Legal regulations and traveller & migrant protection

Aanleiding voor dit onderzoek vormden spanningen die kunnen bestaan tussen het (jeugd)beschermingsrecht en het vreemdelingenrecht, zoals deze bijvoorbeeld naar voren zijn gekomen in de gebeurtenissen omtrent de casus van de Armeense kinderen.1 Het onderzoek bestond uit twee delen 1) de algemene wettelijke kaders en beleidskaders; 2) de knelpunten in de praktijk, met een nadere uitwerking van wettelijke en beleidsnormen in (een selectie van) deze knelpunten. Het onderzoek had als doel inzicht te bieden in (de combinatie van) het jeugd(beschermings)recht en het vreemdelingenrecht ten aanzien van minderjarigen. Er is onderzocht waar spanningen of knelpunten tussen beide rechtsgebieden optreden, zowel op het niveau van wet- en regelgeving als in de uitvoeringspraktijk. Daarbij is onder meer bekeken of, en zo ja in hoeverre, rechtsnormen uit het ene rechtsgebied prevaleren over rechtsnormen uit het andere rechtsgebied. Waar het prevaleren van rechtsnormen niet op heldere wijze uit de wet- en regelgeving voortvloeit, zijn andere (praktijkgerichte) oplossingsrichtingen verkend. De probleemstelling van het onderzoek luidt: Welke zijn de (potentieel) conflicterende en/of spanningsvolle onderdelen of aspecten in de wet- en regelgeving voor het jeugdbeschermingsrecht en het vreemdelingenrecht ten aanzien van minderjarigen, zowel op het niveau van de wet- en regelgeving als voor de uitvoering in de praktijk en in hoeverre blijkt uit de wet- en regelgeving welk recht prevaleert? Hoe kunnen de (ervaren) spanningen en conflicten worden opgelost in situaties waarin niet uit de wet- en regelgeving blijkt welk recht prevaleert en wat is hiervoor nodig?

The HEUNI report "Unseen Victims" presents the manifestations and consequences of gender-based violence and the challenges in assisting victims of violence in the migration context. With this report the authors aimed to increase the understanding of policymakers on the structural challenges asylum-seeking and refugee women who have experienced gender-based violence face.

Luxembourg has integrated in the protection system the European legal framework on protection. However, besides the international protection (refugee status and subsidiary protection status) and the temporary protection statuses, the Luxembourgish legal system foresees two humanitarian statuses which are: a) residence permit for private reasons based on serious humanitarian grounds; b) the postponement of removal based on medical reasons. In regard to the latter, there are the following steps: 1) the postponement of removal can be granted and renewed for up to 24 months; 2) after 2 years, if the medical condition persists, an authorisation of stay for medical reasons may be granted and a residence permit for private reasons may be issued. However, it is important to stress at this point that the Luxembourgish authorities do not consider the two aforementioned residence permits issued according to articles 78 (3) and 131 (2) of the Immigration Law as “protection statuses” as such, but precisely as residence permits issued to the applicant. The granting of these two “protection statuses” are based on the discretionary power of the Minister in charge of Immigration and Asylum. The residence permit for private reasons based on humanitarian grounds (Status A of this report) allows for the Minister to grant an authorisation to stay in the country to an irregular migrant if s/he is in in need to stay based on humanitarian reasons of exceptional circumstances. There is not an exhaustive list of reasons on which the Minister can base his/her decision. However, there is an exhaustive analysis of the reasons advance by the applicant. Any third country national irregularly staying on the territory can apply for this residence permit. However, in the case of rejected asylum seekers, the application will be rejected if the applicant advances the same reasons that s/he advanced during the international protection procedure. On the contrary, the residence permit for medical reasons requires that, in the first stage, the applicant had received a return decision and an order to leave the territory. In order to obtain the residence permit, he/she has to obtain first a decision for a postponement of removal for medical reasons that has to be renewed for two years before the applicant can file the application for the residence permit based on medical reasons. This residence permit is not granted automatically and if the applicant does not file his/her application after expiration of the postponement of removal for medical reasons after two years, s/he will be precluded and the return decision will be executed, except if s/he proves that s/he cannot be returned for medical reasons. In this case, the entire procedure will have to start again.

