Suchergebnisse

Delegating Responsibility explores the politics of migration in the European Union and explains how the EU responded to the 2015–17 refugee crisis. Based on 86 interviews and fieldwork in Greece and Italy, Nicholas R. Micinski proposes a new theory of international cooperation on international migration. States approach migration policies in many ways—such as coordination, collaboration, subcontracting, and unilateralism—but which policy they choose is based on capacity and on credible partners on the ground. Micinski traces the fifty-year evolution of EU migration management, like border security and asylum policies, and shows how EU officials used "crises" as political leverage to further Europeanize migration governance. In two in-depth case studies, he explains how Italy and Greece responded to the most recent refugee crisis. He concludes with a discussion of policy recommendations regarding contemporary as well as long-term aspirations for migration management in the EU.

Delegating Responsibility explores the politics of migration in the European Union and explains how the EU responded to the 2015–17 refugee crisis. Based on 86 interviews and fieldwork in Greece and Italy, Nicholas R. Micinski proposes a new theory of international cooperation on international migration. States approach migration policies in many ways—such as coordination, collaboration, subcontracting, and unilateralism—but which policy they choose is based on capacity and on credible partners on the ground. Micinski traces the fifty-year evolution of EU migration management, like border security and asylum policies, and shows how EU officials used "crises" as political leverage to further Europeanize migration governance. In two in-depth case studies, he explains how Italy and Greece responded to the most recent refugee crisis. He concludes with a discussion of policy recommendations regarding contemporary as well as long-term aspirations for migration management in the EU.

UN Global Compacts is a concise introduction to the key concepts, issues, and actors in global migration governance and presents a comprehensive analysis of the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, the Global Compact on Refugees, and the Global Compact for Migration. The book places the declaration and compacts within their historical context, traces the evolution of global migration governance, and evaluates the implementation of the compacts. Ultimately, the global compacts were the result of three wider shifts in global governance from hard to soft law, from rights to aid, and from Cold War politics to nationalism. The book is an important contribution to international relations and migration studies and provides essential information on the NY declaration and the global compacts, in addition to an examination of the: • Negotiating blocs and strategies • Populist backlash to the Global Compact for Migration • Responsibility sharing for refugee protection • Human rights of migrants • Principle of non-refoulement • Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework • UNHCR, IOM, and the UN Network on Migration.

Delegating Responsibility explores the politics of migration in the European Union and explains how the EU responded to the 2015–17 refugee crisis. Based on 86 interviews and fieldwork in Greece and Italy, Nicholas R. Micinski proposes a new theory of international cooperation on international migration. States approach migration policies in many ways—such as coordination, collaboration, subcontracting, and unilateralism—but which policy they choose is based on capacity and on credible partners on the ground. Micinski traces the fifty-year evolution of EU migration management, like border security and asylum policies, and shows how EU officials used "crises" as political leverage to further Europeanize migration governance. In two in-depth case studies, he explains how Italy and Greece responded to the most recent refugee crisis. He concludes with a discussion of policy recommendations regarding contemporary as well as long-term aspirations for migration management in the EU.

In 2012, 2016 and 2018–2019, Pakistan threatened to expel Afghan refugees and in 2015, 2016 and 2019, Kenya threatened to demolish the Dadaab camp and expel Somali refugees. Following the threats, the governments extracted more than $300 million aid, combined. Why did these states succeed in extracting aid despite their relatively weak status and not bordering the target of their blackmail? This article first situates refugee expulsion within the literature on refugee policies, migration diplomacy and refugee rentier states. Second, in two cases – Somalis in Kenya and Afghans in Pakistan – I show how states used the threat of expulsion to construct and leverage the deportability of their refugee communities as a foreign policy tool. States used the legal uncertainty around deportability to channel threats and violence toward refugees, but the primary audience of the threats were not refugees, but the international community. Officials in Kenya and Pakistan used threats paired with six-month or one-year delays as negotiation tactics to extract aid. Surprisingly, states that were generous hosts to refugees become strategically important because of their role in providing regional stability, which turned otherwise weak states into important allies that could threaten expulsion and extract aid from superpowers.

AbstractHow can countries balance demands for national security while remaining committed to humanitarian protection? In 2016, the United States and European Union agreed to resettle significant numbers of refugees. Some politicians, including President Trump, argued that refugees are a security threat, even though there are few refugees connected to terrorism. This article investigates how the United States and Sweden screened for terrorism with Iraqi asylum seekers from 2003‐2013, in order to discover how states balance protection and security. This study finds significant policy convergence in three areas (security checks and databases, interagency cooperation, and safety valve programmes), but retains different definitions of terrorism. Policy convergence was driven by international law, UNHCR guidance notes, and international conferences. The study concludes by discussing the policy implications for "extreme vetting" and the use of future safety valve programmes.
Policy Implications


From 2003‐2013, both the US and Sweden added new security checks, databases, and interagency cooperation. One lesson is that in response to perceived security threats, states often add new layers of bureaucracy and technologies, resulting in slower, more burdensome processes.

To overcome these barriers, both the US and Sweden created safety value immigration programmes to relieve the pressure from overwhelming demand from Iraqi asylum‐seekers. Policymakers should consider the strategic use of safety valve programmes to speed up processing, allocate additional resources, and provide temporary protection without revising the wider immigration systems.

Abstract
States and asylum seekers are at the centre of rapid digital innovation in surveillance, mobility, welfare and identity. Why do some states rush to digitalize asylum systems, while others do not? Why is the pace and form of digitalization within countries uneven within asylum agencies? In this article, we examine drivers of the digitalization of the Swedish state, in particular uneven digitalization within the Swedish Migration Agency (Migrationsverket). While many processes were swiftly digitalized, we found that Swedish bureaucrats, rather than politicians or activist lawyers, resisted the adoption of digital evidence within the refugee status determination process, despite enthusiastically digitizing elsewhere. We explore these differences by looking at the historical, institutional and cultural bases of Swedish refugee policy. We present evidence from fieldwork in Sweden and find an unequal pace of digitalization that was largely dependent on the bureaucratic risk-aversion, extant legal norms, and perceived vulnerability to fraud.

Abstract
Celebrity refugees are a foreign policy tool whereby states grant international protection to famous artists, scientists, or politicians in exchange for some sort of strategic value in international relations. Celebrity refugees bring different types of strategic value—intellectual or ideological capital—and serve the role in propaganda to affirm domestic legitimacy, gain strategic advantage, and embarrass enemy regimes. This article develops an analytical framework for understanding why states offer international protection to celebrities. We apply our theory to four historical cases—Enrico Fermi, Robert F. Williams, Maxim Shostakovich, and Julian Assange—to understand the impact of their strategic value for both the host state and celebrity refugees. The utility of celebrity refugees for states is a global strategy that is not constrained to the Cold War period, as one might initially expect. Ultimately, both powerful and smaller states can protect celebrity refugees to bolster their domestic legitimacy, gain scientific or military advantage, and embarrass their rivals.