难民,跨国和国家 [7]
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:23826
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。
international refugee regime. First, it is important to recognise that ‘temporary protection’ emerged as a political compromise. UNHCR felt compelled to promote temporary protection because of concerns that otherwise states would refuse admission to Bosnians. For states, this new policy had a number of advantages: normal asylum procedures were circumvented so that no additional strain was added to the asylum system; public support could be maintained by stressing the temporary nature of the status, and repatriation was considered an easier and less disruptive solution than is often the case for refugees as no formal process had to be initiated to withdraw status. Most importantly, ‘temporary protection’ was not a status enshrined in international law, but instead was located within national legal and administrative edicts. All decisions
240 K. Koser concerning the granting and removal of the status were firmly within the executive power of the state, rather than being subject to binding international agreements such as the Geneva Convention. Second, while it is true that at least initially no effort was made to distinguish between ‘genuine’ refugees and other migrants, this distinction later formed the main criterion in several countries for the transferral of the status of Bosnians to permanent residence rights. In all of these countries, those Bosnians who did not satisfy the criteria for refugee status were repatriated. Furthermore, the observation that the majority of Bosnians did satisfy the criteria for refugee status begs the question why were they not granted refugee status via a summary procedure upon arrival? To provide basic rights under ‘temporary protection’ to ‘genuine refugees’ is an improvement upon incarcerating them during a lengthy asylum procedure, but, objectively, is hardly evidence for fulfilling a humanitarian obligation. Finally, of course, the majority of Bosnians in Europe, whether or not they were ‘genuine’ refugees, were repatriated *sometimes by force*as they were located in Germany where no provision was made for their status to be examined or transmuted. Third, in those countries where Bosnians were not processed via the asylum procedure, one of the most prevalent sets of criteria for transferring status related to economic integration, in the form of regular employment and private accommodation. In other words, only those Bosnians who had integrated in the labour market were accepted on a permanent basis*those who represented a strain on the public purse were not. The implication is that state interests, rather than a broader international responsibility, largely determined the response to Bosnians in the EU. A fourth reason for scepticism that ‘temporary protection’ represented a ‘new departure’ for European states arises from analysis of its evolution since the Bosnian displacement. What is particularly striking is that, even though the status was enshrined in national systems by the time of the conflict in Kosovo towards the end of the 1990s, very few displaced Kosovars were granted ‘temporary protection’ in EU states, despite the fact that their circumstances were broadly comparable to those of the Bosnians before them (Koser 2000a). Instead they were maintained in refugee camps in neighbouring Macedonia, and those who did reach Western Europe were entered into the asylum procedure. Neither of course has ‘temporary protection’ been extended to other asylum-seekers who have continued to
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。