In de Europese Unie bestaat sinds 2004 een Advance Passenger Information (API)-richtlijn gericht op de verbetering van grenscontroles en de bestrijding van illegale immigratie. Lidstaten mogen volgens de richtlijn (2004/82 EC) bepalingen opnemen in hun nationale wetgeving die het mogelijk maken om luchtvaartmaatschappijen te verplichten om gevalideerde passagiersgegevens voorafgaand aan de vlucht door te geven aan de grensautoriteiten in de betreffende lidstaat. De richtlijn laat het echter aan de lidstaten zelf over om van deze mogelijkheid daadwerkelijk gebruik te maken. Onder andere hierdoor bestaat binnen de EU momenteel een grote variëteit wat betreft het gebruik van API-gegevens. In Nederland is de API-richtlijn in 2007 geïmplementeerd, met als algemeen beleidsdoel de verbetering van de grenscontrole en de bestrijding van illegale immigratie.Met dit onderzoek is het gebruik van API-gegevens in Nederland geëvalueerd. Het onderzoek is een vervolg op de eerste evaluatie van API in 2014. Op grond van dit eerste evaluatieonderzoek heeft de minister van Justitie en Veiligheid de Tweede Kamer toegezegd een tweede evaluatiestudie te laten uitvoeren als onder andere het systeem verder is uitontwikkeld. Voor deze tweede evaluatie zijn twee centrale onderzoeksvragen geformuleerd:Wat kan gezegd worden over het gebruik en de effectiviteit van APIgegevens ten behoeve van grenscontrole en het tegengaan van illegale immigratie en op welke wijze is gevolg gegeven aan eerdere aanbevelingen ten aanzien van API?In hoeverre kunnen recente relevante Europese ontwikkelingen gevolgen hebben voor de wijze waarop API-gegevens in Nederland gebruikt worden?

The main objectives of this study of the European Migration Network are to provide objective and reliable information about beneficiaries of international protection who travel to their country of origin or come into contact with national authorities of their country of origin, and information on cases where international protection statuses were ceased leading to, for example, the status being ended, revoked or not renewed (as per Article 45 and 46 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive) and, ultimately, the permission to stay withdrawn. For the Luxembourgish case, it is firstly important to note that beneficiaries of the refugee status and of the status of subsidiary protection are not subject to the same restrictions with regard to travel to the country of origin or contact with national authorities. While refugees are in principle not permitted to travel to the country of origin, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are not subject to this restriction. In this context, the phenomenon of beneficiaries of the refugee status travelling to their country of origin is currently not considered a policy priority in Luxembourg. While it does occur, there are no statistics providing information on how many refugees undertake this journey or contact the national authorities, on the reasons for travel to the country of origin, nor is there any case law on the cessation of the refugee status for reasons of travel to the country of origin. Luxembourg’s authorities are not systematically informed of such events by the authorities of other Member States. Luxembourg has no external borders with the exception of the international airport of Luxembourg, from where only an extremely limited number of flights to third countries depart. Thus, it is extremely difficult to capture the extent of the phenomenon in Luxembourg. Luxembourg’s Asylum Law establishes the re-availment of the protection of the country of origin and the voluntary re-establishment in the country of origin as grounds for cessation of the refugee status. Travel to the country of origin or contact with its national authorities are not explicitly forbidden by legislation. In principle, refugees are not permitted to travel back to the country of origin. They are provided with this information on multiple occasions: for instance at the moment of the introduction of their application, as well as when they are issued the decision granting them protection. Their travel document also clearly states the restriction. There is no notification or authorisation procedure that would authorise such travel in Luxembourg. When the Directorate of Immigration has the information that a refugee travelled back to the country of origin, it will proceed to an in-depth analysis of the personal situation of the individual. Determining that this travel is proof of the voluntary re-establishment in the country of origin is however considered extremely difficult, as it is nearly impossible to ascertain the reasons for which the refugee returned. Furthermore, a short stay in the country of origin is not necessarily considered like the (permanent) establishment in the country of origin or a proof thereof. This is also due to the fact that the Luxembourgish authorities cannot contact the authorities of the country of origin and have no tools to undertake an investigation there in order to verify that the refugee has re-established him/herself. The travel and the surrounding circumstances can be taken into account if the minister decides to re-examine the validity of the status, which could potentially lead to a withdrawal. The Directorate of Immigration has never considered ceasing protection because a refugee contacted the authorities of the country of origin. Proving that this contact occurred in the first place, and next, proving that it constitutes a re-availment of the protection of the country of origin, is considered nearly impossible. In addition, it is a fact that certain administrative procedures require the production of official documents and that the substitution of these documents with affidavits are in practice not always feasible. As previously mentioned, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are authorised to travel back to their country of origin and are permitted to contact the authorities of their country of origin. They are even encouraged to contact the national authorities in order to obtain a national passport. These actions can thus not lead to the cessation of the status of subsidiary protection. If the decision to cease the status is taken, the beneficiary is notified of this decision in writing. The decision can be appealed before the First instance Administrative Court. If the decision of the Court is negative, the individual can file an appeal before the Second instance Administrative Court. In principle, the decision to cease international protection carries a return decision. However, the individual can apply for another residence permit if s/he fulfils the conditions established in the Immigration Law. The same is true for family members who got a residence permit through family reunification with the concerned person: the family members will lose their right to stay unless they can gain access to another residence permit under the Immigration Law.

