Politische Situation, Unterdrückung und Regimewechsel

More than 51 million people worldwide are forcibly displaced today as refugees, asylum seekers, or internally displaced persons. According to the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, to be recognized legally as a refugee, an individual must be fleeing persecution on the basis of religion, race, political opinion, nationality, or membership in a particular social group, and must be outside the country of nationality. However, the contemporary drivers of displacement are complex and multilayered, making protection based on a strict definition of persecution increasingly problematic and challenging to implement. Many forced migrants now fall outside the recognized refugee and asylum apparatus. Much displacement today is driven by a combination of intrastate conflict, poor governance and political instability, environmental change, and resource scarcity. These conditions, while falling outside traditionally defined persecution, leave individuals highly vulnerable to danger and uncertain of the future, compelling them to leave their homes in search of greater security. In addition, the blurring of lines between voluntary and forced migration, as seen in mixed migration flows, together with the expansion of irregular migration, further complicates today's global displacement picture. This report details the increasing mismatch between the legal and normative frameworks that define the existing protection regime and the contemporary patterns of forced displacement. It analyzes contemporary drivers and emerging trends of population displacement, noting that the majority of forcibly displaced people – some 33.3 million – remain within their own countries, and that more than 50 percent of the displaced live in urban areas. The author then outlines and assesses key areas where the international protection system is under the most pressure, and finally examines the key implications of these trends for policymakers and the international community, outlining some possible policy directions for reform.

"(1) Aspirations: In the absence of reliable, internationally available migration flow data necessary for statistical forecasting, policymakers increasingly turn to survey data on emigration intentions to evaluate future migration trends. The important assumption – i.e. that there is a measurable and systematic relationship between the intention to migrate and actual migration – has not been firmly established at the international level. In a first step, we examine the association between estimated population averages of emigration intentions and official migration flow data based on data for more than 160 countries. First results show a strong association between emigration intentions and recorded bilateral flows to industrialized countries, as well as between intentions and aggregated out-migration. The results provide policymakers with a reliability assessment of survey data on emigration intentions and encourage future attempts to incorporate survey data in formal statistical migration forecasting models. (2) Policies: Furthermore, we want to explore to what extent migrants consciously decide to migrate to countries that allow them to improve their economic situation taking into account the difficulties to migrate to this country. In particular, we would like to know how the difficulty to immigrate into a country prevents potential migrants from moving to this country. Might it be that migrants decide to move to more liberal countries to increase the chances to be accepted? We already know that migration flows increase when the destination country is economically more attractive (Borjas 1989; Hatton and Williamson 2003) and decrease when immigration policies are more restrictive (Helbling and Leblang 2018). These effects are to some extent due to rejections during the migration processes when for example visa applications are declined or people are not allowed to enter a country when they arrive at the border. (3) Corruption: Eventually, besides immigration policies in potential destination countries, the formation and subsequent materialization of migration aspirations is determined by various factors in the country of residence. However, there is surprisingly little empirical evidence on factors outside the pure economic sphere. For instance, the link between corruption and emigration has received growing attention. Until now, the evidence claiming a strong relationship relies on individual case studies and correlational analysis which severely limits generalizability. In our study, we apply quasi-experimental methods including instrumental variables and propensity score matching to global survey data on 130 countries over 6 years, covering almost 600’000 individual respondents. We find support for the notion that corruption – systematically and strongly - induces emigration plans across countries, across various model specifications and estimation methods. Strengthening causal claims about the link between corruption and emigration is important for further research in this field. Results are also relevant for policy-makers exploring options to address irregular migration in the context of development and trade agreements. "

