Search results

In response to the 2015–2016 migration crisis, the European Union established the Emergency Trust Fund for Africa that aimed 'to address the root causes of instability, forced displacement and irregular migration and to contribute to better migration management.' This article questions the logic of this approach to migration management by asking whether African regions can 'better manage migration.' The article examines the normative bases of migration policies amongst the African Union (AU) and six regional economic communities (RECs), as well as the normative bases of the development strategies pursued by the AU and these RECs. The article proposes normative policy coherence for development as an approach to better understand the relationships between regional integration, sustainable development and migration management in Africa.

The European Union's (EU) 2015–2016 "migration/asylum crisis" gave discussions over the relationships between migration, security and development renewed prominence in global affairs. In response to record migratory flows, the EU, like the United States (US), has implemented security responses to migration aimed at protecting territorial integrity. This article addresses the migration–security–development nexus through the lens of policy coherence for development (PCD). It compares EU and US migration policies within the framework of the "transformative development" associated with the Sustainable Development Goals. It contends that these donors have undermined transformative development through the regionalization of development aid, which has contributed to the securitization of both development and migration policies. Thus, the article contends that new mechanisms for change need to be identified. It introduces the notion of "normative coherence" and proposes a potential role for regional human rights courts in fostering migration-related PCD.Spanish abstract: La "crisis migratoria" de la Unión Europea (UE) del 2015–2016 arrojó discusiones sobre las relaciones entre migración, seguridad y desarrollo renovando su prominencia en los asuntos globales. La UE, como los Estados Unidos de América (EE.UU), ha implementado respuestas de seguridad a la migración dirigidas a proteger la integridad territorial. Este artículo se dirige al nexo entre migración, seguridad y desarrollo a través de la lente de la coherencia de políticas públicas para el desarrollo (CPD). Compara las políticas migratorias de UE y EE.UU dentro del marco del "desarrollo transformativo" asociado con los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. Sostiene que estos donantes han socavado el desarrollo transformativo mediante la regionalización de la ayuda al desarrollo, el cual ha contribuido a incorporar aspectos de seguridad. Así, el artículo sostiene que se requiere identificar nuevos mecanismos para el cambio. Se introduce la noción de "coherencia normativa" y propone el rol potencial de cortes regionales de derechos humanos para promover CPD relacionadas a la migración.French abstract: La crise migratoire 2015-2016 de l'Union Européenne (UE) a replacé les discussions en matière de migration, de sécurité et de développement dans une perspective globale renouvelée. En réponse aux flux sans précédent, l'UE tout comme les Etats-Unis (EU) ont développé des réponses sécuritaires, destinées à protéger leur intégrité territoriale. Cet article évoque la connexion entre la migration, la sécurité et le développement à travers l'optique de la cohérence des politiques publiques pour le développement (CPD). Il compare les politiques migratoires de l'UE et des EU à partir du cadre du « développement transformateur » associé aux ODD. Il révèle que ces donateurs ont saboté le développement transformateur à travers la régionalisation de l'aide au développement, ce qui a contribué à octroyer un impératif sécuritaire. Ainsi, l'article soutient que de nouveaux mécanismes doivent être identifiés. Il introduit la « cohérence normative » et propose un rôle potentiel pour les Cours régionales des droits humaines dans la perspective de promouvoir la CPD en matière de migration.

Thus far, there has been a dearth of studies that systemically examine the relationship between diaspora philanthropy, the development community and securitised migration regimes. This article addresses this by responding to the research question, "How coherent are securitised migration policies with diaspora philanthropy and the transformative development objectives that characterise the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) agenda?" The analysis is based on the concept of policy coherence for development (PCD). The article compares the simultaneous regionalization and securitization of European Union and United States migration policies and contends that these policy strategies undermine diaspora philanthropy, development partnerships and transformative development. Normative change must be introduced in order to establish coherence between globalized migration policies and diaspora philanthropy objectives. Normative coherence for development can be achieved by introducing principles from the SDG's and the Busan Development Partnership Agreement amongst other international development agendas, into migration policy-making at the national and regional levels.

