Daily Archives: Sunday, January 11, 2015

Courses: Georgetown University Certificate in International Migration Studies


Georgetown University Certificate in International Migration Studies
We are pleased to announce the spring 2015 course schedule:
Washington-based courses:
Migration and Development (4-6 February)
Human Trafficking (4-6 March)
Refugees and Displaced Persons (15-17 April)
Global Trends in International Migration (12-15 May)
Migration and Security (3-5 June)
Online course:
Global Trends in International Migration (28 April-18 June)
The courses are taught by faculty at the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University.
For more information and registration, please visit

Call for Papers: RN 35 – Sociology of Migration at the 12th ESA Conference

The Call for Papers for the next ESA-conference (25-28 August 2015,
Prague) is now online. The general conference theme is “Differences, Inequalities, and Sociological Imagination”.

RN 35 – Sociology of Migration will organise a series of sessions at this conference. Below you find our RN-CfP!

Abstracts need to be submitted through ESA’s online submission system by
01 February 2015: http://esa12thconference.eu/abstract-submission
We are happy to answer any questions you may have in relation to this call and hope to see as many of you as possible in the wonderful city of Prague next summer!

CfP: RN 35 at the 12th ESA Conference (25-28/08/2015, Prague)

ESA Research Network 35 ‘Sociology of Migration’ provides a platform for all scholars who deal with questions of immigration and emigration, inclusion and exclusion, and diversity within Europe. The call for papers for our RN programme at the upcoming 12th ESA conference (25–28 August 2015, Prague) is now open. The theme of this conference – Differences, inequalities and sociological imagination – provides a fruitful basis to continue discussions started at earlier RN activities, as well as for moving to new subject areas.

Differences, inequalities, and imaginations – and especially the links and tensions within this triad – have concerned migration research from its beginning. Of course, the emphases varied over time. During the 1990s and 2000s, the focus was put rather strongly on aspects of (cultural) difference, on questions of ethnicity, identity, and belonging. Partly due to the obvious and urgent crises and contradictions of neoliberal globalisation, inequalities have resurfaced as key concerns of sociological enquiries over the past few years. Lately, the question of how the interplay between differences and inequalities is structured by political agency and discourses has risen in the agenda, most notably in recent studies on migration regimes. Political imaginations play a crucial role here – most obviously, but by far not exclusively the idea of national belonging. This is very different from a second form of imagination, that has so far received little attention: the sociological task of imagining alternative futures.

We invite paper proposals that relate to the general theme of the conference. Authors may submit their abstract to one of the specific sections described below. If they prefer not to declare a specific session, their papers – if accepted – will be considered as part of our general sessions. Abstracts should be no longer than 250 words and need to be submitted through ESA’s online submission system by 01 February 2015.

1. General session: Differences, inequalities and sociological imagination – RN35 Sociology of Migration


2. Migrant students: new directions in migration research

Session organisers: Renee Luthra (University of Essex) and Lucinda Platt (London School of Economics)

The internationalisation of education, combined with the increase in visa restrictions on labour migration in many traditional receiving societies, have resulted in an upsurge in student migrants both in absolute terms and as a proportion of overall migrant flows. Between 1975 and 2011 the number of foreign students worldwide increased from 0.8 million to 4.3 million.
Yet, this group of migrants remains relatively under-researched. When they are considered, current research tends to cover them in broader discussions of highly skilled migrants or in the context of the free movement or exchange programmes experienced by inter EU migrants more generally. An emerging qualitative literature charts seem of their personal struggles, ambiguities and trajectories, and suggest that such broad frameworks do not do justice to the complexities of this migration stream. In this session, we invite papers that address theoretical and empirical questions relating to current student migration. Papers might cover comparisons across origin or destination countries, subsequent trajectories of student migrants in either the country of study or on return to the country of origin, investment in study as a family strategy, returns to international study, or other topics relevant to the determinants, characteristics or consequences of migration for education.

3. Escaping power relations or helping to maintain social order?
Informality in migration research

Session organiser: Małgorzata Irek (COMPAS, University of Oxford)

As Keith Hart put it, in our times the capitalist state is the dominant social form. Everything that happens beyond this form he called informal.
The state is a territorial unit, closed within clearly defined borders and possessing its own legal system and bureaucratic apparatus claiming the monopoly of violence and guarding the existing power system, hierarchically organised from the most privileged at its top, through the ‘gens modestes’ as Bourdieu called the ordinary people, to the ‘precariate’ at the bottom of the social ladder. The lowest place in this hierarchy of power is reserved for the informal immigrants, excluded from human rights enjoyed by all other groups. Informality, in turn, is a lack of form, which makes it a continuous category, lacking boundaries, and thus infinite. This concept is wider than the popular, developed by the American economists definition of ‘informality’ understood as economic activities that are not reported to a taxman, as well as the concept of ‘irregularity’ used after Portes with reference to migration regulations.
So, while the state is a finite and fixed form which controls only a fragment of human experience, informality is a vast category describing a universal human condition, allowing to appreciate migration as a natural part of human experience, rather than its rapture. Asking whether informal activities of migrants defy existing inequalities, have a revolutionary potential or perhaps save the power system from radical changes, the proposed panel invites contributions of scholars who explore how the relationship between the state and informality is described and theorized in the migration research.

4. Migration and Social Change: European perspectives

Session Organisers: Remus G. Anghel (Romanian Institute for Research on National Minorities, Cluj) and Margit Fauser (Bielefeld University)

Migration and transnational dynamics involve increasingly more people around the world, linking localities of origin and destination in ever more extensive webs of social ties, transfers and exchanges. In this session, we want to discuss the manifold forms of change migration leads to, in regions of destination as well as in regions of origin. Debates on the migration-development nexus, remittances and social remittances point towards the social and cultural changes brought about as a consequence of migration. In this vein, an emerging scholarship has started to investigate the consequences of migration in many places of origin. Still, there is a further need to unfold the types and forms of migration-induced social change worldwide, and in comparative perspective. Therefore, migration and development debates need to be located within a more comprehensive understanding of the social changes produced by migration.
Rather than focusing on ‘Great Transformations’, meso-level changes seem of particular interest. We aim to bring forth a view on Europe as a destination, acknowledging the different migration streams, their composition and histories that may have different implications for change ‘back home’. Hence, what types of meso-level changes can we observe? Are migrants challengers to local social orders? How do changes confront the established systems of economic, political, and social power and inequality? How do local cultural understandings change? What significance does migration have for cities and villages of origin? And how can such processes be researched and understood in places that are simultaneously affected by many other global dynamics? These are some of the question we wish to address with this session. We invite methodological, empirical and theoretical engagements with these issues.

5. Promoting Social Imagination at the Global Level: A discussion about Migration and Intercultural Integration

Session Organisers: Rina Manuela Contini (University of Chieti-Pescara) and Mariella M. Herold (Northern Arizona University)

Globalization processes and dynamic transnational migrations are bringing about remarkable demographic differences in European societies. The flow of migrants from Eastern Europe, Africa, and other parts of the world are also creating new social, economical and educational inequities which are forcing EU nation states to reflect on these differences and imagine solutions. New immigrants bring with them cultural practices, foods, forms of art and expression, and perspectives on all aspects of human experience that daily transform the cultural fabric of their communities and of host countries–which are also transformed and enriched by these new cultural experiences. Dichotomies between “natives” and “newcomers” emerge, as well as new forms of identities and distinctions between “them” and “us”, as expressed in politics and in the art and literature of marginality, patterns of adaptation and integration. There are also sources of conflict between generations within immigrant communities. In addition, schools and teachers do not feel prepared to educate diverse children with many proficiency levels and diverse languages. Societal inequities cannot be understood in isolation and they need to be understood from a global perspective. This session gathers international researchers from Europe, the US, and other parts of the world to examine new paradigms, policies and practices for the development of an inclusive intercultural and transnational framework, in order to reduce inequities. This is necessary to positively integrate culturally-diverse families, children and adolescents into schools and societies.