EUMAGINE is a collaborative European research project aimed at investigating the impact of perceptions of human rights and democracy on migration aspirations and decisions. Project description The EUMAGINE project aims to study how Europe is perceived from outside the EU, and how these perceptions affect migration aspirations and decisions. The project focuses on how people’s perceptions on democracy and human rights – in relation to their regions and countries of origin as well as places abroad – affect their perceptions on and attitudes to migration. We are also interested in investigating how perceptions on human rights and democracy interact with other determinants of migration aspirations, to what extent migration is perceived as a valuable life project, and how potential migrants compare Europe to other migration destinations. EUMAGINE studies migration-related perceptions among people aged 18-39 in four countries of origin and transit: Morocco, Senegal, Turkey and Ukraine. Conceptual framework The theoretical starting point for the project is two-fold: First, we assume that different types of discourses on human rights and democracy influence how individuals in countries of origin and transit perceive issues of human rights and democracy. Secondly, we expect that individuals’ perceptions in turn influence their migratory aspirations and decisions. The EUMAGINE project explores two types of imaginations: “migratory imaginations” and “geographical imaginations.” The term “migratory imaginations” refers to people’s attitude to migration as a valuable life project. Migration-related perceptions and aspirations develop within a specific cultural, political-juridical and economic setting, known as the “emigration environment.” Migration aspirations are linked with socially and culturally constructed perceptions. These include ideas and meanings attached to the migration project, subjective images of one’s current environment, and thoughts about potential destinations. We assume that perceptions on human rights and democracy have an impact on what Massey (1998) has termed “cultures of emigration,” where migration becomes deeply rooted into people’s behavioral repertoires. By “geographical imaginations” we refer to the meanings and images that make up people’s subjective conception of particular places, including Europe. We assume that migratory and geographical imaginations are influenced by different types of discourses: macro-level discourses (e.g. from policy and media sources) and meso-level discourses, (e.g. disseminated through popular culture and social networks). We also expect migratory and geographical imaginations to be shaped by individual-level factors, such as gender or age. Research questions The project is informed by five overarching research questions: 1) How are human rights and democracy related to imaginations in migrant sending countries constructed? 2) How are perceptions on human rights, democracy, migration and possible destination countries affected by various factors? 3) How do perceptions on human rights and democracy and ‘geographical imaginations’ relate to migration aspirations and migration? 4) How to develop a better informed migration policy, taking into account human rights and democracy as important migration determinants? 5) How to contribute to local capacity building in source countries, in order to prepare the ground for locally based research initiatives in the future? Methodology The project systematically analyzes migration aspirations and decisions, following a case-study approach: it compares and contrasts a diversity of important international emigration countries; various types of regions within these countries; several modes of migration; various types of influential discourses; and different profiles of potential migrants. This allows the project to make analytical generalizations about how migration-related perceptions, aspirations and decisions are formed. EUMAGINE has a multidisciplinary approach and combines the varied disciplinary background of its researchers: sociology, law, anthropology, economics, human geography and political science. The field research follows a mixed-method approach with three main methodological components: 1) ethnographic fieldwork in the community, 2) a large-scale quantitative survey, and 3) semi-structured qualitative interviews with selected survey respondents, directed by an interview guide. The research uses between- as well as within-method triangulation. Between-method triangulation is reached through combining qualitative as well as quantitative research methodologies. For within-method triangulation, we use two types of qualitative research, namely in-depth interviews and observation in communities. In each country, fieldwork is undertaken in four diverse regions, selected on the basis of the following model: 1) An area characterized by high emigration rates; 2) A second, comparable socio-economic area with low emigration; 3) A comparable area with a strong immigration history; and 4) A location with a specific human rights situation.

In the hope of regulating migratory flows, the European Council endorsed a “global approach” to migration in December 2005, an approach which is based on the correction of the “deep causes of migration”: poverty, unemployment and development gaps between North and South. Besides liberalising economies and trade systems, a set of measures are advocated in order to enhance home countries’ development by using “migration [as a] medicine against migration”: stimulating the remittance of funds back to the country of origin; expanding the role of diasporas settled in member states; reinforcing circular migration schemes and facilitating return movements; and improving the management of the emigration of the highly-skilled in order to curb “brain drain”. The paper focuses on the Arab South and East Mediterranean (SEM) countries. It challenges the views, implicit in EU migration policies, that migration is entirely rooted in economics and that migrants’ agency alone is able to spur development in the origin country. Using the theoretical background of political economy with a neo-institutional approach to migration, it explores the stakes, the outreaches and the outcomes of the migration and development