Suchergebnisse

Cover; Half-title; Title; Copyright; Dedication; Contents; Acknowledgements; Introduction; 1 Partiality: community, citizenship and the defence of closure; 2 Impartiality: freedom, equality and open borders; 3 The Federal Republic of Germany: the rise and fall of a right to asylum; 4 The United Kingdom: the value of asylum; 5 The United States: the making and breaking of a refugee consensus; 6 Australia: restricting asylum, resettling refugees; 7 From ideal to non-ideal theory: reckoning with the state, politics and consequences.

In this article, I consider the neglected question of justice between states in the distribution of responsibility for refugees. I argue that a just distribution of refugees across states is an important normative goal and, accordingly, I attempt to rethink the normative foundations of the global refugee regime. I show that because dismantling the restrictive measures currently used by states in the global South to prevent the arrival of refugees will not suffice to ensure a just distribution of refugees between states, a more detailed account of how responsibilities should be shared between states is required. To this end, I make three claims. First, I argue that the definition of 'refugee' must be broadened beyond those subjected to persecution to include harms of action or omission by states that seriously jeopardise personal security or subsistence needs. Second, I argue that allocating a fair share of refugees to states should be based on state's integrative capacities. Finally, I argue that distributive justice between states must be balanced against the legitimate interests of refugees in their destination country and the duty of states to ensure they are settled in places where they are likely to flourish.

The right to strip citizenship from (denaturalise) those deemed disloyal or dangerous is a significant but largely unexamined power held by some liberal states. Since 2002, the British government has, in response to concerns about terrorism and value of citizenship, expanded its power to denaturalise certain categories of citizens, including those born in the UK. This development seems odd in the light of academic literature that has described a recent trend in Europe towards the increasing 'liberalisation' of citizenship. Writing on the subject of citizenship acquisition, scholars have pointed to a range of changes that curtail the state's ability to withhold citizenship from resident non-citizens. In this article, I draw upon parliamentary debates, archived documents, government reports and secondary literature, to chart the historical development of denaturalisation power in the UK and consider the extent to which it has been shaped by liberal principles. This history indicates that denaturalisation had indeed undergone a process of liberalisation before the Labour government partly reversed its direction after 2002. Yet it also shows that liberal principles, far from simply curtailing the state's powers to strip citizenship, have been deeply implicated in recent and historical attempts to expand denaturalisation power by British governments. Adapted from the source document.

The right to strip citizenship from (denaturalise) those deemed disloyal or dangerous is a significant but largely unexamined power held by some liberal states. Since 2002, the British government has, in response to concerns about terrorism and value of citizenship, expanded its power to denaturalise certain categories of citizens, including those born in the UK. This development seems odd in the light of academic literature that has described a recent trend in Europe towards the increasing 'liberalisation' of citizenship. Writing on the subject of citizenship acquisition, scholars have pointed to a range of changes that curtail the state's ability to withhold citizenship from resident non-citizens. In this article, I draw upon parliamentary debates, archived documents, government reports and secondary literature, to chart the historical development of denaturalisation power in the UK and consider the extent to which it has been shaped by liberal principles. This history indicates that denaturalisation had indeed undergone a process of liberalisation before the Labour government partly reversed its direction after 2002. Yet it also shows that liberal principles, far from simply curtailing the state's powers to strip citizenship, have been deeply implicated in recent and historical attempts to expand denaturalisation power by British governments.

The key claim that animates most discussions of statelessness is the principle that everyone should have the right to citizenship somewhere. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractDeportation has traditionally been seen as a secondary instrument of migration control, one used by liberal democratic states relatively infrequently and with some trepidation. This secondary status has been assured by the fact that deportation is both a complicated and a controversial power. It is complicated because tracking individuals down and returning them home are time-consuming and resource-intense activities; it is controversial because deportation is a cruel power, one that sometimes seems incompatible with respect for human rights. In the light of these constraints, how can one explain the fact that since 2000 the United Kingdom has radically increased the number of failed asylum seekers deported from its territory? I argue in the article that this increase has been achieved through a conscious and careful process of policy innovation that has enabled state officials to engage in large-scale expulsions without directly violating liberal norms.