This article contends that notions of «peace» and «justice» in cross-border water management vary in different world regions. Moreover, it argues that «peace» and «justice» can be explained by analyzing the interaction between «regional» interpretations and implementation of water security norms and local cross-border power structures. «Regional water security» is defined as the normative commitment to provide necessary water resources to communities within world regions. «Power,» which is defined traditionally as «the ability of actors to obtain their objectives despite opposition» is viewed as a function of political entrepreneurialism and opportunity structures. This article derives from a review of the pertinent literatures on «water security» and «water justice,» the two elements of «water peace» as well as scholarship on cross-border water management in different world regions. It discusses water governance within the framework of cross-border politics and comparative regional integration. It also includes analysis of the policy documents and websites of seventeen regional organizations as well as interviews with key actors and local experts on water management in specific cross-border case studies. The article is divided into five sections. Following this introduction, part two examines «water security» and «water justice» in international affairs. Part III then discusses «power» in cross-border water governance debates and addresses the transnational face of water security discussions. Part IV presents a comparative examination of cross-border «water justice» in selected world regions which is followed by theoretical considerations that are addressed in part V, the conclusion. In general, the article emphasizes the need to promote comparative cross-regional research on cross-border water governance in order to examine how «peace,» «security» and «justice» are framed in debates over water resources. ; Este artículo sostiene que las nociones de «paz» y «justicia» en la administración transfronteriza del agua varían entre diferentes regiones del mundo. A su vez, argumenta que ambos conceptos pueden ser explicados al analizar la interacción entre interpretaciones y la implementación de normas regionales de seguridad hídrica y las estructuras de poder transfronterizas locales. La «seguridad hídrica regional» es definida como el compromiso normativo para proveer el necesario recurso hídrico a las comunidades en las regiones del mundo. El «poder», que es definido tradicionalmente como «la habilidad de los actores para lograr sus objetivos pese a la oposición» se ve cómo una función del emprendimiento político y las estructuras de oportunidad. Este artículo deriva desde una revisión a la literatura pertinente acerca de los dos elementos de la «paz hídrica»: «seguridad hídrica» y «justicia hídrica», así como la investigación sobre administración transfronteriza del agua en diferentes regiones del mundo. Discute la gobernanza del agua dentro del marco de referencia de las políticas transfronterizas y la integración regional comparativa. Incluye además un análisis de los documentos oficiales y sitios web de diecisiete organizaciones regionales junto con entrevistas a actores claves y expertos locales en administración del agua en casos de estudio específicos transfronterizos. El artículo está dividido en cinco secciones. Ulterior a esta introducción, la parte dos examina la «seguridad hídrica» y la «justicia hídrica» en el ámbito internacional. La parte tres discute el «poder» en el debate sobre administración transfronteriza del agua, y aborda el semblante transnacional de las discusiones sobre seguridad hídrica. La parte cuatro presenta un análisis comparativo de la «justicia hídrica» transfronteriza en diferentes regiones del mundo, el cual es seguido por conclusiones teóricas abordadas en la parte cinco. En general, el artículo enfatiza la necesidad de promover investigaciones comparativas transregionales sobre la gobernanza transfronteriza del agua, para analizar como «paz,» «seguridad» y «justicia» están enmarcados en los debates sobre recursos hídricos.

AbstractThus far, there has been a dearth of studies that systemically examine the relationship between diaspora philanthropy, the development community and securitised migration regimes. This article addresses this by responding to the research question, "How coherent are securitised migration policies with diaspora philanthropy and the transformative development objectives that characterise the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) agenda?" The analysis is based on the concept of policy coherence for development (PCD). The article compares the simultaneous regionalization and securitization of European Union and United States migration policies and contends that these policy strategies undermine diaspora philanthropy, development partnerships and transformative development. Normative change must be introduced in order to establish coherence between globalized migration policies and diaspora philanthropy objectives. Normative coherence for development can be achieved by introducing principles from the SDG's and the Busan Development Partnership Agreement amongst other international development agendas, into migration policy‐making at the national and regional levels.

Informality is often linked to borderlands in both academic scholarship and political debates. On one hand, border regions are known for the flow of goods, services and labor and, of course, borders represent state attempts to control or regulate these flows. At the same time, scholars of border politics often discuss the weakness of state administrations in border regions where authorities are far from central governments. Despite the clear relevance of informal sectors for borderlands studies, there is a dearth of analysis of this topic in border areas, especially in comparative terms. This article presents a comparative cross-regional study of informality in European (the Eurométropole and Bari, Italy–Durres, Albania) and continental American (San-Diego, USA–Tijuana, Mexico and Cúcuta, Colombia–San Crístobal, Venezuela) cases. It responds to the following research questions: How can we compare informality in cross-border regions? How does informality relate to illegality in these regions? How can regional organizations respond to the social impacts of informality?