nexus. By so doing, it re-politicizes migration and development and emphasises the structural and contextual dimension of factors pushing on migration and hampering development: unemployment and high professional turn over; economic liberalisation and deregulation policies, and socio-political “blockages” (gender inequalities, patronage, clientelism and corruption, lack of public expression). Moreover, the analysis of SEM country practices in the field of migration management and engineering migration for development shows how the design of policies and the channelling of flows respond to political and demographic stakes in the various national contexts. Migration patterns act as a political shield for regimes in the region that: allows these regimes to monitor political opposition; renews socio-cultural elites; and decreases the economic opportunities in national economies, due to corruption and patronage. Current policies also reconstruct state-society/expatriates relations, through (controlled) economic participation and socio-cultural solidarity. They do not, however, lead to political participation. The paper thus concludes that amendments to macro-political contexts in the SEM countries are more likely than liberalisation policies to curb emigration flows, by engineering global social and political development. As a matter of fact, the onset and patterns of the Arab revolutions since December 2010 aptly confirm the need for political reform in the region. Adoptée par le Conseil européen en décembre 2005, l’Approche globale des migrations est axée sur la correction des « causes profondes de la migration » (la pauvreté, le chômage, les écarts de développement entre nord et sud) afin d’en réguler les flux. Parmi les mesures préconisées figurent la facilitation de l’envoi de fonds vers les pays d’origine (transparence des coûts, développement de l’accès aux services financiers), l’encouragement du rôle des diasporas implantées dans les États membres (aider les pays en développement à identifier leur diaspora et à établir des liens), le renforcement de la migration circulaire et la facilitation du retour, une meilleure gestion des migrations de personnes hautement qualifiées afin de limiter la « fuite des cerveaux ». Cette étude traite des pays arabes du sud et de l’est de la Méditerranée (SEM). Elle met en question les représentations, contenues dans les politiques migratoires de l’UE, de la migration comme facteur purement économique, mais aussi des migrants comme agents d’un développement à grande échelle dans leurs pays d’origine. Le cadre théorique de l’économie politique et les approches néo-institutionnelles des migrations, utilisés ici, permettent de dégager les enjeux et la portée du lien entre migration et développement sur le terrain arabe. L’étude ‘re-politise’ ces deux processus. Elle met en relief la dimension structurelle des facteurs déclenchant l’émigration et entravant les processus de développement : les caractéristiques du marché du travail, les politiques de libéralisation des économies et les « blocages » sociopolitiques (inégalités hommes-femmes, clientélisme et corruption, obstacles à l’expression publique). En outre, l’analyse des politiques migratoires menées dans les pays du SEM montre que ces mesures répondent aux enjeux politiques et démographiques particuliers aux divers contextes nationaux de la région. Elles permettent aux régimes en place de contrôler l’opposition politique, le renouvellement des élites socioculturelles et les conséquences de la contraction des opportunités économiques, due à la corruption et au clientélisme. Les politiques migratoires participent également d’une restructuration des relations États-sociétés-expatriés autour d’une participation économique (étroitement contrôlée) et d’une solidarité socioculturelle, mais excluant toute participation politique. L’étude conclut donc que des réformes des contextes sociaux et politiques dans les pays du SEM seraient plus à même d’agir sur les flux migratoires que les réformes néolibérales. Le déclenchement des révoltes arabes en décembre 2010 confirme d’ailleurs l’urgence de ces réformes politiques.

In the hope of regulating migratory flows, the European Council endorsed a “global approach” to migration in December 2005, an approach which is based on the correction of the “deep causes of migration”: poverty, unemployment and development gaps between North and South. Besides liberalising economies and trade systems, a set of measures are advocated in order to enhance home countries’ development by using “migration [as a] medicine against migration”: stimulating the remittance of funds back to the country of origin; expanding the role of diasporas settled in member states; reinforcing circular migration schemes and facilitating return movements; and improving the management of the emigration of the highly-skilled in order to curb “brain drain”. The paper focuses on the Arab South and East Mediterranean (SEM) countries. It challenges the views, implicit in EU migration policies, that migration is entirely rooted in economics and that migrants’ agency alone is able to spur development in the origin country. Using the theoretical background of political economy with a neo-institutional approach to migration, it explores the stakes, the outreaches and the outcomes of the migration and development nexus. By so doing, it re-politicizes migration and development and emphasises the structural and contextual dimension of factors pushing on migration and hampering development: unemployment and high professional turn over; economic liberalisation and deregulation policies, and socio-political “blockages” (gender inequalities, patronage, clientelism and corruption, lack of public expression). Moreover, the analysis