Whose Pathways are They? The Top-Down/Bottom-Up Conundrum of Complementary Pathways for Refugees

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 DEMOGRAPHY European Journal of Migration and Law Pub Date : 2023-05-29 DOI:10.1163/15718166-12340148
Joanne van Selm
{"title":"Whose Pathways are They? The Top-Down/Bottom-Up Conundrum of Complementary Pathways for Refugees","authors":"Joanne van Selm","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nWith so many actors and varying motivations involved, one aspect of the ongoing development of complementary pathways that requires greater attention is the question of whether the pathways are best seen as a top-down or a bottom-up endeavour. Linked to this is the issue of the roles of various actors (i.e., communities, national authorities, the national protection regime and the refugees themselves) in practically creating pathways, and embedding them in an overall refugee protection regime, and how to keep a balance of inputs and expectations among all these different players. The key enquiry of this article is thus whether the bottom-up aspect of complementary pathways lend them any greater chance of success? Can community action be inspired, even requested ‘from above’ by governments or the international organizations? Or does it have to be organic, and start from below? And if complementary pathways are for refugees, how are refugees included?","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Migration and Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340148","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

With so many actors and varying motivations involved, one aspect of the ongoing development of complementary pathways that requires greater attention is the question of whether the pathways are best seen as a top-down or a bottom-up endeavour. Linked to this is the issue of the roles of various actors (i.e., communities, national authorities, the national protection regime and the refugees themselves) in practically creating pathways, and embedding them in an overall refugee protection regime, and how to keep a balance of inputs and expectations among all these different players. The key enquiry of this article is thus whether the bottom-up aspect of complementary pathways lend them any greater chance of success? Can community action be inspired, even requested ‘from above’ by governments or the international organizations? Or does it have to be organic, and start from below? And if complementary pathways are for refugees, how are refugees included?
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
它们是谁的路径?难民互补路径的自上而下/自下而上难题
由于涉及到如此多的参与者和不同的动机,需要更多关注的互补途径的持续发展的一个方面是,这些途径最好被视为自上而下还是自下而上的努力。与此相关的是各种行动者(即社区、国家当局、国家保护制度和难民本身)在实际创造途径并将其纳入整体难民保护制度方面的作用问题,以及如何在所有这些不同行动者之间保持投入和期望的平衡。因此,本文的关键问题是,互补途径自下而上的方面是否会给他们带来更大的成功机会?政府或国际组织是否可以激励甚至要求采取“上级”的社区行动?或者它必须是有机的,并且从下面开始?如果补充途径是为难民提供的,那么难民是如何被包括在内的呢?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Migration and Law is a quarterly journal on migration law and policy with specific emphasis on the European Union, the Council of Europe and migration activities within the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. This journal differs from other migration journals by focusing on both the law and policy within the field of migration, as opposed to examining immigration and migration policies from a wholly sociological perspective. The Journal is the initiative of the Centre for Migration Law of the University of Nijmegen, in co-operation with the Brussels-based Migration Policy Group.
期刊最新文献
The ‘Border Security’ Concept in EU Law EU Boots on the Ground and Effective Judicial Protection against Frontex’s Operational Powers in Return: Lessons from Case T‑600/21 When Do Union Citizens and Their Families Have the Right to Equal Treatment on Grounds of Nationality in EU Law? The Fiction of Non-entry in European Migration Law: Its Implications on the Rights of Asylum Seekers and Irregular Migrants at European Borders Derogations in Exchange of Increased Responsibility: How Can This Fix the Broken Promise for More Solidarity in the EU?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1