Research
Database

Abstract: Turkey witnessed a massive influx of Iraqis in both 1988 and 1991, when respectively around 50,000 and 460,000 Iraqis sought refuge there. In 2003, Turkey took measures to guard against another mass influx: and though around two million Iraqis fled out of the country, only 10,000 arrived in Turkey. However, a larger number may flee to Turkey, particularly if security deteriorates in the northern parts of Iraq. Turkey is the only one of Iraq’s direct neighbours to be party to the UN Refugees Convention. Yet, Turkey nevertheless introduced a geographical limitation: Iraqis, like other non-Europeans, are not granted refugee status. However, the customary law principle of non-refoulement is applied to anyone, including Iraqis, considered either as “asylum seeker” or recognized as de facto refugee. With regard to the protection provided and the rights recognized, there is not much difference between their situation and a 1951 UN Convention refugee, except that they are not meant to stay and integrate into Turkey but to be resettled in a third country. Both procedural and substantive international refugee law standards are applied in Turkey. The UNHCR also plays a part and decides the cases of persons who have applied for “refugee status” in Turkey, helping the resettlement of Iraqis in third countries. Turkey has adopted a system for dealing with individual asylum claims and the system seems to have satisfied international legal standards. However, the system is not designed to answer collective asylum claims and might collapse in the event of a massive influx. Résumé La Turquie a déjà connu deux arrivées massives d’Irakiens en quête d’asile, en 1988 (50.000) et 1991 (460.000). En 2003, elle a pris des mesures pour prévenir une nouvelle arrivée de cette ampleur, il est en effet assez remarquable que seuls 10.000 des 2 millions d’Irakiens qui ont fuit leur pays sont arrivés en Turquie. Néanmoins, de nouvelles arrivées sont considérées comme possibles, en particulier, si les conditions de sécurité dans le Nord de l’Irak venaient à se détériorer. La Turquie est le seul pays directement voisin de l’Iraq a avoir ratifié la Convention de 1951 relative au statut des réfugiés. Elle a cependant formulé une réserve géographique de telle sorte que les Irakiens, comme tout autre « non européen » ne se voient pas reconnaître le statut de réfugié en vertu de la Convention. Néanmoins, le principe de non refoulement, dont le caractère coutumier est reconnu en droit international s’applique à chacun, en ce compris aux réfugiés en provenance d’Irak, qu’ils soient considérés comme demandeurs d’asile ou réfugiés de facto. Au regard de la qualité de leur protection et de leurs droits, peu de différences notables doivent être signalées par comparaison au statut reconnu aux « réfugiés » en vertu de la Convention de 1951. Avec une réserve notable, ils n’ont pas vocation à rester et à s’intégrer mais à être réinstallés. Les standards procéduraux et substantiels du droit international des réfugiés sont applicables en Turquie. Le UNHCR y joue un rôle majeur, il prend la décision de reconnaissance de la qualité de « réfugié » et intervient dans les procédures de réinstallations dans des pays tiers. La Turquie a mis en place un système pour traiter des demandes individuelles d’asile et ce système semble généralement rencontrer les standards internationaux. Il n’est néanmoins pas adapté dans les hypothèses d’afflux massifs.

Global matrices of bilateral migrant stocks spanning the period 1960-2000, disaggregated by gender and based primarily on the foreign-born concept are presented. Over one thousand census and population register records are combined to construct decennial matrices corresponding to the last five completed census rounds. The first database has been expanded in order to include the results of the 2010 census. Citation: Global Bilateral Migration Database, World Bank Group and Ç. Özden, C. Parsons, M. Schiff and T. L. Walmsley (2011) 'Where on Earth is Everybody? The Evolution of Global Bilateral Migration, 1960-2000', World Bank Economic Review 25(1):12-56

Agriculture and food industry having a high dependence on resources in their production and striving for long-term sustainability. In this context there is an urgent need to optimise resource use and smooth the transition to a knowledgedriven agriculture. The NUTRIMAN is a Nitrogen and Phosphorus thematic network compiling knowledge “ready for practice” for such recovered product applications, practices and technologies, interconnecting applied science and industrial practice, for the user interest and benefits of the agricultural practitioners. There is an urgent need to spread knowledge and network information towards agricultural practitioners about the insufficiently exploited N/P recovery innovative research results (technologies, products, practices). The project objective is to improve the exploitation of the N/P nutrient management/recovery potential for the ready for practice cases not sufficiently known by practitioners. Our action will open new opportunities for farmers to develop connections between applied researches with practical usefulness results and farming practice in the priority area of nutrient management and nutrient recovery. Uses a bottom-up approach to identify incentives and bottlenecks for adoption and to prioritise between technologies/products and will ensure larger willingness to adopt innovations and improve multiplicator effects. Large scale take up of the recovered N/P innovative fertilisers targeted, produced from un-exploited resources of organic or secondary raw materials in line with the circular economy model, and economical/environmental efficiently used by farmers. Effective dissemination and exploitation promoted by multilingual web platform, other communications and best practice field demonstrations for farmers. This action is contributing to the successful deployment of the vast reservoir of existing scientific/practical knowledge on the N/P recovery theme, including multi lingual abstracts in EIP-AGRI format.