6. The inequalities referring to the right to mobility in a context of Globalization

Session Organiser: Catherine Wihtol de Wenden (Director of research, CNRS, CERI Science-Po, Paris)

The right to mobility is one of the less well shared rights all over the world, underlying the gap between those who are subject to visas and the others who can freely cross the borders at world scale. This leads to numerous statuses that refer to the segmentation of this right:
“illegals”, “regional migration”, “short term residents and workers”, all statuses that conduct to less mobility and more settlement in precarious lives. This session will focus on theoretical and field study approaches on fragile migrant populations included in the new types of migration in, to or from European countries.

7. ‘Policing Ethnicity: Between the Rhetoric of Inclusion and the Practices and Policies of Exclusion’

Session organisers: Abby Peterson (University of Gothenburg) and Malin Åkerström (University of Lund)

Policing will be broadly understood in this session as all those activities involved in the provision of security and/or the maintenance of order, expanding our gaze from the usual criminal justice agencies to also include the new multiple modes of policing, for example, private security, policing partnerships with local authorities and civil society associations, etc. The papers can interrogate policing in different ways:
as the patterns of social control, or as the governance of inclusion and exclusion, along the dynamic and interrelated dimensions of ethnicity, class and gender. How does the provision of (physical) security by the multiple new modes of policing construct a topography of ‘insiders’ who enjoy the benefits of the policies and ‘outsiders’ who bear their burdens?
Who is consigned to the ‘outside’ , who is invited in the ‘inside’ and how does this process occur? How do countries police their borders, both internal and external? The papers in this session will address how the rhetoric of inclusion is all too often at odds with the practices and policies of exclusion and control.

8. Family dynamics and inequalities in migration

Session organisers : Muriel Dudt (University of Strasbourg), Elise Pape (EHESS, Paris/University of Strasbourg), Catherine Delcroix (University of

This session proposal deals with migrant family dynamics and social, political and economic inequalities. How are migrant families affected by the inequalities linked to the depth and acceleration of globalization?
What strategies do they develop in order to fight those inequalities? This session encourages contributions on the following themes: How do transnational families (Bryceson and Vuorela 2002) deal with “South-North”/”East-West” inequalities, for example through remittances or migration strategies within the family? What are, in an intersectional perspective, the impacts of age, gender or “race” on the social positioning of the family members in the different contexts they live in?
What role does the transmission of languages play in this process?
Furthermore, how do migrant families deal with inequalities they may experience in their country of arrival, for example in the fields of access to social and political rights? If families are affected by processes of domination that can trigger tensions between the individuals, they can also be a « space » where original strategies can be created in order to fight inequalities. Family members can for instance share a common « minority » status that can bring them closer as they share experiences of discrimination. What then are the struggles in which they can support each other or which are the struggles that may create distance among them? The session pays specific attention to how the chosen methodological approach affects the scientific findings. Papers discussing the role of languages in families and working from an intergenerational and multisited perspective are particularly welcome.

9. Migration and Multiculturalism: Making sense of the popular politics of resentment

Session Organisers: Ipek Demir (University of Leicester) and Gurminder K.
Bhambra (University of Warwick)

The backlash against multiculturalism and the rise of anti-immigration sentiment have both been dominant themes in European social and political discourse in recent years. Leading European politicians (e.g. Cameron, Merkel, Sarkozy), public figures and sociologists (e.g. Habermas, Beck) have appeared to disown the multicultural and post-colonial legacies of Europe in favour of a more traditional mono-culturalism whether of nationalism or cosmopolitanism. There also exist increasingly explicit anti-immigration stances and policies by parties and movements such as the UK Independence Party and that of Golden Dawn in Greece. It is no coincidence that the stances on migration and multiculturalism emerged simultaneously, draw on similar perspectives and also overlap significantly in their rhetorical claims. How can/should sociologists make sense of these developments using the insights of literature and research on both migration and multiculturalism? What kind of overlapping themes emerge? Taking the ‘popular politics of ethnic and cultural resentment’ as the starting point, papers in this session will examine connections and overlapping theoretical insights, and empirical examples evident in the debates on both migration and multiculturalism.

10. Refugees’ Everyday Life Worlds and the Production of Societal Inequalities in Europe

Session Organisers: Elisabeth Scheibelhofer (University of Vienna) and Vicki Täubig (University of Siegen)

Refugees face manifold restrictions on their stay in Europe. As asylum seekers, they are usually faced with social exclusion, marginalisation and, in some cases, the fight for survival. Usually, they are forced to lead a passive life and often face racism, or difficulties in finding adequate schooling for their children and healthcare. After having been granted asylum they have, to a great extent, equal rights with other citizens. It is only at that stage that it is demanded of them to actively and rapidly ’integrate’ into European societies, often without sufficient means. Those whose applications for asylum have been rejected are transformed into illegal refugees without any rights. Refugee studies connect global processes of societal change and biographic or group struggles for a self-determined life and societal recognition. Firstly, this session invites both theoretical and empirical contributions.
Secondly, we are interested in comparative and/or long-term case studies, of the living conditions of refugees. Papers that suggest answers to the question of how people organize themselves in the face of others and “how they organize themselves vis-á-vis broader structural situations” (Clarke
2005: 109) are especially welcome. Thirdly, we cordially invite contributions that focus on historical and political analyses in order to reach a better understanding of these ongoing societal processes. Papers should address the question of production and reproduction of social inequalities. The session organisers plan to produce a special issue within an international journal containing session contributions.

11. Inclusion, exclusion and precarious employment of migrant workers in Europe

Session Organiser: Olena Fedyuk (University of Strathclyde, Glasgow)

The session aims to move the debate beyond the perspective that situates migrants’ exclusion and inclusion solely in migration processes. The central concern is to explore how migration is experienced in gendered, ethnic and class terms. Specifically, how these categories intersect with each other and the larger transformations of global capital and local labor relationships. Current academic debates conceptualise migration as an integral part of such transformations. This suggests that migration should be understood in the context of the ongoing changes in employment regimes, i.e. liberalization, flexibilisation and precarisation of labour around Europe as well as ideologies accompanying these practices, which have an impact on an individual’s subjectivity. Against the backdrop of these changes in employment and migration regimes, we scrutinize processes of inclusion and exclusion as a continuum of social positions. The session aims at fostering a debate on how to conceptualize those processes in relation to empirical studies of migrants’ work trajectories.

The session welcomes papers, which critically engage with concepts of inclusion and exclusion, citizenship and precarisation, and which tackle macro, micro and meso- level of migratory flows and practices. The purpose is to examine the political economy of the recent transformations in employment, migration and care regimes, and to situate ethnographic examples from Europe within this context in order to explore migrants’
individual and collective responses to these transformations.

12. (Successful) migrant integration: whose responsibility is it?

Session organiser: Markéta Seidlová (Charles University in Prague, Prague)

The integration of immigrants has always had a strong local (and especially urban) dimension (Borkert et al., 2007), while cities always served as “machines of integration” (Bosswick, Heckmann, 2006). The un/success of integration policies is measured by comparing data from selected fields between the “majority society” and immigrant minorities (Entzinger, Biezeveld, 2003). Usually four main fields of integration are
distinguished: socioeconomic; cultural; legal and political integration; and the attitude of the host society (Heckmann, Schnapper, 2003). It is also stated that the probability of a successful social and economic integration of an immigrant into the host society depends not only on his/her human capital, but also on his/her particular country of origin, “race” and belonging to a specific ethnic community (Castles, 2008).