En période de crise humanitaire, les migrations sont devenues (encore plus qu'avant) un enjeu politique majeur, et une entrée pertinente pour saisir l'évolution des attitutes de la société civile. Depuis trois ans, l'Europe expérimente la plus importante augmentation d'arrivées de demandeurs d'asile depuis la II Guerre. La mobilité de demandeurs d'asile est particulièrement affectée par des politiques de contrôle des frontières qui ont été adoptées dans un contexte post-attentats ultra-sécuritaire. L'argument de la lutte contre le terrorisme sert aux gouvernements européens, France inclue, pour justifier l'adoption de mesures d'urgence qui suspendent ou modifient le droit, et qui résduisent les libértés et les droits fondamentaux. Le droit d'asile est particulièrement concerné. Si les Conventions Internationales, notamment la convention de Génève, nous rappellent quels sont les limites (théoriques) de ce pouvoir discrétionnaire de l'Etat vis-à-vis des demandeurs d'asile, en pratique, les critères de sélection se mélangent avec les critères d'exclusion : de nombreux ayants-droit à des formes de prise en charge et de protéction (ressortissants de pays à risques, mineurs non accompagnés, femmes seules ou avec enfants etc.) sont de facto exclus. Par conséquent, des formes de contestation de ces politiques et mesures peuvent émerger, et même se traduire en des controverses socio-juridiques. Les tribunaux sont de plus en plus appelés à trancher sur ces questions. DisPow se propose d’analyser les controverses socio-juridiques en lien avec les droits des demandeurs d’asile en France, dans le but de comprendre leurs origines, les différents conceptions de la justice qu’elles symbolisent, la façon dont elles défient les politiques migratoires contemporaines et les principes qui les sous-tendent et justifient, ainsi que leurs liens avec les mouvements sociaux qui prennent formes en dehors des tribunaux. S’inspirant de l’approche Law and Society et se fondant sur une enquête ethnographique comparative, le projet propose de développer un modèle multidimensionnel d’analyse du pouvoir discrétionnaire de l’Etat. Ce projet interdisciplinaire (sociologie, droit, sciences politiques, philosophie, géographie) vise à éclairer les modalités d'excercice du pouvoir discrétionnaire de l'Etat et leurs influences sur 1) l'interprétation et l'application des politiques migratoires 2) l'accès aux droits fondamentaux des demandeurs d'asile 3) les mouvements sociaux. L'objectif est d'éclairer les formes de résistance à ce pouvoir discrétionnaire, notamment au prisme des controverses socio-juridiques qui questionnent le lien entre légitimité morale et juridique des politiques migratoires contemporaines. L'étude de ces controverses permet notamment de comprendre: 1) de quelle manière la loi peut être utilisée comme une arme, par qui, à quelles conditions, et avec quels résultats; 2) les espaces (la rue, les aéroports, les gares etc.) où apparaissent différentes conceptions de la justice, et où ces dernières s'affrontent (tribunaux administratifs, Conseil d'Etat, postes-frontière, etc.); 3) si ces controverses s'inscrivent dans des mouvements sociaux existants, et si et comment elles contribuent à leur renouvellement. A travers une approche ethnographique, DisPow compare trois études de cas emblématiques: la frontière franco-italienne (la vallée de la Roya et la zone côtière entre Vintimille et Nice, le briançonnais), le Calaisis, et le pays Basque (en particulier la zone entre Hendaye et Irun). A l'opposé d'une vision du droit en tant que principe abstrait, le projet et ses terrains d'enquête mettront en lumière les usages concrets du droit par les activistes, les avocats, les élus locaux, les demandeurs d'asile, et les répresentants de l'Etat (fonctionnaires, forces de l'ordre). A travers l'étude des controverses juridiques liées à ces pratiques du droit, l'équipe explore le potentiel du droit en tant qu'intrument de changement social.