of SEM country practices in the field of migration management and engineering migration for development shows how the design of policies and the channelling of flows respond to political and demographic stakes in the various national contexts. Migration patterns act as a political shield for regimes in the region that: allows these regimes to monitor political opposition; renews socio-cultural elites; and decreases the economic opportunities in national economies, due to corruption and patronage. Current policies also reconstruct state-society/expatriates relations, through (controlled) economic participation and socio-cultural solidarity. They do not, however, lead to political participation. The paper thus concludes that amendments to macro-political contexts in the SEM countries are more likely than liberalisation policies to curb emigration flows, by engineering global social and political development. As a matter of fact, the onset and patterns of the Arab revolutions since December 2010 aptly confirm the need for political reform in the region. Adoptée par le Conseil européen en décembre 2005, l’Approche globale des migrations est axée sur la correction des « causes profondes de la migration » (la pauvreté, le chômage, les écarts de développement entre nord et sud) afin d’en réguler les flux. Parmi les mesures préconisées figurent la facilitation de l’envoi de fonds vers les pays d’origine (transparence des coûts, développement de l’accès aux services financiers), l’encouragement du rôle des diasporas implantées dans les États membres (aider les pays en développement à identifier leur diaspora et à établir des liens), le renforcement de la migration circulaire et la facilitation du retour, une meilleure gestion des migrations de personnes hautement qualifiées afin de limiter la « fuite des cerveaux ». Cette étude traite des pays arabes du sud et de l’est de la Méditerranée (SEM). Elle met en question les représentations, contenues dans les politiques migratoires de l’UE, de la migration comme facteur purement économique, mais aussi des migrants comme agents d’un développement à grande échelle dans leurs pays d’origine. Le cadre théorique de l’économie politique et les approches néo-institutionnelles des migrations, utilisés ici, permettent de dégager les enjeux et la portée du lien entre migration et développement sur le terrain arabe. L’étude ‘re-politise’ ces deux processus. Elle met en relief la dimension structurelle des facteurs déclenchant l’émigration et entravant les processus de développement : les caractéristiques du marché du travail, les politiques de libéralisation des économies et les « blocages » sociopolitiques (inégalités hommes-femmes, clientélisme et corruption, obstacles à l’expression publique). En outre, l’analyse des politiques migratoires menées dans les pays du SEM montre que ces mesures répondent aux enjeux politiques et démographiques particuliers aux divers contextes nationaux de la région. Elles permettent aux régimes en place de contrôler l’opposition politique, le renouvellement des élites socioculturelles et les conséquences de la contraction des opportunités économiques, due à la corruption et au clientélisme. Les politiques migratoires participent également d’une restructuration des relations États-sociétés-expatriés autour d’une participation économique (étroitement contrôlée) et d’une solidarité socioculturelle, mais excluant toute participation politique. L’étude conclut donc que des réformes des contextes sociaux et politiques dans les pays du SEM seraient plus à même d’agir sur les flux migratoires que les réformes néolibérales. Le déclenchement des révoltes arabes en décembre 2010 confirme d’ailleurs l’urgence de ces réformes politiques.

Narratives and an understanding of a “common identity” are an effective legitimisation for European integration (Sassatelli, 2015). Furthermore, perceptions, e.g. on human rights and democracy, have an impact on migration (EUMAGINE, policy brief); and feedbacks from migrants back to their country of origin can affect migration both in a positive and negative way (Timmerman, Hemmerechts, & De Clerck 2014b), and, thus, also influence the image or perception of Europe. Migration is caused by a number of push and pull factors – narratives are one part of this. Therefore, the project aims to investigate the different perceptions of Europe, as well as the problems that are caused when expectation and reality do not match, or security problems that might arise from false narratives. The current image of Europe is influenced by a number of imaginations and narratives, and with the ‘Brexit’ vote, the positive idea of the European Union is under re-evaluation within the world. Migration as one of the key challenges in the last years further leads to a re-imagination of the EU. According to Sassatelli (2015), cultural identity is closely connected to various narratives (public, academic, institutional). In addition, normative influences, as identified by Garip and Asad (2013), describe the influence that previous migrants have on migration aspirations of prospective migrants. Furthermore, European identity is still in the making and heavily contested (ibid.) – as e.g. the mentioned “Brexit” vote shows (Cassidy, Innocenti & Bürkner 2018). Much research is carried out around the topic of narratives and European identity; however, most of it is focused on strategies for solidarity, changing the narratives about migration, creating an inter-European narrative and strengthening the cultural identity within Europe (e.g. Cantat 2015; Innocenti 2015; Scuzzarello & Kinnvall 2013). PERCEPTIONS, therefore, aims to support first-line practitioners outside of Europe in counteracting on false narratives and correcting skewed images of the EU.