In this panel, we would like to approach the socioeconomic integration of immigrants from different perspectives and on different scales of analysis. How can the determinants of immigrant integration be addressed by national governments and local councils in order to boost immigrants’
access to the labour market? To what extent do immigrants themselves use their social networks to get incorporated into their host society? Are there differences between the integration strategies taken by immigrant minorities in specific local places or coming from diverse environments?
Are the integration policies adopted by the countries of Eastern and Western Europe different? These are the issues that this panel aims to address.

13. Access to fair and transparent qualifications recognition – a right or a privilege?

Session Organiser: Beata Sokolowska (Trinity College Dublin)

Ongoing globalisation has led to European societies that are becoming increasingly diverse. On one hand, progressing globalisation evokes demand for equity and provision of high quality information. On the other hand, European countries face unacceptably high rates of unemployment and are concerned about social inclusion. Exploring academic and social aspect of the recognition of foreign qualifications in the European context is important for a number of reasons. Firstly, migrants who move from one country to another are often interested in seeking the recognition of their qualification so they can access regulated or unregulated professions and/or pursue further studies in their host country. Secondly, fair recognition of migrants’ skills and educational attainment should facilitate transferability of already acquired knowledge and social competence. Thirdly, recognition of foreign qualifications acts as a mechanism to place international awards in the context of particular education and training systems, which is of great importance, particularly in the context of labour market activation; access, transfer and progression (ATP) and the recognition of prior learning (RPL). In terms of contributing to social cohesion, the recognition of qualifications and competencies of migrants is decisive. However, only a few European countries offer this service free of charge (e.g., Ireland).Finally, there is a limited availability of information on the impact of recognition of foreign qualifications for migrant employability and social cohesion. This session calls for papers on this topic that will reflect how information barriers may be removed and how this may contribute to a greater social equality for migrants within Europe.

Book launch invite: Migration, Space and Transnational Identities: The British in South Africa, January 23rd

The Centre for Citizenship, Identities and Governance (CCIG, The Open University) would like to invite you to a book launch event: Migration, Space and Transnational Identities.The British in South Africa, co-authored by Daniel Conway (The Open University) and Pauline Leonard (University of Southampton). This timely text explores the lives, histories and identities of white British-born immigrants in South Africa, twenty years after the post-apartheid Government took office.

This event will take place on Friday, the 23d of January, from 6 to 8, at The Open University in London(Camden Town, Room 2).  Further details online:


Confirmed speakers will be, in addition to the authors (Daniel Conway and Pauline Leonard):

  • Prof Robin Cohen, Emeritus Professor and Former Director of the International Migration Institute, University of Oxford. Co-Editor of the Migration, Diasporas and Citizenship Series, Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Prof Karen O’Reilly, Professor of Sociology at Loughborough University and author of International Migration and Social Theory (Palgrave).
  • Prof Melissa Steyn, South African Research Chair (National Research Foundation) in Critical Diversity Studies and Director of the Wits Centre for Diversity Studies, University of the Witwatersrand

This event is free and open to all – within the limit of the number of places available!

If you’d like to attend, please register online:


Events: Conference on UK immigration – economic priorities, policy options and enforcement: Westminster Legal Policy Forum, Morning, Thursday, 5th March 2015

Westminster Legal Policy Forum Keynote Seminar

UK immigration – economic priorities, policy options and enforcement


David Hanson MP, Shadow Minister for Immigration

Baroness Hamwee, Co-Chair, Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party Committee on Home Affairs, Justice and Equalities

Daniel Kawczynski MP, Vice-Chairman, Cross-Party Group on Balanced Migration and The Prime Minister’s Special Adviser on Central and Eastern Europe


Jacqueline Bishop, Overseas Visitors Advisory Group and Brighton and Sussex University Hospital NHS Trust; Simon Gordon, Residential Landlords Association; Saira Grant, Joint Council for the Welfare of ImmigrantsProfessor Elspeth Guild, Queen Mary, University of London and Immigration Law Practitioners AssociationMark Jeynes, ExEd UK and Bishopstrow College, WiltshireSinead Lawrence, CBI; Alp Mehmet, Migration Watch UK; Henry St Clair Miller, No Recourse to Public Funds Network, Islington Council and Madeleine Sumption, The Migration Observatory

Chaired by:

Rt Hon the Baroness Prashar, Chair, EU Home Affairs, Health and Education Sub-Committee and Lord Jay of Ewelme, Member, EU Home Affairs, Health and Education Sub-Committee

Seminar supported by Gherson

This event is CPD certified

Morning, Thursday, 5th March 2015

Central London

Our Website | Book Online | Live Agenda | Unsubscribe

Dear Mr Dudman

I am writing to invite you to attend the above seminar. Please note there is a charge for most delegates, although concessionary and complimentary places are available (subject to terms and conditions – see below).


This timely seminar will focus on the future of UK immigration policy, as policymakers and stakeholders consider priorities in the lead-up to the 2015 General Election.

In light of the impact that reforms in this area could have on the further and higher education sectors – particularly in relation to attracting and retaining international students – I thought this seminar might be of interest to you.

The discussion will be informed by the Prime Minister’s recent speech on immigration – which focused on reducing the attractiveness of the UK to lower-skilled EU migrants, including proposals to restrict access to in-work benefits and social housing.

It is also timed to consider the ongoing implementation of the recently passed Immigration Act, and will bring out latest thinking on the future of the UK’s Immigration Rules – particularly the regulation of work, study and family-related immigration – and the implications for the UK economy.

The agenda will include a keynote panel with contributions from David Hanson MP, Shadow Minister for Immigration; Baroness Hamwee, Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party Committee on Home Affairs, Justice and Equalities and Daniel Kawczynski MP, Cross-Party Group on Balanced Migration and Special Adviser on Central and Eastern Europe.

Sessions will look at:

  • Addressing illegal immigration – with particular reference to the effectiveness of new measures to verify the legal status of migrants – including responsibilities for landlords, banks and employers;
  • Access to services, facilities and employment – latest discussion regarding temporary migrant rights, their contribution to the welfare state and their ability to access benefits and the labour market;
  • UK competitiveness – looking at recent changes to work, student and family visas, and challenges for attracting the “brightest and best”; and
  • Net-migration – priorities for the next Parliament, looking at latest trends across European and non-EEA migration, and their implications for the UK.

The conference will bring together key policymakers and Central Government officials with a wide range of interested stakeholder groups – including lawyers, local authorities, universities, colleges, business leaders and campaign groups, as well as charities and academics.

The draft agenda is copied below my signature, and a regularly updated version is available to download here. The seminar is supported by Gherson, and organised on the basis of strict impartiality by the Westminster Legal Policy Forum.


We are delighted to be able to include in this seminar keynote addresses from the David Hanson MP, Shadow Minister for Immigration; Baroness Hamwee, Co-Chair, Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party Committee on Home Affairs, Justice and Equalities and Daniel Kawczynski MP, Vice-Chairman, Cross-Party Group on Balanced Migration and The Prime Minister’s Special Adviser on Central and Eastern Europe.

Further confirmed speakers include: Jacqueline Bishop, Co-Chair, Overseas Visitors Advisory Group and Overseas & Private Patient’s Co-ordinator, Brighton and Sussex University Hospital NHS Trust; Simon Gordon, Policy Consultant, Residential Landlords Association; Saira Grant, Legal and Policy Director, Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants; Professor Elspeth Guild, Professor of Law, Queen Mary, University of London and Co-Chair, European Sub Committee, Immigration Law Practitioners Association; Mark Jeynes, Vice Chairman, ExEd UK and Director, Bishopstrow College, Wiltshire; Sinead Lawrence, Senior Policy Adviser, CBI; Alp Mehmet, Vice Chairman, Migration Watch UK; Henry St Clair Miller, Manager, No Recourse to Public Funds Network, Islington Council and Madeleine Sumption, Director-Elect, The Migration Observatory.