Das Forschungsprojekt "Von der Flüchtlingshilfe zur Fluchthilfe" geht aus von der Problematik des Asylparadoxes und dem Umgang zivilgesellschaftlicher Akteure mit seinen Konsequenzen: Zwar gelten in Deutschland das Grundrecht auf Asyl und die völkerrechtlichen Prinzipien des Flüchtlingsschutzes und viele Staaten gewährleisten Flüchtlingsrechte. Um diese zu erlangen, müssen die meisten Schutzsuchenden allerdings mangels legaler Einreisemöglichkeiten illegal Grenzen überqueren und sich in riskante Situationen begeben. Insbesondere durch die sich in den Jahren 2015 und 2016 zuspitzende Lage entwickeln sich in Deutschland vermehrt gesellschaftliche Auseinandersetzungen um den Zugang zu Flüchtlingsschutz. Das Forschungsprojekt analysiert diese Auseinandersetzungen mit Fokus auf das Engagement zivilgesellschaftlicher Initiativen für die sichere Einreise von Flüchtenden. Daher geht das Projekt der Forschungsfrage nach, welche Handlungsansätze und Strategien zivilgesellschaftliche Initiativen im Kontext von Migrations- und Fluchtregimen entwickeln, um sich angesichts beschränkter Einreisewege und humanitärer Notlagen für einen Zugang zum Schutz für Geflüchtete einzusetzen und Fluchthilfe zu leisten.

Thousands of migrants are currently dying every year in Europe in deeply troubling circumstances. Most die whilst attempting to cross the Mediterranean, but there are also many deaths in refugee camps, immigration detention centres or during attempts to cross Europe's internal borders. State and EU policy on migration and border control is notoriously vulnerable to political manoeuvring, as political parties compete for a fickle domestic electorship. This project will explore both the existing scope, and the theoretical normative potential, of international obligations to investigate certain deaths as a means of ensuring that the protection of migrants' lives is less dependent on political will, and more tied to existing human rights and humanitarian obligations. The project will ask the following questions: In what circumstances will the death of an unsettled migrant engage a state's obligation to investigate and explore potential accountability for the death? To what extent are existing investigative obligations sufficient for ensuring a minimum of practical protection for the range of human rights owed to migrants and refugees? And, taking into account international legal precedents and the theoretical controversies that accompany them, what is the normative scope of investigative obligations as a means of better safeguarding these rights?

De probleemstelling van het onderzoek luidt als volgt: Voor welke doeleinden worden biometrische kenmerken van vreemdelingen gebruikt, wordt bij de verwerking van biometrische gegevens voldaan aan de wettelijke vereisten en voldoen deze gegevens aan de criteria van kwaliteit en betrouwbaarheid en in hoeverre worden de doelstellingen gerealiseerd die de wetgever met de Wet biometrie vreemdelingenketen voor ogen stonden? De onderzoeksvraag valt uiteen in drie deelvragen:Welke doelstellingen beoogde de wetgever te bereiken met de invoering van de Wet biometrie vreemdelingenketen, welke beleidstheorie ligt aan de keuze van die doelstellingen ten grondslag en in hoeverre is de beleidstheorie ex ante gefundeerd?Handelen de verschillende ketenpartners bij enerzijds de afname en de registratie en anderzijds het gebruik en de benutting van biometrische gegevens volgens de wettelijke vereisten? Voldoen de afgenomen gegevens aan de criteria kwaliteit en betrouwbaarheid?In hoeverre zijn sinds 1 maart 2014 de beoogde effecten en eventuele neveneffecten opgetreden en in hoeverre is dat toe te schrijven aan de in de wet geboden verruimde mogelijkheid om biometrische gegevens af te nemen?