Een advies over de komst van asielzoekers uit door Nederland als veilig aangemerkte landen. Waarom dienen zij een asielaanvraag in, terwijl de kans op inwilliging nihil is? Uit het onderzoek is gebleken dat motieven voor personen om uit veilig aangemerkte landen te vertrekken zeer divers zijn en een krachtige drijfveer vormen voor migratie naar ‘Europa’. Die motieven komen bijvoorbeeld voort uit een gebrek aan perspectief in eigen land – armoede, werkloosheid, ongelijkheid – versterkt door gebrekkig bestuur en corruptie en zijn krachtiger dan de aantrekkingskracht van Nederland. Nederland is dan ook vaak niet de eerste bestemmingskeuze. Tijdens de reis ontstaan meer pullfactoren voor Nederland, die vaak zijn ingegeven door verhalen van landgenoten over Nederland. Op basis van dit onderzoek doet de ACVZ de volgende aanbevelingen: • 1) Pak de grondoorzaken van migratie aan en overweeg legale migratiekanalen. • 2) Zet in op een geharmoniseerde EU-definitie van veilig land en uniforme toepassing ervan. • 3) Verkort de Dublinprocedure en/of doe meer zaken zelf af. • 4) Versterk de inzet op terugkeer. Bied maatwerk inreisverboden en terugkeerondersteuning. • 5) Richt informatiecampagnes in, ook op personen die al onderweg zijn.

Poor countries are often plagued by civil wars. They are also, in many cases, emigration countries. Anybody interested in the development of such countries must understand to what extent these phenomena are interrelated, and how they interplay with each other. If it is pretty clear that civil wars push people to leave the country, it remains understudied how diasporas play a role in the emergence and evolution of violent conflicts. Indeed, the interactions between diasporas and conflict have roughly been overlooked by the economic literature to date, in spite of the very suggestive pieces of evidence provided by related research fields and of the very important policy questions that it raises – in particular, how to optimize the contribution of diasporas to peaceful development. Based on case studies such as those of Erytrea or of Sri Lanka, the literature in history and political science underlines diverse mechanisms through which diasporas have intervened in the evolution of violence in their home country, either as peace-builders or as peace-wreckers. On the other hand, in these case studies, the evolution of civil wars also appears to have been determinant of emigration and return migration patterns and, eventually, of the nature of diasporas’ involvement in the political situation in the homeland. This project will investigate the joint dynamics of civil conflicts and migration in developing countries. It will first build a theoretical framework to characterize how diasporas and civil wars interact together, accounting for the endogeneity of both migration and violence. The theoretical predictions derived from this framework will then be empirically tested, relying on recent and original data. Through a multi-disciplinary perspective, nourished by the findings of the qualitative research and relying on economic tools – both theoretical and empirical – this project will allow to build the first comprehensive investigation of the diasporas – conflict nexus.

In het asielrecht is het in eerste instantie aan de asielzoeker om aannemelijk te maken dat hij bescherming nodig heeft van de Nederlandse overheid. De Nederlandse overheid beoordeelt de aannemelijkheid van het asielrelaas op basis van de gesprekken die medewerkers van de Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst (IND) voeren met de asielzoeker en algemene informatie over het land van herkomst. Naast deze informatie wordt in sommige gevallen medisch onderzoek gebruikt om stellingen van de asielzoeker te onderbouwen, of juist te weerleggen. Dit type medisch onderzoek vormt het onderwerp van dit advies. In het asielrecht werd jarenlang het uitgangspunt gehanteerd dat bij de beoordeling van asielverzoeken medische aspecten in beginsel geen rol kunnen spelen. De verantwoordelijke bewindspersonen hebben de afgelopen jaren steeds het standpunt ingenomen dat er medisch gezien (meestal) geen zekere uitspraken kunnen worden gedaan over de oorzaak van littekens, fysieke en psychische klachten. Dit standpunt is niet onomstreden. Al in 1999 stelde een groot aantal deskundigen een handleiding op voor onderzoek naar de gevolgen van marteling en