Dislodged from History, Confronted by Walls : Picturing Migration as a Global Emergency

Author(s):  
Dora Apel

This essay examines select visual representations of refugees and migrants as embodied subjects in photography, art, and video. It focuses on American asylum politics and explores the questions of free movement, the right to have rights, and the ethics and efficacy of border walls. It argues that the catastrophe of global forced displacement makes the elimination of national borders and the nation state itself a revolutionary necessity.

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 175-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacques P. Ramírez G.

Ecuador’s new constitution, approved in 2008, establishes the basis for a new model of the nation-state, characterized as progressively transnational, that attempts to protect both Ecuadoreans living abroad and foreigners residing in the country. It recognizes the right to migrate and the transnational family and advocates universal citizenship, the free movement of all inhabitants of the planet, and the eventual end of the status of foreigner as an element of the transformation of unequal relations between countries.En la nueva constitución de la República del Ecuador, probada en el año 2008, se sienta las bases de un nuevo modelo de Estado-Nación de carácter cada vez más transnacional que intenta velar por las y los ecuatorianos radicados en el exterior, así como por las personas extranjeras residentes en el país. Reconoce el derecho a migrar, la familia transnacional, ciudadanía universal, la libre movilidad de todos los habitantes del planeta y el progresivo fin de la condición de extranjero como elemento transformador de las relaciones desiguales entre los países.


Author(s):  
Sarah Song

Chapter 6 examines three rights-based arguments for freedom of movement across borders. Three rights-based arguments have been offered in support of freedom of international movement. The first claims that freedom of movement is a fundamental human right in itself. The second adopts a “cantilever” strategy, arguing that freedom of international movement is a logical extension of existing fundamental rights, including the right of domestic free movement and the right to exit one’s country. The third argument is libertarian: international free movement is necessary to respect individual freedom of association and contract. This chapter shows why these arguments fail to justify a general right to free movement across the globe. What is morally required is not a general right of international free movement but an approach that privileges those whose basic human rights are at stake.


Bioderecho.es ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gloria María González Suárez

Con motivo de la situación actual a la que nos enfrentamos por la pandemia de la COVID-19 se ha planteado en diversas ocasiones la implantación de un certificado verde digital. El 17 de marzo de 2021 la Comisión Europea presentó una propuesta de creación del certificado con el fin de facilitar el ejercicio del derecho a la libre circulación dentro de la Unión Europea durante la pandemia. Todo ello plantea diversas cuestiones jurídicas en cuanto a la protección de datos sanitarios, el derecho a la libre circulación y la eficacia y proporcionalidad de medidas que deben ser objeto de análisis tanto desde el punto de vista jurídico como del punto de vista ético ya que, en ciertas ocasiones la aplicación de medidas puede afectar al derecho a la igualdad de los ciudadanos. Due to the current situation we are facing due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the implementation of a digital green certificate has been proposed on several occasions. On March 17, 2021, the European Commission presented a proposal to create the certificate in order to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement within the European Union during the pandemic. All this raises various legal questions regarding the protection of health data, the right of free movement and the efficacy and proportionality of measures that must be analyzed from both the legal and ethical point of view since, on certain occasions the application of measures may affect the right of equality of citizens.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 12-62
Author(s):  
Raina Nikolova

The article analyzes the Bulgarian administrative legal framework on emergencies (state of emergency, crisis management and overcoming, emergency situation and emergency epidemic situation). It indicates the temporary restrictions of the right of free movement of the citizens provided in the legislation. The article discusses the competence of the central executive authorities, interdepartmental bodies and territorial authorities (regional governors and mayors) to deal with a pandemic. The article discusses also the legal basis and justifications for the introduction of the curfew by some of the regional governors and mayors during the state of emergency, caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19).


2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-28
Author(s):  
Martijn van den Brink

Abstract It is almost ten years since Ruiz Zambrano decided that Article 20 TFEU precludes national measures which deprive EU citizens of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of their citizenship rights. The CJEU has since then clarified when the substance of rights test applies. This article highlights several inconsistencies and unresolved puzzles in the case law. First, contrary to what was initially suggested, EU citizens can be deprived of the substance of their rights. Second, contrary to what initial judgments suggested, the substance of rights test is not independent of but grounded in the right to free movement. This suggests that the same level of protection can be provided to EU citizens without this test, simply by relying on EU free movement law. The paper concludes by suggesting that these deficiencies can only be resolved by reconsidering the substance of rights test altogether.


2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willem Maas

Abstract This article surveys some general lessons to be drawn from the tension between the promise of citizenship to deliver equality and the particularistic drive to maintain diversity. Democratic states tend to guarantee free movement within their territory to all citizens, as a core right of citizenship. Similarly, the European Union guarantees (as the core right of EU citizenship) the right to live and the right to work anywhere within EU territory to EU citizens and members of their families. Such rights reflect the project of equality and undifferentiated individual rights for all who have the status of citizen. But they are not uncontested. Within the EU, several member states propose to reintroduce border controls and to restrict access for EU citizens who claim social assistance. Similar tensions and attempts to discourage freedom of movement also exist in other political systems, and the article gives examples from the United States and Canada. Within democratic states, particularly federal ones and others where decentralized jurisdictions are responsible for social welfare provision, it thus appears that some citizens can be more equal than others. Principles such as benefit portability, prohibition of residence requirements for access to programs or rights, and mutual recognition of qualifications and credentials facilitate the free flow of people within states and reflect the attempt to eliminate internal borders. Within the growing field of migration studies, most research focuses on international migration, movement between states, involving international borders. But migration across jurisdictional boundaries within states is at least as important as international migration. Within the European Union, free movement often means changing residence across jurisdictional boundaries within a political system with a common citizenship, even though EU citizenship is not traditional national citizenship. The EU is thus a good test of the tension between the equality promised by common citizenship and the diversity institutionalized by borders.


Author(s):  
Robert Walters

Most people across the world automatically assume citizenship at birth or acquire citizenship by descent or naturalisation. Since the growth of the concept of citizenship from the French and American Revolutions, it has become an important principle to the nation state and individual. Citizenship is the right to have rights. However, the right to citizenship is limited. In some cases when territorial rule changes the citizenship laws may exclude individuals resident in the territory. This article compares the development of the first citizenship laws in Australia and Slovenia, and the impact that these new laws had on the residents of both states. The first citizenship laws established by Australia were in 1948. More than forty years later in 1990, when Slovenia finally obtained independence from the former Yugoslavia, the new country was able to establish their own citizenship laws. The result of the Slovenian citizenship laws saw many former Yugoslav citizens who were resident in Slovenia being without citizenship of any state. Subsequently, these people were declared stateless. On the other hand, for Australia, the outcome was relatively smooth with the transition from British subjects to Australian citizenship.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document