In the paper we trace how Macedonia and Serbia strategically positioned themselves regarding the government of transit migration though their territory by dynamically shifting between humanitarianism and securitization before the formalized corridor emerged, during its existence, in the process of its closure, and after it was shut down. This is not to say that precise dates can be pinpointed to distinguish these “phases”: the emergence of the formalized corridor in the south of the Balkan route, for example, was a dynamic process which resulted from the interplay of state practices, practices of mobility, activities of activists, volunteers, and NGOs, media coverage, etc. The same applies for its closure. However, the text follows a diachronic line in which we describe the contextual factors that decisively shaped the transformation of the migration policies of the two states. It focuses in particular on transportation practices, accommodation, (in)visibility of migrants, activity of (non-)state actors, unique national instruments (such as the 72-hours paper), the One Stop centres and the transit zones at the Serbian-Hungarian border.

Luxembourg has a long tradition in “resettling” refugees from various parts of the world, but a more structured policy has only recently been implemented. National legislation does not include any provisions relating to resettlement policy and there are no specific national programmes. The resettlements have always been implemented on an ad-hoc basis or within broader programmes set up by the European Commission and/or UNHCR. Since 2014, Luxembourg additionally applies a quota of refugees to be annually resettled (15-20 persons). The implementation and organisation of the resettlement process may vary case by case and there is no standardised procedure applicable except for regular resettlements for which the framework is to a large extent outlined in the UNHCR’s Resettlement Handbook. The selection and identification of resettled persons is coordinated by the Directorate of Immigration in close collaboration with UNHCR, who performs in principle an eligibility assessment for the refugee status, which the Luxembourgish authorities shall take over once the person arrives in Luxembourg. For each resettlement mission Luxembourg sets a general profile as well as the number of persons they intend to resettle. These criteria do basically not differ from UNHCR’s Global Resettlement Submission Criteria and thus include women, children, elderly refugees as well as refugees with disabilities and diseases, except for those suffering from pathologies for which there is no adequate treatment available in Luxembourg. Apart from the vulnerability criteria, Luxembourgish authorities also take the “integration potential” into consideration when selecting candidates eligible for resettlements. This might explain the general preference of resettling entire families rather than single persons. Resettlement implemented within the EU Turkey 1:1 scheme, based on the agreement between the EU and Turkey of 18 March 2016, is considered separately by national authorities. For UNHCR, who is not a party to this agreement, engagement in the resettlement of Syrian refugees from Turkey is considered part of its regular resettlement activities. Procedurally, UNHCR continues to receive resettlement referrals from Turkey’s Directorate General for Migration Management (DGMM) and further continues to undertake phone and face-to-face interviews with eligible candidates. However, as opposed to regular resettlement, the assessment undertaken by UNHCR is streamlined. The Luxembourgish Reception and Integration Agency (OLAI) coordinates the reception and integration phase of the resettled refugees. Although policy and law are the same for both, resettled refugees and other beneficiaries of international protection, in practice the support provided may differ in an initial phase. Thus, resettled refugees are accommodated upon arrival within a common reception centre where they shall be provided with a more intense support, especially during the first weeks after their arrival in Luxembourg. Since April 2016, a newly created service of the Luxembourgish Red Cross (Lisko) has been mandated, under the overall coordination of the Ministry of Family, Integration and the Greater Region, to take charge of the social support and integration of benefeciciaries of international protection, including resettled persons. Other national NGOs and associations also provide counselling and assistance. The present report identifies several challenges faced by both, the resettled persons as well as the competent authorities. These challenges prove particular significant in the post-arrival and integration phase. While some of these challenges are common to beneficiaries of international protection in general, some others may be more specifically relevant for resettled refugees, namely the absence of a transition period, coordination with local stakeholders, as well as timely provision of information to selected candidates for resettlement.

Ce projet tend à donner une définition juridique des camps, à examiner leurs modes de gouvernance, à définir les normes juridiques qui s’y appliquent, et à examiner les régimes de responsabilité qui peuvent jouer.