Rt Hon the Baroness Prashar, Chair, EU Home Affairs, Health and Education Sub-Committee and Lord Jay of Ewelme, Member, EU Home Affairs, Health and Education Sub-Committee have kindly agreed to chair this seminar.

Additional senior participants are being approached.


This seminar will present an opportunity to engage with key policymakers and other interested parties, and is CPD certified (more details). Places have been reserved by officials from the Home Office; Greater London Authority; Migration Advisory Committee; NAO; Crown Prosecution Service; HM Inspectorate of Prisons; the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and the Scottish Government. Also due to attend are representatives from Bangladesh High Commission; Berkeley Law; Chevening; DAC Beachcroft; Dearson Winyard International; Definitive Immigration Services; Fox Williams; Fragomen; Global 4 Immigration; INTO University Partnerships; Kamberley Solicitors; Kingsley Napley; Laura Devine Solicitors; London Business School; London School of Economics and Political Science; LSE Cities; Magrath; MAXIMUS UK; Migration Museum Project; Moore Blatch; OPM Response; OSSC; Queen Mary, University of London; Royal College of Nursing; Santé Project; TOEFL; UKCISA; UK NARIC; UK SBS; University of Sheffield; University of Wales and Wesley Gryk Solicitors.

Overall, we expect speakers and attendees to be a senior and informed group numbering around 120, and for this seminar we would expect Members of both Houses of Parliament, senior officials from the Home Office, MoJ, DCLG and other relevant Departments, senior representatives from lawyers, business groups, universities, colleges, embassies, local authorities, community advice services, charities and campaign groups, as well as academics and representatives of the national and trade press.

Output and About Us

A key output of the seminar will be a transcript of the proceedings, sent out around 10 working days after the event to all attendees and a wider group of Ministers and officials at MoJ and other government departments and agencies affected by the issues; and Parliamentarians with a special interest in these areas. It will also be made available more widely. This document will include transcripts of all speeches and questions and answers sessions from the day, along with access to PowerPoint presentations, speakers’ biographies, an attendee list, an agenda, sponsor information, as well as any subsequent press coverage of the day and any articles or comment pieces submitted by delegates. It is made available subject to strict restrictions on public use, similar to those for Select Committee Uncorrected Evidence, and is intended to provide timely information for interested parties who are unable to attend on the day.

All delegates will receive complimentary PDF copies and are invited to contribute to the content.

The Westminster Legal Policy Forum is strictly impartial and cross-party, and draws on the considerable support it receives from within Parliament and government, and amongst the wider stakeholder community. The Forum has no policy agenda of its own. Forum events are frequently the platform for major policy statements from senior Ministers, regulators and other officials, opposition speakers and senior opinion-formers in industry and interest groups. Events regularly receive prominent coverage in the national and trade press.

Booking arrangements

To book places, please use our online booking form.

Once submitted, this will be taken as a confirmed booking and will be subject to our terms and conditions below.

Please pay in advance by credit card on 01344 864796. If advance credit card payment is not possible, please let me know and we may be able to make other arrangements.

Options and charges are as follows:

  • Places at UK immigration – economic priorities, policy options and enforcement (including refreshments and PDF copy of the transcripts) are £210 plus VAT;
  • Concessionary rate places for small charities, unfunded individuals and those in similar circumstances are £80 plus VAT. Please be sure to apply for this at the time of booking.

For those who cannot attend:

  • Copies of the briefing document, including full transcripts of all speeches and the questions and comments sessions and further articles from interested parties, will be available approximately 10 days after the event for £95 plus VAT;
  • Concessionary rate: £50 plus VAT.

If you find the charge for places a barrier to attending, please let me know as concessionary and complimentary places are made available in certain circumstances (but do be advised that this typically applies to individual service users or carers or the like who are not supported by or part of an organisation, full-time students, people between jobs or who are fully retired with no paid work, and representatives of small charities – not businesses, individuals funded by an organisation, or larger charities/not-for-profit companies). Please note terms and conditions below (including cancellation charges).

I do hope that you will be able to join us for what promises to be a most useful morning, and look forward to hearing from you soon.

Westminster Legal Policy Forum Keynote Seminar:

UK immigration – economic priorities, policy options and enforcement

Timing: Morning, Thursday, 5th March 2015

Venue: Central London


Draft agenda subject to change


8.30 – 9.00 Registration and coffee
9.00 – 9.05 Chair’s opening remarks

Rt Hon the Baroness Prashar, Chair, EU Home Affairs, Health and Education Sub-Committee

9.05 – 9.15 The UK’s immigration framework – analysis and latest trends

Professor Elspeth Guild, Professor of Law, Queen Mary, University of London and Co-Chair, European Sub Committee, Immigration Law Practitioners Association

Questions and comments from the floor

9.15 – 10.10 Implementing new legislation – enforcement, effectiveness and impact

Perspectives on the impact of the Immigration Act, and its likely long-term effectiveness in reducing the amount of illegal immigrants in the UK. How effective will recently introduced measures to strengthen checks on the status of immigrants be in reducing the amount of people staying in the UK illegally, and is it reasonable under the new legislation to put the burden of enforcement on private sector stakeholders, such as landlords and banks? Do exemptions to these checks – for example measures to support individuals in emergency circumstances – go far enough in protecting the welfare of those who are refused services? What issues are likely to arise from reducing from seventeen to four the amount of appeals allowed for rejected immigration applications? How valid are concerns that new powers to deport immigrants before hearing their appeal will unduly undermine due process in the immigration system? What issues might the ending of the ‘right to a family life’ as an absolute argument bring up in practice across the family route of immigration – particularly in terms of the subjectivity of decisions? How effectively has the Immigration Act addressed the issue of ‘health and benefit tourism’; will measures to increase the financial contributions of temporary migrants act as an effective deterrent without infringing on the rights of genuine claimants and service-users?

Saira Grant, Legal and Policy Director, Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants

Jacqueline Bishop, Co-Chair, Overseas Visitors Advisory Group and Overseas & Private Patient’s Co-ordinator,

Brighton and Sussex University Hospital NHS Trust

Simon Gordon, Policy Consultant, Residential Landlords Association

Henry St Clair Miller, Manager, No Recourse to Public Funds Network, Islington Council

Senior representative, lawyer

Questions and comments from the floor with Professor Elspeth Guild, Professor of Law, Queen Mary, University of London and Co-Chair, European Sub Committee, Immigration Law Practitioners Association

10.10 – 10.35 Efficiency and effectiveness across the UK’s border and immigration functions – latest assessment

Senior speaker to be announced

Questions and comments from the floor

10.35 – 10.40 Chair’s closing remarks

Rt Hon the Baroness Prashar, Chair, EU Home Affairs, Health and Education Sub-Committee

10.40 – 11.05 Coffee
11.05 – 11.10 Chair’s opening remarks

Lord Jay of Ewelme, Member, EU Home Affairs, Health and Education Sub-Committee

11.10 – 11.55 Immigration and the UK economy – next steps for the immigration rules

Latest assessment of recent changes to the UK’s immigration rules and visa system, and the long-term challenges for regulating work, study and family-related immigration of non-EEA nationals. In light of recently introduced measures to tighten the process of transferring from a Student visa to an Entrepreneur visa – including the use of more detailed “genuineness” tests – what more can be done to tackle fraudulent applications in this area, without deterring entrepreneurial activity? To what extent will the recent expansion of the Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) category help encourage businesses and start-ups to base themselves in the UK – particularly in newly incorporated sectors such as digital technology? Should policymakers consider further reform of the (Tier 2) skilled worker category; how satisfied are businesses with the current framework for recruiting non-EEA workers, and what aspects might need to be revised in the future – particularly in relation to cooling-off periods, income thresholds and time limits? What challenges will the principle of freedom of movement within the EU pose to UK policymakers in the next Parliament, and what impact would placing restrictions on the flow of EEA migrants have on the UK’s labour market? How workable are recent proposals from the Prime Minister to reduce the attractiveness of the UK to lower-skilled EU migrants – including measures to restrict access to in-work benefits and social housing, as well as preventing EU jobseekers from claiming Universal Credit?

