The Politics and Discourse of Migrant Return: The Role of UNHCR and IOM in the Governance of Return

This article proposes that there is added value in moving beyond isolated studies of return-related migration policies in order to consider both deportations and so-called assisted voluntary returns under the common heading of ‘state-induced returns’. Based on official documents and interviews with staff members of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organisation for Migration, it argues that international actors working in the field of migrant return engage in a type of task-sharing that goes beyond functional complementariness. With regard to the return of rejected asylum seekers, for instance, they legitimise each other's engagement as well as the overarching return objectives of governments, and are, therefore, involved in norm-building regarding the acceptability of state-induced returns. In addition to setting certain minimum standards regarding states' treatment of their immigrant population, international actors assist states in upholding control over them. Rather than merely replacing state-led regulation, international actors thus support domestic governments in reaching their migration control objectives, and thereby contribute to a stabilisation of state sovereignty in the governance of migration.     

International-domestic linkages in a developing-country context: the case of the Rohingyas in Bangladesh

ABSTRACT

Since 1978, the Rohingya have been fleeing Myanmar and taking refuge in Bangladesh. The state of Bangladesh is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention and does not recognize refugee rights, but the initial experiences with the Rohingya refugee population led the government to create a temporary and ad hoc domestic policy advisory and refugee management system, which eventually became highly politicized. There was also some degree of slow “externalization” of policy advice through the involvement of international organizations from 2006–2007 onward, mainly through the participation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and International Organization for Migration (IOM). Over 2017–2018, there was a massive influx of refugees from Myanmar to Bangladesh. The domestic advisory and refugee management system lacked the capacity to manage the crisis and had to quickly and greatly externalize policy advice and refugee management. The UNHCR and IOM came in with a host of international organizational networks and coordinated with each other and the state through a multi-sectoral approach to manage the crisis. This externalization led to the systematization and institutionalization of the state’s domestic advisory system. However the effect of externalization on politicization is equivocal; on the one hand it decreased politicization of the domestic policy advisory system, but on the other hand, it created new levels of politicization.     

Refugee Protection Meets Migration Management: UNHCR as a Global Police of Populations

This article investigates the complex relationship between the practices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in the field of refugee protection and the more recent political rationality of ‘migration management’ by drawing from governmentality studies. It is argued that the dissemination of UNHCR's own refugee protection discourse creates certain ‘figures of migration’ allowing for justifying the build-up and perfection of border controls, which in turn enable any attempt to ‘manage’ migration in the first place. Conversely, the problematisation of population movements as ‘mixed migration flows’ allows UNHCR to enlarge its field of activitiy despite its narrow mandate by actively participating in the promotion, planning and implementation of migration management systems. Based on ethnographic research in Turkey and Morocco, this article demonstrates, furthermore, that UNHCR's refugee protection discourse and the emerging migration management paradigm are both based on a methodological nationalism, share an authoritarian potential and yield de-politicising effects. What UNHCR's recent embracing of the migration management paradigm together with its active involvement in respective practices then brings to the fore is that UNHCR is part of a global police of populations.     

Migration Management and Humanitarian Protection: The UNHCR's ‘Resettlement Expansionism’ and Its Impact on Policy-making in the EU and Australia

Since the late 1990s, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has been a key actor in the resurgence of refugee resettlement in global debates on asylum and refugee policies. This article investigates the dynamics of the international organisation's ‘resettlement expansionism’ within the UNHCR as well as its impact on policy-making. Firstly, it analyses how the UNHCR has increased its expertise production and dissemination as well as its operational focus on resettlement. Secondly, it assesses the policy-making impact of the UNCR's ‘resettlement expansionism’ in two distinct contexts: the elaboration of the EU's new joint resettlement scheme and the recent increase of resettlement places by 40% in Australia, a traditional country of resettlement. Lastly, it discusses potential implications of this research in regards to the evolution of the global refugee regime and, more conceptually, to the study of knowledge production and expertise in migration and refugee policy.     

论日本的难民甄别制度

日本难民甄别制度的建立始于1981年《出入境管理与难民认定法》的制定。虽然该制度明确了法务大臣在难民甄别事务上的权限,规定了难民甄别的标准和程序,但同时也因存在一系列问题而导致国会于2004年对《出入境管理与难民认定法》进行了修订。此次修订一定程度上完善了既存的难民甄别制度,但是,与国际标准及先进国家的实践相比,日本现行的难民甄别制度中仍存在一系列需要改进的问题。     

全球治理中的中东难民问题

难民问题是长期困扰中东地区的一大难题。中东难民问题的严峻现状已经引起国际社会的广泛关注。在难民问题逐步被纳入全球治理框架的趋势下,国际社会采取了多层次、多领域的合作,取得了较为明显的成效。然而一些障碍性因素的存在阻碍了全球治理的有效实施,使得这一问题难以从根本上得到解决。