An Innovative Framework on Spatial Boundary Optimization of Multiple International Designated Land Use

The continuous improvement of international protection awareness has dramatically increased the number of protection organizations and promoted various reserve-naming methods. However, the existing global natural reserves have either fully or partially overlapped, thereby allowing the same region to hold various international titles, resulting in serious issues, which are especially manifested in the boundary delimitation process of natural reserves. Therefore, delimiting the titles of reserve borders will become an enormous challenge in protected-area governance worldwide. This study conducted an in-depth investigation of the technical methods for delineating the spatial boundaries of natural reserves. Taking Jiangshan Nature Reserve in China as the case object, the Candidate Area–Natural background–Heritage Resource–Construction (C-NHC) framework was constructed, and the boundaries of the new reserves were delineated. This study has changed the status quo of the spatial overlap of the reserve through the quantitative evaluation of the conflict patches and the triple optimization of the boundary of the reserve. The area of the new reserve is 150.524 km2, which is 6.682 km2 larger than the original one. The original reserves are all included within the scope of the new one. This study provides guidance and new insights into the boundary delineation of integrated nature reserves worldwide.

Schengen Borders and Multiple National States of Emergency: From Refugees to Terrorism to COVID-19

The re-introduction of intra-Schengen state border controls has been a constant feature of the area since the abolition of those controls in 1995. The seriousness of the controls introduced and the justifications which have been put forward for them have varied substantially. At the moment there are three overlapping regimes of temporarily reintroduced border controls in the area: those reintroduced to counter terrorism, those reintroduced to counter so-called secondary movements (the movement of people seeking international protection within the Schengen area) and those introduced to counter the spread of COVID-19. The article examines the three frameworks of temporary controls, the justifications provided by states using them for their operation, and the response of the EU institutions.

A Comparative Analysis on International Refugee Law and Temporary Protection in the Context of Turkey

The Syrian civil war prompted a large number of people to flee their country and seek asylum in other countries, making Turkey a leading host country with around 3.6 million of asylum seekers. Syrian asylum seekers in Turkey are under temporary protection regime. This article examines Turkish temporary protection regime in comparison with international protection standards and human rights law, especially with the UNHCR Guideline and European Union legislation on temporary protection and European Court on Human Rights judgements. In this respect, this article argues that Turkish legislation has met the fundamental requirements of international protection law and standards, however, still needs to be improved in some crucial areas. In this regard, the international protection law and the difference between the status of refugee and temporary protection is explored. Subsequently, declaration of temporary protection in case of a mass-influx, the rights and freedoms covered under temporary protection, non-refoulement principle and termination of temporary protection regime under Turkish Temporary Protection Regulation are discussed and compared with the international standards. Finally, some conclusions and recommendations for the improvement are deduced from this discussion.

The paradigm of the migration crisis and its influence on national legislation on irregular migration

The aim of this article is to provide a detailed study of the ways in which the paradigm of crisis has influenced the law and practice of European countries in the field of irregular migration. Bearing in mind that the perception of “crisis” is ambiguous and does not have legal definition, the first part of this paper will provide a clarification of its scope and some contexts in which it is used. Secondly, labelling some situations as “crises” requires some urgent and unusual actions. Hence, it is important to indicate what types of legal measures and normative solutions, therefore, prevail nowadays in the practice of states. The countries that are particularly interesting in this context include Germany, Sweden, and Denmark, whose migration policies have, over the course of the past few years, decisively shifted from a relatively open approach towards more restrictive solutions. Although the crisis in the migration context is defined bipolarly, a characteristic feature of the paradigm shift is focusing on the elimination or at least limitation of the presence of foreigners on the territory of the statethrough border controls, obstruction of access to international protection and family reunification, as well as increasing the effectiveness of forced returns. The result of these consideration has led to the conclusion that on the one hand the authorities’ rhetoric of crisis not automatically mean the use of special and emergency measures foreseen by law. On the other hand, the narrative referring to defeat and catastrophe justified the introduction of controversial solutions in a hurry, often with disregard for the detailed analyses and regulatory impactassessment, which are common in such cases. At the same time, the determinant of the shape of the migration law is the “temporariness” inherent in the crisis paradigm. One of its most important elements is the departure from long-term residence permits, guaranteeing a certain stability in connection with international protection, in favour of short-term permits.

Ireland's White Paper to End Direct Provision (2021): Migrant Accommodation and Control

This IMR Dispatch engages with Ireland's White Paper to End Direct Provision (2021) - the Government of Ireland's most recent policy statement on the provision of settlement services for migrants seeking asylum in Ireland. The actions outlined in the White Paper promise to reorder the provision of accommodation and support for such migrants. A range of positive inputs are included, the most significant of which is the proposed discontinuation of Ireland's current system of dispersed ‘camp-like’ communal accommodations for International Protection applicants and its replacement with a new person-centered system of ‘own room’ and ‘own door’ accommodations in the community. A wide range of personal supports are envisaged as well. At first glance, this White Paper shows that the Government of Ireland has engaged with the concerns of organizations active in Ireland's social protection sector in general, and with the needs of applicants for international protection in particular, to provide a more humane system of International Protection. However, tensions are discernible, and we contend that there is ample evidence of the Government of Ireland's impulse to retain command and control of its migration management processes in the White Paper, even against the background of its new, more human-rights-based approach. We suggest that the spatialities inherent in the proposal point to a potential rearticulation of state control rather than to any diminution of same.

The Socioeconomic Integration of People in Need of International Protection: A Spatial Approach in the Case of Greece

This paper explores the impact of dispersal policy of asylum seekers in Greece under the accommodation scheme running in the country. Combining an analysis of secondary data and the findings of field research through semi-structured interviews with stakeholders in migration governance, the authors seek to identify whether there are differences in the integration prospects between the residents of the camps, which are mostly outside cities or in rural areas, and the beneficiaries of urban autonomous living. The contribution of this paper lies in that it brings into the spotlight the spatial criterion for the evaluation of integration both under the lens of rural–urban placement as well as under the lens of collective-autonomous living. To this end, it follows the integration policies and practices implemented at national and local levels and compares the access granted to people in need of international protection and their outcomes. The findings are in accordance with the literature supporting that the positive impact of urban autonomous living in socioeconomic integration usually prevails the residence in rural collective housing. However, it points out the importance of local actors in the success of integration efforts.