难民,跨国和国家 [6]
论文作者:Khalid Koser论文属性:硕士毕业论文 dissertation登出时间:2016-05-03编辑:anne点击率:23825
论文字数:9626论文编号:org201605021332486612语种:英语 English地区:澳大利亚价格:免费论文
关键词:难民跨国主义国家临时保护
摘要:三案例研究的形式对本文实证的重点*人的临时保护欧洲的年代,寻求庇护者向欧洲走私,和贡献厄立特里亚跨国社区在国内冲突后重建。
al interests. The growth in smuggling of asylum-seekers and refugees is analysed next. While these networks do undermine state control, they simultaneously expose asylum-seekers and refugees to insecurity and vulnerability, and thus can hardly be described as ‘liberating’. The final case study is of ‘transnationalism from below’ among refugees, analysing limits on the extent to which refugees can contribute to post-conflict reconstruction in their home countries from overseas. The Refugee Regime in Crisis In a paper commissioned by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), David Forsythe has argued that ‘Where there is conflict between UNHCR and states over what policies to pursue regarding persons of concern, most of the traditional weapons of influence rest with states. They can refer to the
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 239 traditional idea of state sovereignty, or legal right to have the last or ultimate say as to what should be done’ (Forsythe 2001: 16). The evolution of ‘temporary protection’ in Europe during the 1990s provides a practical example of how states can exert their ‘weapons of influence’. ‘Temporary protection’ emerged in Western Europe in response to the displacement of over half a million Bosnians from the war in former Yugoslavia*it was also applied later in the decade to Kosovan Albanians. It was not a single category or policy, and involved different legal and administrative rules in different EU countries. In general, however, it included the suspension or bypassing of normal asylum procedures and the conferral of temporary residence rights, on the assumption that return would take place as soon as it was safe (Koser et al. 1998). In reality, ‘temporary protection’ for Bosnians evolved quite differently (Koser and Black 1999). In most EU countries, most Bosnians eventually were granted permanent residence rights. Different criteria were used in different countries to determine who should qualify for this shift in status. In some countries (such as Denmark, France and Sweden), Bosnians were eventually processed through the asylum procedure; in others (such as Austria and Luxembourg) status was transferred en groupe for those who had regular employment and private accommodation. Only a minority in every country did not satisfy these various criteria, and they were repatriated to Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is important finally to emphasise that Germany was an exception to this general rule, and did not provide the opportunity for permanent residence rights for any Bosnians. The importance of this exception is that Germany received about 60 per cent of the Bosnians displaced in Europe*some 350,000 people. Almost all of them were repatriated from Germany, some by force. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) nevertheless declared ‘temporary protection’ a success. It was argued to represent a radical departure from the contemporary climate of increasing restrictions on asylum-seekers and refugees, and to signal a new acknowledgement on the part of states of a broader humanitarian obligation. After all, here was a mixed population of ‘genuine’ refugees and other migrants being granted access to European states and legal rights there, rather than being excluded. Closer analysis, however, casts this idea in a quite different light (Koser and Black 1999), and demonstrates how national interests far outweighed any loftier commitments to the
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。