Madeleine Sumption, Director-Elect, The Migration Observatory

Alp Mehmet, Vice Chairman, Migration Watch UK

Sinead Lawrence, Senior Policy Adviser, CBI

Mark Jeynes, Vice Chairman, ExEd UK and Director, Bishopstrow College, Wiltshire

Questions and comments from the floor

11.55 – 12.55 Options for policy and likely challenges ahead for the new Parliament

David Hanson MP, Shadow Minister for Immigration

Baroness Hamwee, Co-Chair, Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party Committee on Home Affairs, Justice and Equalities

Daniel Kawczynski MP, Vice-Chairman, Cross-Party Group on Balanced Migration and The Prime Minister’s Special Adviser on Central and Eastern Europe

Questions and comments from the floor

12.55 – 13.00 Chair’s and Westminster Legal Policy Forum closing remarks

Lord Jay of Ewelme, Member, EU Home Affairs, Health and Education Sub-Committee

Marc Gammon, Senior Producer, Westminster Legal Policy Forum

Scholarships on Migration and Place and Migration, Housing and the Neighbourhood System

Scholarships on Migration and Place and Migration, Housing and the Neighbourhood System

Funded scholarships in the Institute of Social Policy, Housing, the Environment and Real Estate (I-SPHERE) at Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh where I am based. The topics are:

1) Migration and Place

2) Migration, the Housing System and Neighbourhood Dynamics

See below for links to entry requirements and how to apply, and for more detail on the scope of these topics.


Migration and Place

Human migration impacts on the environment at a global, national and local level and is often the focus of intense political attention and debate. Yet, to date, research has not kept up with the pace, scale and patterns of either the voluntary movement of economic migrants, the forced migration of asylum-seekers and refugees, or the large-scale involuntary displacement of people due to climate change effects such as flooding or other natural disasters. Such research plays an important role in advancing understanding of the causes, consequences and experiences of human movement within the context of rapid urbanization and globalisation in diverse contexts. Previous work in this area has explored the access to, and experiences of established and recent migrants to key public services including housing, planning, social care, employment and the arts. Recent work has examined the relationship between migration and poverty, and what can be done to alleviate the effects of poverty among both migrants and the majority population, including among low-paid workers, in both urban and rural contexts. Yet another strand of work has examined the dynamics of identity construction and negotiation, and issues related to belonging, integration and exclusion at various spatial levels as well as (changing) forms of multiculturalism. Such issues continue to remain in sharp focus following the Global Financial Crisis, and within the UK, are the subject of current debates on how the nation positions itself within the EU. Research in this area has been used as the basis for expert witness guidance and advice to the European Commission, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Scottish Government and quasi-governmental organisations. (Supervisor Gina Netto g.netto@hw.ac.uk)

Migration, the Housing System and Neighbourhood Dynamics

Since the early 2000s the UK has been experiencing an era of ‘super-diversity’ due to increased number of immigrants coming to the country from a wide range of destinations. Academic research to an extent has not kept pace with this change in that research continued to be focused on established ethnic minorities, who present different characteristics to recent immigrants. Researchers at I-SPHERE recognise this need for more research on recent immigrants and are interested in supervising doctoral research related to the core areas studied within the Institute: the housing system and neighbourhoods. We welcome PhD candidates interested in topics such as: migrant housing trajectories, migrant homelessness, the impact of rapid migration on neighbourhoods (place dynamics, social cohesion, conflict), migrants’ use of urban spaces and services, formation of place identity/attachment, and forced dispersal of asylum seekers and refugees. I-SPHERE has a strong track record in research on migration and ethnicity, including studies led by Dr Gina Netto, Dr Filip Sosenko and Prof. Suzanne Fitzpatrick.

(Supervisor: Dr Filip Sosenko f.sosenko@hw.ac.uk)

We invite research leaders and ambitious early career researchers to join us in leading and driving research in key inter-disciplinary themes. Please see www.hw.ac.uk/researchleaders for further information and how to apply.

Call for Papers: The 1990 CSCE Copenhagen Document, East-West encounters and evolutions of the minority regime in Europe

CALL FOR PAPERS : The 1990 CSCE Copenhagen Document, East-West encounters and
evolutions of the minority regime in Europe

Place : Flensburg
Date : 5-7 June 2015

Deadline : 15 January 201

Interested scholars are invited to participate in a multidisciplinary
conference on the inception of the European minority rights regime a quarter of
a century ago, at the end of the Cold War; the regime’s subsequent evolutions,
affected by the re-drawing of the dividing lines in Europe; and the new
challenges created by the turmoil in Eastern Europe.The conference is organised
and hosted by the European Centre for Minority Issues. The organisers intend to
publish a selection of the papers in the form of edited volumes and/or journal
special issues. The conference will also incorporate workshop sessions to
discuss the establishment of new research networks dedicated to the key themes
under consideration.


Document of the Copenhagen Meeting

This conference has been timed to coincide with the 25th anniversary of the
1990 Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human
Dimension of the CSCE. For several reasons, this document and its anniversary
deserve the attention of scholars and practitioners dealing with minority
issues. First of all, it constitutes a landmark and in some respects a starting
point in the development of the European minority rights regime. Part IV of the
Document contains numerous innovative concepts – such as ‘full equality’,
‘effective participation’, ‘autonomy arrangements’, ‘proportionate measures’
and so forth – that provided an impetus for further political and scholarly
debates and have since become central for minority protection in the framework
of the OSCE, CoE and UN, as well as in national legislations in Europe and
beyond.Second, the Copenhagen Document was a byproduct of the cooperation
between the West and the East at the end of the Cold War. The still
underexplored contributions of the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and East
Germany to the drafting and adoption of the Copenhagen Document were in part
inspired by the resurgence of ethnic claims and ethnic conflicts in the former
communist states and the energetic attempts of the ruling elites in the USSR,
Yugoslavia and Hungary to cope with the new challenges in the framework of
democratization processes. These transformations of the previously closed party
apparatus-led decision-making into public politics, the related new
institutional set-ups and the legacies of this period deserve a thorough
analysis. The fact that the communist rulers and the Western democracies were
able to talk the same language with regard to minority issues also begs
questions.Third, as some scholars argue, Europe is slowly sliding today towards
a new Cold War period, and minority issues are playing a significant role in
the recent escalation of tensions around Ukraine. The recent developments
prompt an examination of the achievements and failures of the last 25 years,
particularly of the loopholes in the international and domestic normative
regulations of minority issues and the destructive effects they can generate.
Broader challenges that the minority rights regime in Europe faces today and
possible remedies to these issues shall be also addressed.


We thus suggest a multidisciplinary international discussion which would
involve scholars and policy-makers and would focus on several topics. The list
of potential topics includes, but is not limited to:

. The conceptual evolution of the minority regime in Europe and North America
and the impact of the 1990 Copenhagen Document; . Modes of international
cooperation with regard to minorities in Europe and North America; . Merits and
flaws of the European minority rights regime; . Institutional underpinnings of
ethnic politics and diversity policies at the domestic and international
levels; . Liberal-democratic and authoritarian approaches to minority policies
– is there a common ground?
. Communist conceptual and institutional legacies in the international and
domestic minority regimes; . The new challenges and new dividing lines between
the ‘West’ and the ‘East’ and the future of the European minority rights


We aim to attract innovative contributions that develop theoretical arguments
while embedding these in the context of case studies. Applications from early
career scholars are especially welcome. Applicants must submit a 300 word
abstract, short academic CV and preliminary registration form to
conference2015@ecmi.de by 15 January 2015.

