Download Sovereignty versus human rights

Irregular Migration
Ethical-philosophical comments
ESF Project Trafficking for forced labour in industries
other than the sex industry across Europe
3rd Workshop, Trinity College Dublin
21-22 February 2008
An Verlinden
CEVI, Ghent University
Irregular migration – some numbers
•
Total numbers of (estimated) irregular migrants:
•
•
15 - 30 million worldwide (IOM 2000)
5 - 8 million in the EU (Düvell 2006)
(10 to 15% of the total migrant population)
•
•
50 000 - 100 000 in Belgium (Vulsteke 2005)
Inflow each year:
•
•
2 – 4,5 million worldwide (ICMPD 2004)
500 000 to 1 million in the EU (IOM 2003, Eu. Comm. 2006)
Trafficking – some facts
•
Total numbers of trafficked people
•
•
Profile
•
•
mainly women & children (1.2 million)
Profits
•
•
At least 2.4 million worldwide (ILO 2008)
+/- US$ 31.6 billion each year (Belser 2005)
Convictions
•
a few thousands every year
Low risks - high returns
Trafficking & Irregular Migration
(1) Economic crisis, underdevelopment, poverty, persecution,
human rights violations, … in countries of origin
(2) Migration Control Regime in Western Europe
(3) Labour market competition, deregulation of labour
standards, structural adjustments, 4D-Jobs
 Rise
in irregular migration, THB & forced labour
Current Policies
•
•
Focus on security & border controls
Where are the victims?
–
The labour dimensions of trafficking (ILO 2007):
•
•
•
•
•
–
12.3 million forced labour victims worldwide
2.4 million of them are trafficked
32% of all victims were trafficked into labour exploitation
34% were trafficked for sexual exploitation (mainly women & girls)
25% for a mixture of both
The human rights dimension
Normative dilemmas
1. Sovereignty versus human rights
Are foreigners fellow men?
2. Practice versus law
How to treat irregular migrants (victims of THB)?
Sovereignty versus human rights
• Westphalian system of nation-states
– Sovereignty – monopoly of violence – self-determination
 Control on admission through immigration policy
• International human rights framework
– UDHR (1948), ECHR (1950), Geneva Convention (1951),
ICCPR (1966), ICESCR (1966), etc.
Protection of fundamental rights of international migrants
International obligations to irregular migrants/victims of THB
Sovereignty versus human rights
• Erosion state sovereignty?
– Decreased influence of nation-states because of
globalisation
– EU policy: national interests prevail
Balancing human rights – social ‘achievements’
 soft law
 knowledge of rights
 access to legal assistance
 public order
 labour market
 social security
Sovereignty versus human rights
 State sovereignty & human rights
– The Security dilemma
State security or human security?
– The Solidarity dilemma
Humanitarianism or justice?
Sovereignty versus human rights
1. The Security dilemma
•
Security as state security
 Emphasis on possible disruptive consequences of illegal
immigration/THB
 securitisation discourse
•
Security as human security
 Emphasis on physical integrity & personal freedom
 human migration policy taking into account migrants’ needs
Sovereignty versus human rights
2. The Solidarity dilemma
•
Solidarity with irregular migrants out of humanitarianism
 National community is normative foundation for societal
participation & solidarity
 Duty of humanitarian assistance towards irregular migrants
•
Solidarity with irregular migrants out of global justice
 Territorial boundaries are morally arbitrary
 Duty of justice towards irregular migrants/victims of THB
Practice versus law
•
Law
legal framework – macro-level (state)
 citizens versus non-citizens
•
Practice
application/interpretation of the law – social practices within civil
society contexts
 the foreigner as fellow man
Practice versus law
 Legal framework & moral convictions
– Effectiveness of policy and fieldwork
Feasibility versus humaneness
– Professional and moral duties
The extent of duties towards irregular migrants/victims of THB
Practice versus law
1. Different functionalities
•
Policy framework
abstract legal framework – illegality as crime – procedures –
common good – feasibility
 efficient & effective expulsion policy towards irregular
migrants in view of legitimacy
•
Social practice
application of the law – problem-solving oriented – human contact
– individual well-being – humaneness & desirability
 real assistance out of humanitarianism
Practice versus law
2. Professional and moral duties
•
Professional duties
 application of the law in one’s official capacity
 rationality – rules
•
Moral duties
 out of concrete encounter with the other – moral appeal
 conscience – duties
The immigration paradox
What is a crime from a strictly legal point of view
can be aid or assistance from a social ethics
point of view.
And what can be justified in terms of a social or
public ethics, can be fully immoral from an
individual point of view.
Some recommendations
1. Holistic approach
•
•
•
•
Minister/state secretary of Migration
Interdepartmentality
Multi-level governance
Structural involvement & participation of migrant communities
Some recommendations
2. Ethical commission & deontological charters
•
Ethical commission on Immigration
• Independent
• Permanent
• Differentiated composition
• Tasks:
1. Systematic screening of alien law (juridical + ethical)
2. Mediation in sensitive cases (linked to accountability)
•
Deontological charters for social workers
Discussion
The immigration paradox in practice
1. How to shape our individual practices – as social worker,
policy maker, academic, lobbyist, … – looked at it from
the perspective of our collective responsibility towards
irregular migrants/victims of THB?
2. Expulsion policy: tailpiece or collapse of an efficient and
effective migration policy?
More Information
An Verlinden
Center for Ethics and Value Inquiry (CEVI)
Dept. of Philosophy & Moral Science, Ghent University
+32 (0)9 264 39 75
[email protected]
www.cevi-globalethics.be – www.igea.ugent.be