Historically, Luxembourg has developed during the last 68 years strong links with the Western Balkan countries. In 1970, a labour agreement was signed between the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Former Republic of Yugoslavia to provide for workers to come to work in Luxembourg. This bilateral agreement created a diaspora from the Western Balkans in Luxembourg. Montenegrin nationals represent the largest third-country national population while the Serbians and the Bosnians represents the 3rd and 4th largest nationality groups. There has been a significant number of naturalisations from the West Balkan countries during the last 10 years. This diaspora was a significant “pull factor” during the Yugoslav Wars (1991-1999) and the economic crisis of 2008. This study was unable to verify direct and automatic links between the entering into force of the visa liberalisation agreements with the West Balkans countries and Eastern Partnership countries and an impact for Luxembourg. The large majority of increases, independently if it is legal migration, irregular migration or international protection did not occur during the next year following the entering into force of the agreements. These increases occurred generally during the second year or later. Concerning visa liberalisation agreements with the Western Balkan countries, the first findings are a dramatic increase of international protection applicants from those countries since the agreements came into force. In the international protection field and in the framework of the return decisions, the visa liberalisation agreement had a negative impact generating stress for all the public administrations during 2011 and 2012, which have to deal with international protection and the return mechanism. During 2011, there was a significant increase of applicants from Macedonia and Serbia and in 2012 from Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina. This situation placed the Luxembourgish authorities under significant stress to deal with this significant inflow of applicants, whose applications were, in the large majority of cases (80%), rejected. However, this situation obliged the Luxembourgish government to take measures in order to deal in a very efficient manner with these inflows of international protection applicants as well as to overhaul the entire international protection procedure. These measures can be divided into two different: procedural measures and implementation measures. The most significant procedural measures are: a) the introduction of the fast track procedure and the implementation of the ultra-expedite procedure; b) the introduction of these countries in the list of safe countries of origin. These measures allow the authorities to deal more efficiently with the massive influx of international protection applicants coming from the region. The implementation measures are: a) No access to social aid for the applicant benefiting from a commitment to cover all expenses by a Luxembourg national, EU citizen or TCN residing in Luxembourg; b) substantial decrease in monthly cash amounts of social aid for adult individuals and households; c) Recruitment and reallocation of staff in the Directorate of Immigration and the Luxembourg Reception and Integration office; d) implementing the Assisted voluntary return Balkans (AVR Balkans) which only covers the return bus ticket; and e) strengthen cooperation with the authorities of the Western Balkan countries. During 2017, there was an increase in the number of international protection applicants from Georgia and Ukraine, even though both countries are included in the list of safe countries of origin. As Luxembourg does not have external borders with the exception of the International Airport, it is not possible to obtain pertinent information concerning the detection of irregular entries in the territory. Nevertheless, there is some evidence that some individuals from these countries have taken advantage of the visa liberalisation agreements to come to work irregularly in Luxembourg, even if it is not possible to quantify the scale of the phenomenon. The findings of this study do not show an increase in the number of applications for authorisation of stay or residence permits (remunerated and study activities), so the EU visa liberalisation agreements did not have any impact in the legal migration field. The increase of application was visible after the second year of entering into force of these agreements but the numbers were not significant in regard with number of applications made by third-country nationals during the same period. However, the short-stay visits (i.e. friends, family, tourism, etc.) seem not only to have been facilitated, but also increased. In some cases, these short-visits have also been used not only to visit family and friends but also to be familiarized with the Luxembourgish society and to explore job opportunities and look for housing. This is probably the only positive impact that the visa liberalization agreements have had. Seen that the visa liberalisation agreements only allow travelling without a visa, but they do not allow working and staying in the country, and based on the data collected there is not possible to establish a link between them and any significant impact with regard to economy and to criminality (especially related to traffic of human beings or smuggling, where the numbers are very low and not directly related in most cases to nationals concerned by this study).