Conference participants recruited through this call will be responsible for
meeting the costs of their travel and accommodation. The organizers are
currently looking into sources of external funding for the conference, and,
provided this can be secured, a limited number of bursaries for early career
researchers (doctoral students and the holders of PhDs awarded after 1 January
2012) might be available. Applicants should indicate if they wish to be
considered for the early career bursary when submitting their abstract and
registration form. We strongly encourage applicants to seek funding from their
home institution or alternative sources. The organisers will confirm the
overall selection of speakers for the conference and the offers of early career
bursaries by the end of February 2015.

Practical information

Accommodation for conference speakers will be provided at the Akademie
Sankelmark (in the vicinity of Flensburg), at a special institutional rate of
75 EUR per night for a single or double rooms. ECMI will make bookings on
behalf of the participants, using the information provided on the conference
application form. Participants will then be responsible for paying their own
hotel bill while in Sankelmark. The conference is scheduled to begin at 10:00
on 5 June, and end at 12.30 on 7 June. All the meals are included in the daily
rate of the accommodation.

If you have any further questions regarding the remit of and arrangements for
the conference, please email them to conference2015@ecmi.de with the subject


Preliminary application form: http://bit.ly/1yhhIgw


News Stories (weekly) (weekly)

  • “A 27-year-old woman in Sicily has emerged as the unlikely saviour of thousands of Syrians who risk their lives sailing through winter storms in the Mediterranean to escape the civil war devastating their country.

    As they drift in unpiloted ships, often without fuel or food and buffeted by giant waves, many migrants use the last credit on their phones to seek assistance from Nawal Soufi, an Italian-Moroccan activist based in Catania, who is known among Syrians as “Lady SOS ”


  • “Coast guard attributes spike to unfounded fear of an end to ‘wet-foot-dry foot policy’, which often shields Cubans from deportation if they reach US shores”


  • “MIAMI (AP) — Driven by fear that their window is closing, the number of Cuban migrants attempting to reach the U.S. illegally in rafts has surged since the two countries announced they would restore diplomatic relations after 50 years, Coast Guard officials said Monday.

    U.S. authorities have captured, intercepted or chased away 421 Cubans since Dec. 17, mostly in the Florida Straits, said Lt. Cmdr. Gabe Somma, spokesman for the Coast Guard’s 7th District in Miami.

    In all of December 2013, the total number of Cuban migrants who encountered U.S. law enforcement while trying to reach the U.S was nearly half that — just 222.”


  • “Angela Merkel has lent qualified support to David Cameron’s plans to restrict state benefits to EU migrants, boosting his hopes of winning a new deal for Britain ahead of an in/out referendum.

    In Downing Street talks on EU reform, the economy and Ukraine overshadowed by the terrorist attack in Paris, the German Chancellor backed a clampdown on “abuse” of the free movement of people but insisted that the key EU principle itself was not up for negotiation.”


  • “Angela Merkel is poised to support British plans to cut millions of pounds of benefits sent abroad to the children of migrants.

    During an official visit to London today, the German chancellor is expected to tell David Cameron that she can back any reasonable reforms to European Union treaties provided that they do not challenge the principle of free movement. ”


  • “Abu Hamada, a 62-year-old civil engineer from the outskirts of Damascus, has not built much for several years, and yet by his own calculations he has earned about £1,500,000 in the past six months. That is because since moving to Egypt after the Syrian civil war started, this Syrian-Palestinian refugee has found a far more lucrative line of work – smuggling.

    As the recent discovery of two unmanned “ghost ships” carrying hundreds of migrants to Italy showed, refugees are looking to cross the Mediterranean in ever more desperate ways, amid what the International Organisation for Migration now believes is the world’s largest wave of mass migration [] since the end of the second world war.”


  • “Following the announcement in July that the records of the United Nations War Crimes Commission were made open to the public for the first time in 70 years, a panel discussion examining the historical significance and potential use of the records was held this afternoon at UN Headquarters in New York.

    The records of the UN War Crimes Commission, which was operational between 1943 and 1948 and played a vital role in preparation for the war crimes trials that followed the Second World War, were made open to the public this past July at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.

    Speaking at the panel discussion, United Nations War Crimes Commission Records (1943-1949): Past, Present and Future, Adama Dieng, UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, underscored the importance of acknowledging the Commission’s legacy in terms of dealing with war crimes today.”


  • “In the United States, where the Armenian issue is most prominent, 42 states have recognized the events as genocide. Yet, in his eagerly anticipated statements every April 24, President Barack Obama has used the expression “meds yeghern,” which means “great calamity” in Armenian, rather than the word “genocide.” Serving his second term free from the pressures of re-election, Obama is unlikely to alter his usual language in 2015. The Republicans, who took control of the Senate in midterm elections Nov. 4, appear to stand closer to Turkey on the Armenian issue, provided Turkey mends fences with Israel.”


  • “A new report from Montenegro’s interior ministry said that of the 16,000 refugees and displaced people who have been living in the country since the 1990s conflicts, only 1,038 have managed to obtain citizenship.

    The country has one of the strictest citizenship regimes in the region and it also prohibits dual citizenship.”


  • “Myanmar has drafted plans that would offer the Rohingya minority the chance of citizenship if they change their ethnicity. But HRW’s Phil Robertson tells DW he believes the move could force thousands to flee the country. “


  • “Behind the blitz of airstrikes and land battles in Syria, an unseen army is hunting for special spoils of war: pieces of paper, including military orders, meeting minutes, prison records and any other documents that could help build cases for future prosecutions.

    Several Western governments, including those of the United States and Britain, are financing two separate teams of investigators searching for evidence needed to establish criminal liability in any future war crimes trials. It is important, diplomats say, that the teams and their local operatives search for documents while the conflict is being waged.”


Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

New Journal Articles (weekly)

  • “Readers of African Affairs have already had an excellent introduction to Séverine Autesserre’s latest book through her prize-winning article ‘Dangerous tales: Dominant narratives on the Congo and their unintended consequences’ (2012). The article masterfully analysed the unintended and detrimental side-effects of the use of simplified narratives about conflict causes, consequences, and solutions by international peace builders. Peaceland has a lot more to offer: it is a sharp and compelling analysis of the organizational and social-psychological dimensions of international intervention, made highly accessible by numerous on-the-ground examples.

    The failure of international peace-building efforts has been thoroughly debated and researched. Several authors have attributed failures to top-down planning inherent in ‘liberal peace building’ or to the lack of local ownership (see, for example, the work of Oliver Richmond). Autesserre adds another, crucial dimension: the everyday practices and routines of international interveners. In her analysis, effective peace-building initiatives are seen as those ‘projects or programs that, during interviews or informal discussions, both implementers … and intended beneficiaries … presented as having promoted peace’ (p. 23). Contrary to some … ”


  • “One would hardly expect a volume on genocide to make for easy reading. Not only does the subject matter push our understanding of humanity to its limits, but since the early 1990s the developing field of genocide studies has evolved primarily within a legal framework (with some notable exceptions). This edited volume bucks that trend. It provides a series of relatively short, pithy chapters by scholars in political science, history, law, philosophy, anthropology, and theology, and thereby stretches the bounds of scholarship on genocide.