andere wrede, onmenselijke of vernederende behandeling of bestraffing. Deze handleiding wordt ook wel het Istanbul Protocol genoemd. In dit protocol is expliciet neergelegd hoe de waarschijnlijkheid van een causale relatie tussen littekens, lichamelijke en psychische klachten en de gestelde oorzaak daarvan, kan worden onderzocht. Ook in de praktijk bij de IND wordt het standpunt dat medische aspecten in beginsel geen rol kunnen spelen genuanceerd. Als de asielzoeker een medische rapportage indient die conform de richtlijnen van het Istanbul Protocol is opgesteld, wordt deze door medewerkers van de IND betrokken bij de beoordeling van de asielaanvraag. Voor het verkrijgen van dit type medisch onderzoek zijn asielzoekers tot op heden afhankelijk van particuliere organisaties, met name van het instituut voor Mensenrechten en Medisch Onderzoek (iMMO). Aanleiding voor het advies en adviesvraag Met het oog op verdere harmonisering van het Europese asielstelsel is op 26 juni 2013 de herziene Procedurerichtlijn gepubliceerd. Deze richtlijn bevat minimumnormen waaraan alle asielprocedures in de lidstaten van de Europese Unie moeten voldoen. De richtlijn dient uiterlijk op 20 juli 2015 te zijn geïmplementeerd in nationale wet- en regelgeving. Artikel 18 van de herziene richtlijn bevat een nieuwe bepaling die specifiek ziet op medisch onderzoek betreffende aanwijzingen van vroegere vervolging of ernstige schade. Het gevolg van de richtlijn is dat littekens en psychische of fysieke klachten een element zullen gaan vormen waarmee de staatssecretaris bij de beoordeling van asielaanvragen rekening zal moeten gaan houden en waar hij ook op eigen initiatief onderzoek naar zal moeten gaan doen. De staatssecretaris heeft de Adviescommissie voor Vreemdelingenzaken (ACVZ) op 21 maart 2014 gevraagd hoe artikel 18 in de asielprocedure kan worden vormgegeven. De adviesvraag die door de ACVZ is gehanteerd luidt: “Hoe moet de implementatie van artikel 18 van de Procedurerichtlijn betreffende medisch onderzoek in regelgeving en in de asielprocedure worden vormgegeven?” In het advies wordt nagegaan in welke gevallen medisch onderzoek moet worden verricht, aan welke normen het medisch onderzoek moet voldoen, hoe het medisch onderzoek procedureel kan worden ingericht en hoe het onderzoek moet worden meegewogen in de beoordeling van een asielverzoek. Daarnaast is nagegaan hoe immigratiediensten van andere landen omgaan met dit type medisch onderzoek.

Le projet MOBILISE demande: Quand mécontents avec le situation economique ou politiquoi, pourquoi certains individus protestent tandis que d'autres quittent les frontieres? En reliant les intuitions théoriques de la littérature sur la migration internationale et de celle sur les mobilisations collectives, nous examinons a) Si des facteurs similaires soustentend le choix de migrer et/ou de protester au niveau individuel b) Comment le contexte influence ces mobilisations c) Dans quelle mesure ces choix sont-ils independants l'un de l'autre ou ils se renforcent / se découragent l'un l'autre. MOBILISE utilise une methodologie mixte (des enquêtes quantitatives representatives au niveau national, des enquêtes en ligne auprés des migrants, des enquêtes auprès des protestataires, des focus groups, des entretiens retrospectifs et de l'analyse des réseaux sociaux) ainsi qu'un design multi-situé. Le projet couvre l'Ukraine, la Pologne, le Maroc et le Bresil, qui ont tous récemment connu des protestations de masse ainsi qu'une forte émigration. Nous suivons des emigrés de ces pays en Allemagne, la Grande Bretagne et l'Espagne. Le projet offre quatre innovations clés 1) Il combine les protestations et la migration 2) Il capture tous les groupes pertinents pour la comparaison (des protestataires, des migrants, des migrants protestataires et des individus qui ne font ni l'un ni l'autre) 3) Il suit des individus au fil du temps en utilisant des methodes de panel 4) Il inclut dans l'analyse l'utilisation des réseaux sociaux en fournissant de l'information sur le role des réseaux et des transferts politiques en temps réel. Ces innovations nous permettent d'apporter une contribution importante au développement théorique autant dans l'étude des migrations que des protestations. De plus, le projet fournit des connaissances centrales aux hommes politiques sur les facteurs qui influencent la stabilité politique et économique.