Suchergebnisse

The study on "Managing International Labor Migration in ASEAN: A Case of Thailand," aimed to study policies and institution arrangement for managing international migration as part of regional cooperation initiatives and bilateral agreements. The study emphasized on the finding out why the current management of sending workers and protecting workers has not been effective. The data used for the analysis came from two main majority sources: 1) the quantitative data, including primary data on possible solutions, strategies, the secondary sources from Socio?Economic Survey (SES) and information where necessary to explain the socio?economic impact of migrant worker families; and 2) the qualitative study where collected from interview of key informants, focus group discussion with families of migrant workers, governments, brokers, and etc. As data allow, cost benefit analysis for out migration as well as in migration from government intervention programs was applied. The theory of push and pull factors were used for describing reasons forced migrant workers to work overseas. As of the study, there was the evidence that pointed out that poverty and indebtedness were push factor for both emigration and immigration while higher income in the destination countries was the pull factor. The study further found that both of emigration and immigration were beneficial in various aspects including increase the gross domestic product (GDP) in both country of origin and destination country. Remittance was an important source of the country development budget, increase the level of national saving, and improve income distribution. However, it was due to the fact that most of migrant workers were from low educational background, thus most of them become victims of exploitation and human trafficking from the agencies and employers in particular undocumented workers. Even though, Thai government has many of laws and regulations regarding prevention and protection migrant workers, such as labor law and labor protection act; and the memorandums of understanding (MOUs) in regional and bilateral level, these have not been effective due to the weakness in law enforcement of the authorities.

The study on "Managing International Labor Migration in ASEAN: A Case of Thailand," aimed to study policies and institution arrangement for managing international migration as part of regional cooperation initiatives and bilateral agreements. The study emphasized on the finding out why the current management of sending workers and protecting workers has not been effective. The data used for the analysis came from two main majority sources: 1) the quantitative data, including primary data on possible solutions, strategies, the secondary sources from Socio?Economic Survey (SES) and information where necessary to explain the socio?economic impact of migrant worker families; and 2) the qualitative study where collected from interview of key informants, focus group discussion with families of migrant workers, governments, brokers, and etc. As data allow, cost benefit analysis for out migration as well as in migration from government intervention programs was applied. The theory of push and pull factors were used for describing reasons forced migrant workers to work overseas. As of the study, there was the evidence that pointed out that poverty and indebtedness were push factor for both emigration and immigration while higher income in the destination countries was the pull factor. The study further found that both of emigration and immigration were beneficial in various aspects including increase the gross domestic product (GDP) in both country of origin and destination country. Remittance was an important source of the country development budget, increase the level of national saving, and improve income distribution. However, it was due to the fact that most of migrant workers were from low educational background, thus most of them become victims of exploitation and human trafficking from the agencies and employers in particular undocumented workers. Even though, Thai government has many of laws and regulations regarding prevention and protection migrant workers, such as labor law and labor protection act; and the memorandums of understanding (MOUs) in regional and bilateral level, these have not been effective due to the weakness in law enforcement of the authorities.

This Article uses an interdisciplinary approach to explain why the International Labor Organization (ILO) has been given surprisingly short shrift in recent debates over the role of IOs in addressing the many transborder collective action problems that globalization has fostered. I review the ILO's past and its present with two broad objectives in mind. First, I seek to correct a misperception among international lawyers and legal scholars that the ILO is a weak and ineffective institution. The organization's effectiveness in creating and monitoring international labor standards has fluctuated widely during its nearly ninety-year existence. Over the last decade, however, the ILO - led by the Director General and the ILO Office - has ushered in a period of innovation and reform, narrowing the organization's mandate to emphasize universal compliance with a core group of fundamental labor rights. These developments - many of which are unknown outside the organization - reveal that the ILO has learned from successful strategies of other IOs and from its own past mistakes. They also cast doubt on the widely held view that international bureaucracies seek to expand their mandates to increase their authority over member states. A second objective of the Article is to analyze the under-studied issue of how IOs change and to assess three social science theories - (1) rational design; (2) neofunctionalism; and (3) historical institutionalism - that seek to explain how change occurs. A historical study of the ILO provides two opportunities to evaluate these competing frameworks and to consider the under-examined role of IO officials in promoting change. First, the four major phases of the ILO's existence - its founding in 1919, the interwar years, the decades following World War II, and post-Cold War globalization - offer discrete domains within which to assess the theories' comparative explanatory power. The second opportunity for theoretical assessment relates to the influence of the ILO's past on recently adopted reforms. None of the theories would have expected ILO officials to revitalize the organization, more than seventy-five years after its birth, by narrowing and refocusing its authority rather than expanding it.

"Functional differentiation has long been at the heart of sociological thought, and as such has become a defining feature in the evolution of modern society; one which distinguishes it from pre-modern societies which have instead typically differentiated by means of segmentation, or stratified social systems such as class. Drawing on the latest developments on differentiation theory in international relations and sociology, this book brings together contributions from leading IR scholars and sociological theorists to offer a unique interdisciplinary synthesis in which contemporary world politics is discussed as a differentiated social realm. Bringing Sociology to International Relations is an illuminating and innovative new resource for scholars and students which strives to respond to a significant question across all its chapters: what happens when this well-established sociological theoretical framework is transposed from the domestic level, for which it was originally designed, to the larger and more complex subject of international relations?"--Provided by publisher

Media framing of foreign conflicts determines the way in which the public and policy-makers perceive the causes, consequences and importance of those conflicts and where diplomatic and material resources are committed. Framing is manifested in, among other things, the amount of media
coverage of a particular conflict and the language used to describe the actors and events in that conflict. The type of framing employed determines whether the public will empathize with one of the sides involved or feel detached from events taking place far from them. This article builds
on earlier research on media framing through a study of two foreign conflicts that had a number of key similarities but were framed very differently. Framing is analysed through a comparison of New York Times coverage of army sieges of two Palestinian refugee camps: the first in the
town of Jenin in theWest Bank in 2002 and the second in Nahr al-Bared in Lebanon in 2007. The research examines the depth of coverage and the language used to portray the context of events, the two armies, combatants within the camps, civilian casualties, damage to property and the effectiveness
of the military operations. Analysis of differences in the reporting of these two conflicts expands on existing literature on media framing, discusses causes of inconsistent framing and elucidates the effect of framing on perceptions of reality in foreign conflict and the subsequent effect
on policy-making.