    The volume as a whole seeks to blur the distinctions between risk and resilience, prevention and coping, and origins and aftermaths, and focuses not only on the destructive vision of genocide, but also on the multiple and often localized forms of resistance and recovery that are typically overlooked. It is this emphasis on resistance and mitigating factors that really breaks new ground. Furthermore, the strength of the book lies not only in what it does, but what it does not do: it does not compartmentalize Africa as a site of particular violence, and it is not driven by rights language … ”


  • “Ten months after the first infection, Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization, described the Ebola epidemic in West Africa as the ‘most severe acute public health emergency in modern times’. The disaster, she said, represents a ‘crisis for international peace and security’ and threatens the ‘very survival of societies and governments in already very poor countries’.1 As of October 2014, the disease had killed 4,951 and infected 13,567.2 It has crippled families, health systems, livelihoods, food supplies and economies in its wake. These numbers are likely to be vastly underestimated. How did it get to this? Why has this outbreak been so much larger than previous ones? The scale of the disaster has been attributed to the weak health systems of affected countries, their lack of resources, the mobility of communities and their inexperience in dealing with Ebola.3 This answer, however, is woefully de-contextualized and de-politicized. This briefing examines responses to the outbreak and offers a different set of explanations, rooted in the history of the region and the political economy of global health and development.

    To move past technical discussions of “weak” health systems, this briefing highlights how structural violence4 has contributed to the epidemic. Structural violence refers to the way institutions and practices inflict avoidable harm by impairing basic human needs. Damage is done unequally and often in a manner which comes to be taken for granted. The Ebola crisis has emerged from the meeting of long-term economic, social, technical, discursive, and political exclusions and injustices, now shown to be dramatically unsustainable. These multiple impairments have fed into three additional areas of “weakness”, which are discussed here. They are the failure of outbreak response and global health governance, compromised health systems and development policy, and misleading assumptions and myths. ”


  • “This article examines the impact of UN-imposed sanctions on the stability of the Eritrean regime, with a focus on the reaction of the diaspora. It explores the transnational nature of Eritrean society and examines the history and structure of the Eritrean diaspora as well as its transformation since the political crisis of 2001. The article demonstrates that the government, as well as both its supporters and its opponents in the diaspora, have all instrumentalized sanctions for their own purposes. The government has used sanctions to rally supporters “around the flag”, calling on the diaspora to raise funds to negate their effect. By contrast, opposition activists have campaigned against the 2 percent “diaspora tax” levied by the government, arguing that it may be used for illicit military purposes in breach of the sanctions regime. In this sense, the sanctions have destabilized a core component of the regime’s resource base. However, the failure of the diasporic opposition to organize a joint campaign to persuade host governments to outlaw the collection of the tax has undermined its efforts. Funds raised through the diaspora tax thus continue to flow into government coffers, playing a stabilizing role in spite of the UN sanctions regime. “


  • “During the last decade, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) became a regional problem in the border area of the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic, involving multiple national and international actors. This article explains why these actors often present diametrically opposed images of the LRA instead of developing a unified vision. More specifically, the article discusses how the Ugandan and Congolese governments and armies, and the US government and advocacy groups, each frame the LRA differently. These various frames are influenced by the actors’ interests and by the specific historical development of political relations between them. Politically influential constituencies played a significant role in this endeavour. In the US, lobby groups such as Invisible Children, Enough, and Resolve had an important impact on the way in which the American government framed the LRA. Conversely, the lack of such a powerful constituency in the LRA-affected countries gave these governments ample space to frame the LRA in a variety of ways. The lack of reliable information about the current capacities of the LRA, combined with the LRA’s lack of a strong and coherent image, further contributed to this situation. In short, the ways in which the LRA is framed enabled these key actors to pursue goals that may remain distant from the reality of the LRA. “


  • “Power-sharing agreements have become a blueprint for efforts to end violent conflicts in many parts of the world, particularly in Africa. Such agreements, however, rarely include territorial power sharing – at least, not according to the formal, rather unhelpful narrow definition that includes federalism and decentralization. This article argues that the concept of territorial power sharing needs to be broadened in order to account for the manifold informal or indirect manifestations of such arrangements. Drawing on extensive fieldwork data from the DRC, Liberia, and Kenya, the article analyses the history of spatiality and power in Africa in order to explain why formal mechanisms of territorial power sharing are rare and why more subtle types of informal territorial power sharing are much more common. Based on this analysis, we conclude that territorial power sharing is present in many African states, but that typically it is overlooked because of its informal nature. “


  • “People seeking to understand the scope and scale of violence in the Central African Republic over the past two years have cited a variety of social grievances centring on the political manipulation of religion, belonging, and access to opportunities. Without denying that these factors have played a role, this article argues that the violence must be understood in the context of social practices of violence that long predate the war, especially in light of the diffuse and non-centralized mode of organization through which the ongoing war has played out. The article focuses on the prevalence of popular punishment and vengeance, which have long histories as elements of statecraft in the CAR and have become even more widespread amid the generalized insecurity and anomie that have set in over the past few decades. The article presents evidence of the workings of popular punishment from the intra-family level to that of the crowd and quartier, in both rural and urban locales. Though people have important reservations about popular punishment, they also see vengeance as an important tool for enforcing a circumscribed mode of empathy and a minimum set of standards for social behaviour. These experiences in the CAR suggest that those wishing to understand how wartime mobilization happens must consider not just fighters’ grievances but also people’s conceptions of the practical and symbolic efficacy of vengeance and popular punishment as elements of politics and the management of threats. “


  • “Since 1999, Muslim-majority northern Nigeria has witnessed a new phase of political struggles over the place of Islamic law (shari’a) in public life. This article traces how Muslim politics played into shari’a administration in Kano, northern Nigeria’s most populous state, and argues that governmental bureaucracies created for the purpose of administering shari’a became sites of political contests over the meaning of public morality in Islamic terms. Shari’a bureaucracies featured as prizes in unstable political alliances between Muslim scholars and elected Muslim politicians. Politicians’ appointments of Muslim scholars to bureaucratic positions, and their empowerment or disempowerment of certain bureaucracies, posed fundamental questions concerning who would control the shari’a project and what its content would be. The manoeuvres surrounding Kano’s shari’a bureaucracies reflect broader trends in northern Nigerian politics. The shari’a project has not been a manifestation of Islamism in a narrow sense, but rather the site of a more complex set of intra-Muslim rivalries and electoral competition within an ostensibly secular political system. “


  • “Kenya’s invasion of southern Somalia, which began in October 2011, has turned into an occupation of attrition – while “blowback” from the invasion has consolidated in a series of deadly Al-Shabaab attacks within Kenya. This article reviews the background to the invasion, Operation Linda Nchi, and the prosecution of the war by Kenya’s Defence Forces up to the capture of the city of Kismayo and the contest to control its lucrative port. The second section discusses Al-Shabaab’s response, showing how the movement has reinvented itself to take the struggle into Kenya. We conclude that while the military defeat of Al-Shabaab in southern Somalia seems inevitable, such a victory may become irrelevant to Kenya’s ability to make a political settlement with its Somali and wider Muslim communities at home. “


  • “The Court of Justice of the European Union has the potential to influence the development of international refugee law in significant ways. Since securing jurisdiction over asylum questions in 2005, the Court has issued binding rulings on the interpretation of European Union asylum rules that are derived from the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. While the Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on the application of the Convention as such, it is effectively determining the way in which Member States apply the Convention, which can have a significant impact at a global level. This article considers the connection between the European Union legal framework on asylum, as examined and interpreted in the Court of Justice’s jurisprudence, and international refugee legal standards. It examines selected rulings of the Court on the rights of asylum-seekers and people in need of international protection where the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has issued a public statement or third party intervention, and considers ways to ensure that the development of European Union asylum law, as influenced by the Court’s pronouncements, continues to take account of relevant international developments. “