Le projet a pour objectif de valoriser un patrimoine scientifique composé de récits de vie et de textes législatifs. À cette fin, l’équipe entend promouvoir une approche transversale, sciences sociales et sciences juridiques, autour d’un objet commun « les mineurs en mobilité ». Il s’agit de comprendre le rapport qu’ils entretiennent avec les événements consécutifs de l’application du droit au fil de leur parcours et le sens qu’ils leur attribuent. Dans ce cadre, la représentation cartographique est mobilisée pour interroger le droit comme élément de la géographie des migrations. Ces connaissances nouvelles visent aussi à favoriser le dialogue entre diverses institutions (scientifiques, gouvernementales et associatives) tant aux échelles locales (Poitiers, Paris) qu’à l’échelle internationale. Partenaires associés : MIGRINTER, CECOJI Centre d’études sur la coopération juridique internationale (EA 7353 univ. Poitiers), IDP Institut Droit Public (EA 2623 Univ. Poitiers), MIGREUROP, OSIWA Fondation Open Society, Association Hors la Rue.

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.

This project examines how legal frameworks – Belgian and European - correlate with third country national migrants’ agency, namely how they impact migrants’ family and professional trajectories and to what extent they afford them the ‘capability’ to develop their lives according to their personal aspirations. It analyses the relationship between legal norms and migrants through both a top-down and a bottom-up approach: from the norms to the migrants and then from the migrants to norms with a view to proposing means to enhance migrants’ decisional autonomy. By conducting a comparative analysis of the opportunities and constraints offered by various legal statuses on migrant’ families, mobility rights, professional trajectories, and the strategies these actors develop to deal with the legal framework, this project will reveal the unequal constraints exerted by legal norms on individual choices and the subsisting margins of autonomy, depending on a series of factors including not only legal statuses, but also ethnicity, gender, level of education, and socio-economic status. The scientific aim is twofold: understand how legal frameworks shape migrants' professional, family and migratory trajectories and life projects; and analyse if, and which strategies migrants develop to bend the rules and circumvent obstacles, and/or use the opportunities offered by legal systems to fulfil their professional and family aspirations. This will lead us to address two questions that lie at the core of social sciences: the relationship between structure and agency, and social inequalities. The project also furthers our understanding of the inadequacy of normative constructions of 'the' family underlying migration policies, and the reality of migrants' family structures and dynamics. We will firmly ground our contribution to theoretical debates on the relation between structure and agency in the empirical observation and analysis of the lived experiences of migrants. Concrete scientific outputs include research publications in peer-reviewed journals and articles in collective volumes with the interim project findings, a legal definition of the notion of autonomy, and a final multi-disciplinary book.

The Migrants in Countries in Crisis project aims at providing accessible, methodologically robust and policy relevant data on the migration implications of crisis situations in host countries. It does so with the broader objective of informing efforts to strengthen the preparedness of countries of origin, transit and destination and of other relevant actors to address and respond to future crises. Research objectives: Crisis situations investigated include natural disaster, violent conflict or civil unrest, which have led to a breakdown of or serious challenges to public order, and, as a result, entail a serious threat to the personal safety, physical and psychological integrity and protection of migrants. While focusing on longer term impacts of and responses to crises in countries of destination, origin and transit, the research will also investigate the availability of relevant mechanisms ensuring the protection of migrants before, during and after crisis in countries covered by the research. Six crises situations have been selected as case studies for in-depth research: Central African Republic (civil unrest 2014); Cote d'Ivorire (civil unrest 2000-2011); Lebanon (2006-today, impact on migrant domestic workers); Libya (civil unrest 2011); South Africa (xenophobic violence 2008-2015); Thailand (natural disaster 2011). The research is conducted as part of a wider project led by ICMPD supporting the global Migrants in Countries of Crisis Initiative. It is coordinated by the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) and is conducted in partnership the International Migration Institute (IMI) of Oxford University. In addition, local research partners are involved in the fieldwork and analysis for the case studies. The Research employs an interdisciplinary approach to assess the impact of crises on migrants in the countries under study. The research will combine secondary desk research and primary research in the field with relevant stakeholders, including migrants, policy makers and public officials, representatives of international organisations, civil society stakeholders and humanitarian organisations, diaspora organisations, academics and journalists, and employers and recruitment agencies Project Partners: International Migration Institute (IMI), University of Oxford

