Search results

This country report analyses the border management and migration control policies of the Federal Republic of Germany in relation to the policies and regulations of the European Union. It outlines Germany's hegemonic position within the European Union regarding migration management and border policies. We argue that the securitized perspective on migration policies – including the externalization strategy prevalent in the EU – is to a substantial degree rooted in discourses, policies, legislation and practices of Germany closely interwoven with European policies. The hegemonic position of the Federal Republic of Germany has expressed itself in both the political developments since 2011 outlined in the report, and the increasingly restrictive German legislation on migration control. In several cases, German legislation has been transmitted to the European level. Furthermore, there is a dominant narrative by federal ministries conceptualizing border security as an essential part of an "integrated migration management approach". This perception has been strongly driven by the securitization of migration as response to migration movements to Europe, especially in the course of 2015 which were collectively perceived as a "refugee crisis". The notion of "integrated migration management" expresses a perceived need to regulate migration through the close cooperation of actors on different levels and in different policy fields (economic cooperation and development, internal security, integration, foreign policy, police cooperation with other national and EU-external border officers, data exchange, as well as return and reintegration policies). In addition, exceptional measures such as the reintroduction of national border controls were implemented. However, the report stresses that Germany's border management cannot be reduced to policies at its national borders. What is more relevant is the vast number of externalization measures, both within and beyond the European Union. Through bilateral and multilateral police agreements as well as migration/readmission agreements with Member States, countries of origin and transit countries, Germany has significantly advanced the European Union's externalization of migration management. The German police are also actively involved with FRONTEX, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency. In addition, the report outlines Germany's restrictive border policies in the fields of pre-entry and internal controls (such as visa policies, carrier sanctions and veil searches), as well as in the field of detention and return. We analyse how the national policies to enforce speedy procedures and swift returns leads to a rise of encampment, detention and readmissions; the effects of these policies can be seen in EU policies that also endanger legal safeguards.

Over the last three decades, Indigenous peoples in the CANZUS countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States) have been reclaiming self-government as an Indigenous right and practice. In the process, they have been asserting various forms of Indigenous nationhood. This article argues that this development involves a common set of activities on the part of Indigenous peoples: (1) identifying as a nation or a people (determining who the appropriate collective "self " is in self-determination and self-government); (2) organizing as a political body (not just as a corporate holder of assets); and (3) acting on behalf of Indigenous goals (asserting and exercising practical decision-making power and responsibility, even in cases where central governments deny recognition). The article compares these activities in the four countries and argues that, while contexts and circumstances differ, the Indigenous politics of self-government show striking commonalities across the four. Among those commonalities: it is a positional as opposed to a distributional politics; while not ignoring individual welfare, it measures success in terms of collective power; and it focuses less on what central governments are willing to do in the way of recognition and rights than on what Indigenous nations or communities can do for themselves. ; This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.

Governments have adopted the rhetoric of promoting transparency, citizen engagement, and accountability through technological innovation. The provision of open government data has been encouraged as a foundational reform in that direction. This study argues that, in Paraguay's education sector, these reforms were never capable of matching said rhetoric. Using a case study design, the research shows that the stated goals of intuitively simplifying information to facilitate citizen monitoring of funds for education infrastructure were never realistically attempted by the government. It will advocate the relevance of considering the relationship between politics, accountability, and technology to uncover transparency façades.

Since our earliest days as a profession, regularities of politics have been described in terms of laws of political behavior (Bryce), but not without controversy. Reviewing a century of efforts to identify laws of politics yields numerous offerings, including Duverger's and Michels' well-known contributions. Following the structure embodied in Newton's Laws of Motion, I propose three general laws of politics and government in America: (1) political objects in motion tend to stay in motion, (2) the relationship between a candidate and his or her political force is the product of campaign funding and personal likability or appeal to the press, and (3) for every political action, there is an equal and opposite reaction (i.e., 'Craig Leonard Brian's Law of Unintended Political Consequences'). Each law is illustrated and discussed using examples drawn from US politics. Finally, I note several potential research limitations of these proposed laws, as well as their possible utility in teaching introductory political science courses. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractSince our earliest days as a profession, regularities of politics have been described in terms of laws of political behavior (Bryce 1909), but not without controversy. Reviewing a century of efforts to identify laws of politics yields numerous offerings, including Duverger's (1954) and Michels' (1915) well-known contributions. Following the structure embodied in Newton's Laws of Motion, I propose three general laws of politics and government in America: (1) political objects in motion tend to stay in motion, (2) the relationship between a candidate and his or her political force is the product of campaign funding and personal likability or appeal to the press, and (3) for every political action, there is an equal and opposite reaction (i.e., "Craig Leonard Brians Law of Unintended Political Consequences"). Each law is illustrated and discussed using examples drawn from US politics. Finally, I note several potential research limitations of these proposed laws, as well as their possible utility in teaching introductory political science courses.

Global debate over the impact of algorithms and search on shaping political opinions has increased following 2016 election results in Europe and the US. Powerful images of the Internet enabling access to a global treasure trove of information have shifted to worries over whether those who use search engines and social media are being fed inaccurate, false, or politically targeted information that distorts public opinion. There are serious questions over whether biases embedded in the algorithms that drive search engines and social media have major political consequences, such as creating filter bubbles or echo chambers. For example, do search engines and social media provide people with information that aligns with their beliefs and opinions or do they challenge them to consider countervailing perspectives? Most generally, the predominant concern is do these media have a major impact on public opinion and political viewpoints, and if so, for the better or worse. This study addresses these issues by asking Internet users how they use search, social media, and other important media to get information about political candidates, issues, and politics generally, as well as what difference it makes for individuals participating in democratic processes. We conducted an online survey of Internet users in seven nations: Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the US.