  • “This article examines the contribution of international human rights monitoring bodies to refugee protection. It first considers the well established position that the principle of non-refoulement is enshrined in international human rights law, and examines its absolute nature. It then examines some of the recent jurisprudence by international human rights monitoring bodies where the risk of prohibited treatment arises on account of one of the Refugee Convention grounds for refugee status (namely, race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion) and identifies the questions that arise from such findings. Last, it examines the jurisprudence of international human rights monitoring bodies, which moves beyond a finding of non-refoulement to discuss matters of status and in particular of security of residence. The article argues that international human rights monitoring bodies have been instrumental in refugee protection by interpreting international human rights law in an inclusive manner, ultimately contributing to the acceptance by States and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that protection of the broad categories of refugees covered by international human rights law constitutes a legal obligation (and not merely a discretional decision) of States under international law, an understanding that has led to the adoption of specific complementary instruments at regional level and the promotion of complementary forms of protection by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. “


  • “This article reassesses the question of whether international human rights law fixes procedural parameters for the determination of refugee status. Based on a detailed jurisprudential analysis, the study shows that Human Rights Treaty bodies of both universal and regional aspiration contribute positively to clarifying the minimum procedural standards applicable to this aspect of refugee protection. Drawing on recent ground-breaking decisions, the study finds general agreement among these transnational human rights bodies that human rights guarantees do regulate the process of refugee status determination. Nonetheless, it equally illustrates that each treaty body frames the applicability of human rights standards to refugee status determination in a different way. The article concludes that the tension between these two dynamics of the treaty body jurisprudence – convergence in result but divergence in approach – raises certain questions about our wider understanding of the relationship(s) between refugee law and human rights law. “


  • “Building on the academic literature on state compliance with international norms, and focusing specifically on the business and human rights agenda, this article offers the first systematic analysis of the numerous roles that National Action Plans (NAPs) can play in fostering deep implementation of human rights norms. The article argues that this potential can be fully exploited only if the production of NAPs follows eight criteria. The process of NAP development should: (1) be based on a comprehensive baseline study/gap analysis; (2) include all relevant state agencies; (3) allow effective multi-stakeholder participation; and (4) continuously monitor implementation. In terms of content, NAPs should: (5) express firm commitment to implement the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights; (6) conform as much as possible to the structure and substance of this UN document; (7) offer unambiguous commitments and clear deadlines for future action; and (8) envisage capacity-building initiatives. While numerous governments have embarked on the process of developing NAPs to implement the UN Guiding Principles, drafting processes differ with respect to the form of cooperation among state administrations, the level of consultation with external stakeholders and the extent of engagement with independent experts. The content varies as well: some NAPs are forward-looking, others are mainly descriptive; some offer clear commitments and deadlines, others include nothing but vague aspirations. The article assesses the most advanced NAPs on the basis of the above-mentioned eight criteria. “


  • “The present article examines two projects of Physicians for Human Rights–Israel (PHR–IL)—a clinic in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and a clinic for undocumented migrant workers and asylum seekers—in order to examine the tensions between medical humanitarian aid, human rights advocacy and egalitarian political activism. Through the examination of PHR–IL the article argues that it is possible to create a hierarchical synergism between those three modes. “


  • “In this article, I reflect on the lessons learned from a one year action-research process with displaced people in London to advocate for an actor-oriented approach to human rights education. I suggest that when it comes to supporting marginalized people to claim their rights, we need not to look for a transferable set of skills and knowledge but to nurture a rights consciousness – a sense of entitlement to one’s rights – through transformative learning methodologies. The article discusses both the content and pedagogy of such methodologies, paying special attention to critical reflection and affective learning. I conclude that for us as human rights educators to engage in transformative learning for human rights we need to approach rights as rooted in the relationships, contextual realities, and perspectives of the people we work for and with, and I suggest that the way we understand rights incurs a set of implications for the way we ‘teach’ and claim them. “


  • “This critical exchange contributes to the ongoing discussion of the themes of economic migration and human rights that we have pursued previously in these pages. It begins with a comment by William Smith on Luis Cabrera’s The Practice of Global Citizenship (Cambridge, 2010), and includes a response from Cabrera.”


  • “George Shulman’s American Prophecy: Race and Redemption in American Political Culture is a beautiful work of political theory, political theology and American studies. Through a critical analysis of biblical and contemporary prophetic traditions, Shulman reworks the sometimes suffocating terms of prophetic discourse in order to address and redeem suffering engendered by racial domination in the United States.”


  • “This article listens to the role played by sound and silence in Civil War prisons. Applying the methodology of sensory history, it argues that the experience of captivity cannot be understood without considering the aural environment of prisons, including patterns of listening, conflicting interpretations of the same sounds, and the role of sound in resistance. Although war was noisy for participants in general, prisoners had good reason to infuse the aural environment with meaning. Amid the confusion of captivity, prisoners actively listened for clues to help interpret their current circumstances and future prospects. Echoes of battle, voices of civilians, and rumors allowed prisoners to listen beyond the guards and slightly empower themselves. Sound also entwined with how prisoners perceived the passage of time, especially on days they infused with acoustic importance such as Sundays and national holidays. Focusing on listening as a methodology is important because it has the flexibility to incorporate competing interpretations. Keepers and captives attached different patterns of meaning to the same sounds and this is useful to consider in examining lived-experience. Preserving acoustic harmony was part of prison guards’ larger task of maintaining order. Conversely, effective use of noise offered prisoners a unique method of resistance because it utilized one of the few advantages of a weak but numerically superior population. The aural world was a channel of practical knowledge and captivity experience, a point of disagreement between prisoners and guards, and a method of resistance. “


  • “Before he was a stowaway, Jack Azose was an Ottoman subject. Upon his arrival in France he was undocumented and a suspected spy until, with the assistance of Paris’ Prefecture of Police, he became ‘ … a foreigner of Jewish nationality from the Levant’ (un étranger de nationalité Israélite du Levant) in the eyes of the law. It was the time of the First World War. Jack was fifteen, claiming to be eighteen.1 The legal nomenclature that was granted him had not existed prior to the First World War and would disappear soon after the war’s end.

    The fact of being Jewish was not yet a guarantor of citizenship to any national or international body, and the Levant was an amorphous geographic entity. And yet, in the course of the First World War and its immediate aftermath, thousands of Jews who were Ottoman by birth but extraterritorial by circumstance came to be codified in a new and inventive fashion in France and its colonies. Immediately after the Ottoman Empire’s entry into the First World War, the Third Republic determined that most of the 7,000 Ottoman subjects living in France, the majority of whom were Jewish and a significant minority of whom were Armenian Christian, would be deemed protégés spéciaux (special protégés). The formulation and application of this nomenclature was the result of careful orchestration by the Prefecture of Police, the Foreign Ministry, the Ministry of the Interior and (when it came to cases including Jews) two Franco-Jewish philanthropic organizations — the Alliance Israélite Universelle and the Association Culturelle Orientale — which aided the administration in identifying and allocating papers to Ottoman-born Jews.”


  • “Existing research has developed a wide range of evidence about predictors of perceived discrimination among minorities, but often generates conflicting evidence across studies. I claim this may be due to the measurement strategy. Existing research often uses cross-sectional surveys that ask minorities about their experiences with discrimination, but these questions cannot determine whether subjects with higher levels of perceived discrimination are more likely to experience discrimination or are just more likely to interpret events through the lens of discrimination. In this article, I propose a new strategy designed to measure when minorities use discrimination as a heuristic for understanding society. I use an original online survey of non-Whites in the United Kingdom and provide vignettes that describe racial inequality in education, employment, politics, the arts, and business. I then ask respondents how they would explain each form of inequality. This ensures that all minority respondents are reacting to the same stimulus. In addition to the new measurement strategy, I make a theoretical contribution to the standard analysis of variation across minority individuals by emphasizing variation in perceived discrimination across institutional fields. This approach has implications for debates about racial minorities in the United Kingdom and perceived discrimination in general. “


Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.