"Der sowjetische Einmarsch in Afghanistan 1979 und der daran anschließende, bis 1989 andauernde Krieg lösten den weltweit größten Massenexodus seit dem Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs aus. Mit dem iranisch-irakischen Krieg stieg die Zahl der Flüchtlinge in dieser für Washington und Moskau sowie ihre jeweiligen Verbündeten geostrategisch, sicherheits- und energiepolitisch bedeutenden Region ein weiteres Mal signifikant an. Hier setzt das Projekt an und analysiert unter Rückgriff auf bislang überwiegend in der Politikwissenschaft diskutierte Ansätze der Global Governance die Konzepte, Akteure und Praktiken humanitärer Hilfe, die zur Etablierung eines globalen „Flüchtlingsregimes“ beitrugen. So wird erstens nach den Normen und Prinzipien gefragt, denen die unterschiedlichen Konzepte und Programme der Flüchtlingshilfe zugrunde lagen. Inwieweit spielten moralische und philanthropische, religiöse oder ideologische Motive eine Rolle, welche Bedeutung hatten menschenrechtliche oder entwicklungspolitische Überlegungen, welche Interessenkonstellationen formten den Diskurs? Zweitens werden die zentralen Akteure des globalen Netzwerks humanitärer Hilfe auf internationaler, transnationaler und nationaler Ebene untersucht. Dies umfasst multilaterale Organisationen wie die UNO und dessen Flüchtlingshilfswerk UNHCR ebenso wie die Europäische Gemeinschaft, nichtstaatliche Akteure wie das Internationale Rote Kreuz ebenso wie ausgewählte NGOs im Bereich der Flüchtlingshilfe. Die nationale Ebene wird exemplarisch am Beispiel der Bundesrepublik Deutschland in den Blick genommen. Drittens werden die konkreten Praktiken humanitärer Hilfe vor Ort untersucht. Auf welche Probleme stießen die Akteure in den Flüchtlingslagern, wie wurde ihr Engagement von den Flüchtlingen selbst wahrgenommen? Welche Rolle spielten Kompetenzstreitigkeiten und Konkurrenzverhältnisse im Kampf um begrenzte finanzielle Ressourcen und mediale Aufmerksamkeit, wo bestanden Möglichkeiten der Zusammenarbeit? Wie gingen die Akteure mit der Diskrepanz zwischen ihrem humanitären Auftrag einerseits und ihrer Abhängigkeit von den machtpolitischen Realitäten andererseits um? Auf Basis dieser Fragestellungen will das Projekt einen Beitrag zur Geschichte der internationalen Beziehungen in einer sich globalisierenden Welt leisten und die seit den 1970er Jahren entstehende netzwerkartige Struktur des Politikfeldes humanitärer Hilfe herausarbeiten."

Project description: INSECURE is a multi-sited, multi-method study of irregular migration in Finland. It provides an understanding of how mobility controls, employment and citizenship regimes affect migrants’ social and material conditions in Finland and produce everyday insecurity of existence and marginalisation. The project obtains knowledge on how migrants cope with precarious living and working conditions. INSECURE analyses the ways in which irregular migration is framed as a security question in Finnish policy documents. The project produces applicable empirical knowledge to assist policy-making in confronting the question of irregular migration in Finland. By investigating the situation of vulnerable subjects excluded from the realm of citizenship, the project breaks new ground in revealing what security de facto means in contemporary societies characterised by multiple forms of mobilities, including irregular migration. / Hankkeen julkinen kuvaus: INSECURE on monipaikkainen ja –metodinen tutkimus epävirallisesta maahanmuutosta Suomessa. Projekti tuottaa uudenlaista ymmärrystä siitä, kuinka liikkuvuuden, työmarkkinoiden ja kansalaisuuden kontrollointi tuottavat jokapäiväistä turvattomuutta ja syrjäytymistä ja vaikuttavat siirtolaisten yhteiskunnallisiin ja taloudellisiin elinehtoihin Suomessa. Projektissa tutkitaan, kuinka siirtolaiset rakentavat elämäänsä turvattomuuden ja prekaarien työsuhteiden ja asumisolojen ympäristössä. INSECURE analysoi epävirallisen maahanmuuton turvallistamista viranomaisdiskursseissa Suomessa. Projekti tuottaa soveltamiskelpoista empiiristä tietoa epäviralliseen maahanmuuttoon liittyvän päätöksenteon tueksi. Haavoittuvassa asemassa olevien ja kansalaisuuteen sidottujen oikeuksien ulkopuolelle suljettujen siirtolaisten aseman tutkiminen avaa uusia näkökulmia turvallisuuden käytännön merkityksiin nykyisessä yhteiskunnassa, jota luonnehtii monimuotoisen liikkuvuuden ja epävirallisen maahanmuuton muodot.

