Privatization and Delegation of State Authority in Asylum Systems

Q2 Social Sciences Law and Ethics of Human Rights Pub Date : 2011-05-01 DOI:10.2202/1938-2545.1057
T. Kritzman-Amir
{"title":"Privatization and Delegation of State Authority in Asylum Systems","authors":"T. Kritzman-Amir","doi":"10.2202/1938-2545.1057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the measures taken by states to relieve the burden of providing for asylum seekers and refugees is privatization and delegation of asylum regimes. I analyze the privatization and delegation of authority that is taking place within asylum systems and describe three tiers of privatization/delegation: 1. admission at points of entry or criminalization of undocumented entry, 2. status determination, 3. social integration and provision of social and economic rights and benefits. I then ask why states are privatizing and delegating authority within the context of asylum systems and argue that privatization and delegation of authority are intended to be used to maintain control and reduce immigration and integration of asylum seekers. Governments are often helpless in their attempts to manage refugee migration and need to recruit other sectors to assist them in regaining control over immigration. This “tool” is particularly instrumental as it allows governments to maintain—to a large extent—control of immigrations and at the same time distance themselves from their responsibilities, from human rights violations, etc. Governments attempt to have private or other actors carry out acts that they cannot—whether because of practical reasoning or due to legal constraints. Finally, I argue that asylums systems are a special locus; thus, special care, great caution, much regulation, or complete refrain from privatizing at all, is paramount since privatization of asylums systems carries unique and severe consequences.","PeriodicalId":38947,"journal":{"name":"Law and Ethics of Human Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1938-2545.1057","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Ethics of Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1938-2545.1057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

One of the measures taken by states to relieve the burden of providing for asylum seekers and refugees is privatization and delegation of asylum regimes. I analyze the privatization and delegation of authority that is taking place within asylum systems and describe three tiers of privatization/delegation: 1. admission at points of entry or criminalization of undocumented entry, 2. status determination, 3. social integration and provision of social and economic rights and benefits. I then ask why states are privatizing and delegating authority within the context of asylum systems and argue that privatization and delegation of authority are intended to be used to maintain control and reduce immigration and integration of asylum seekers. Governments are often helpless in their attempts to manage refugee migration and need to recruit other sectors to assist them in regaining control over immigration. This “tool” is particularly instrumental as it allows governments to maintain—to a large extent—control of immigrations and at the same time distance themselves from their responsibilities, from human rights violations, etc. Governments attempt to have private or other actors carry out acts that they cannot—whether because of practical reasoning or due to legal constraints. Finally, I argue that asylums systems are a special locus; thus, special care, great caution, much regulation, or complete refrain from privatizing at all, is paramount since privatization of asylums systems carries unique and severe consequences.
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
庇护制度私有化和国家权力下放
各国为减轻向寻求庇护者和难民提供援助的负担而采取的措施之一是庇护制度的私有化和授权。我分析了在庇护制度中正在发生的私有化和权力授权,并描述了私有化/授权的三个层次:1 .在入境点接纳或将无证入境定为刑事犯罪;3.状态确定;社会一体化和提供社会经济权利和福利。然后我问为什么国家在庇护制度的背景下私有化和下放权力,并认为私有化和下放权力的目的是为了保持控制和减少移民和寻求庇护者的融合。各国政府在设法管理难民移徙方面往往无能为力,需要招募其他部门协助它们重新控制移民。这个“工具”特别有用,因为它允许政府在很大程度上保持对移民的控制,同时使自己远离自己的责任,远离侵犯人权等。政府试图让私人或其他行为者执行他们不能执行的行为——无论是出于实践推理还是由于法律限制。最后,我认为收容所系统是一个特殊的场所;因此,特别小心、非常谨慎、严格管制或完全不私有化是至关重要的,因为庇护制度的私有化会带来独特和严重的后果。
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
Law and Ethics of Human Rights
Law and Ethics of Human Rights Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
期刊最新文献
Crowdsourcing Compliance: The Use of WikiRate to Promote Corporate Supply Chain Transparency Frontmatter Crowdwashing Surveillance; Crowdsourcing Domination Illiberal Measures in Backsliding Democracies: Differences and Similarities between Recent Developments in Israel, Hungary, and Poland Frontmatter
×
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