel restrictions and argue that many are undoubtedly violations of non-refoulement, but others raise unsettled questions of international law. Nevertheless, there is jurisprudence and scholarship to support the proposition that a state’s non-refoulement obligations can be triggered even in these more contested scenarios.


2020 ◽  
Vol 117 (43) ◽  
pp. 26692-26702
Author(s):  
Hélène Benveniste ◽  
Michael Oppenheimer ◽  
Marc Fleurbaey

Migration may be increasingly used as adaptation strategy to reduce populations’ exposure and vulnerability to climate change impacts. Conversely, either through lack of information about risks at destinations or as outcome of balancing those risks, people might move to locations where they are more exposed to climatic risk than at their origin locations. Climate damages, whose quantification informs understanding of societal exposure and vulnerability, are typically computed by integrated assessment models (IAMs). Yet migration is hardly included in commonly used IAMs. In this paper, we investigate how border policy, a key influence on international migration flows, affects exposure and vulnerability to climate change impacts. To this aim, we include international migration and remittance dynamics explicitly in a widely used IAM employing a gravity model and compare four scenarios of border policy. We then quantify effects of border policy on population distribution, income, exposure, and vulnerability and of CO2 emissions and temperature increase for the period 2015 to 2100 along five scenarios of future development and climate change. We find that most migrants tend to move to areas where they are less exposed and vulnerable than where they came from. Our results confirm that migration and remittances can positively contribute to climate change adaptation. Crucially, our findings imply that restrictive border policy can increase exposure and vulnerability, by trapping people in areas where they are more exposed and vulnerable than where they would otherwise migrate. These results suggest that the consequences of migration policy should play a greater part in deliberations about international climate policy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document