The project “In whose best interest? Exploring Unaccompanied Minors’ Rights Through the Lens of Migration and Asylum Procedures (MinAs)” is a research project carried out in four European countries (Slovenia, Austria, France and United Kingdom) in the period from June 2014 to December 2015. European Commission finances the project and its main aim is to identify and recommend better procedures and protection measures for unaccompanied minors (UAM). The project examines UAMs’ reception, protection, asylum and return procedures and focuses on: 1. The concept of best interests of the child (BIC). 2. The formal processes of best interests determination (BID). The project looks at both concepts in the actual legal framework for UAM in reception, protection, asylum and return procedures in the four EU countries. Many European countries have not yet introduced best interests determination procedures into their national legislation for UAM. In these cases, lack of appropriate safeguards for UAM are most likely to be identified, leaving the possibility of (too) flexible interpretation of the child’s best interests, which in some cases may be subjected to nationalist, xenophobic and racist discourse. In order to contribute to fulfilling the national obligations set out by international law, as well as following the aims of the European Commission, the project analyses the practical, philosophical and phenomenological dimensions of the best interests of the child, which will enable a deeper understanding of the best interests of children as well providing a solid basis for proper implementation of the principle in practice.

Summary in English not available, Summary in Finnish: Hankkeen julkinen kuvaus: Perheen yhdistämiseen liittyvästä siirtolaisuudesta on tullut merkittävin laillisen maahanmuuton muoto Euroopassa 2000-luvulla. Hankkeessa lähestytään niin kutsuttua perhesiirtolaisuutta tutkimalla kahden oikeuslääketieteellisen teknologian – perheenyhdistämistä koskevan DNA-tutkimuksen sekä perheenyhdistämistä tai turvapaikkaa hakevien alaikäisten henkilöiden lääketieteellisen iänmäärityksen – roolia ja niiden antaman informaation merkitystä suomalaisessa maahanmuuttopolitiikassa ja -hallinnossa. Tutkimuksessa tarkastellaan myös maahanmuuttajien kokemuksia ja käsityksiä tutkinnasta. Tutkimuskysymyksiä on viisi: Mihin maahanmuuton ongelmiin viitataan, kun bioteknologisten välineiden käyttöä perustellaan? Miten maahanmuuttopolitiikassa ja -hallinnossa käsitetään teknologioiden tarjoamat ratkaisut suhteessa yhtäältä ihmisoikeuksien turvaamiseen ja toisaalta väärinkäytösten torjumiseen? Millainen rooli erityyppisillä todisteilla on maahanmuuttajien tutkintaprosessissa, ja millä tavoin todisteet muokataan päätöksenteon kriteereiksi? Millaisia vaikutuksia DNA-tutkimuksilla ja lääketieteellisillä iänmäärityksillä maahanmuuton on hallinnointiin? Miten erityyppiset todisteet ja niiden suhteet käsitetään tutkittavien keskuudessa? Tutkimusaineisto koostuu hallinto- ja lainsäädäntöasiakirjoista, asiantuntijoiden ja tutkimusten läpikäyneiden maahanmuuttajien haastatteluista sekä valikoimasta Helsingin hallinto-oikeudessa käsitellyistä perheenyhdistämistä koskevista valitustapauksista.

Ce projet vise à repenser la question des migrations dans l’agriculture ouest-européenne, en interrogeant la recomposition du travail salarié majoritairement occupé par des migrants étrangers (féminisation, « nouvelles migrations », migrations intra-européennes, etc.) ; la gestion des questions de santé des travailleurs migrants ; et la complexification des statuts associés au travailleur migrant. Ce projet repose sur une enquête qualitative, multisituée (Maroc, Pologne, Roumanie, France) et longitudinale.