International Migration最新文献

The former Soviet Union's restrictions on citizens' foreign travel or emigration were notoriously draconian. Yet what replaced them in the fifteen independent states of the post-Soviet region has not been well analysed. Outside the Baltic republics, the monolithic and prohibitive policies of the Soviet past have given way to a patchwork of restrictions with more complex motivations reflecting the diversity of contemporary Eurasian states. However, while many more people in the region can travel abroad when they wish, exit remains a privilege, rather than an enforceable right. Post-Soviet states' exit policies increasingly resemble those in other primarily authoritarian contexts around the world, albeit somewhat marked by Eurasian regimes' high levels of both coercive capacity and informality and the weakness of labour and the left. We conclude that the USSR's fixation on preventing exit was historically exceptional as a policy on foreign travel, rather than paradigmatic, and severely limited the regime's own migration policy options. In a paradox, the relaxation of blanket prohibitions has only increased the post-Soviet state's freedom to tailor restrictions on exit to its interests far more effectively than the USSR ever could.

Over a 15-year period beginning in 2006, the European Commission (EC), through the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), inspected Philippine compliance to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), which governs globally the training, certification, and watchkeeping of seafarers. This article examines the EC as a regulatory actor, approaching it through the lens of regulatory intermediation. Drawing on interviews and analysis of documents, reports, and secondary literature, it identifies a confluence of interests among the regulator, intermediary, and target as a vitally important element that led to an outcome beneficial to all but especially the EU and the Philippines. The Philippines implemented the most consequential reforms ever undertaken in its maritime administration and education infrastructure, resulting in the EC's continued recognition of the certificates of Filipino seafarers that guaranteed their continued employment on European Union (EU)-flagged ships.

This article examines the reintegration experiences of Ukrainians who fled the country to the European Union (EU) following Russia's 2022 invasion and subsequently returned while the country was still at war. Employing a mixed-methods approach—including surveys, semi-structured interviews and field observations in Ukraine—the study focuses on the experiences of returnees. By 2025, over 1.2 million Ukrainians had returned from abroad, predominantly women and children from the EU but also from other countries. Return trajectories varied: some returned shortly after displacement, motivated by a strong sense of belonging and sustained ties to Ukraine, while others remained abroad longer and encountered more complex reintegration processes. Most returnees resettled in their original regions, and many found employment quickly amid wartime labour shortages. Although patriotic sentiment intensified during displacement, trust in Ukrainian public institutions remained low. Return was often marked by a decline in life satisfaction and mental health, underlining the psychological challenges of reintegration under war conditions. The study highlights the urgent need for evidence-based reintegration policies that respond to returnees' lived realities that are crucial for Ukraine's recovery, resilience and social cohesion.

The home-country self-employment hypothesis, widely accepted in migration research, posits that immigrants from countries with high self-employment rates are more likely to become self-employed. However, supporting evidence remains limited. Recent studies highlight the importance of individual pre-migration experience, but such evidence is scarce due to data constraints and the predominance of single-country analyses. Using unique survey data with retrospective pre-migration employment information, this paper examines the link between pre-and post-migration self-employment in Italy and Spain, two countries where self-employment is historically widespread. We analyse both home-country self-employment rates and individual pre-migration experience as determinants of immigrants' self-employment, and we extend the analysis to overall employment outcomes. Pre-migration self-employment significantly increases the likelihood of self-employment after migration but does not improve general employment prospects. By contrast, home-country self-employment rates show no explanatory power, while regional variations have only a minor one, underscoring the primacy of individual experience over cultural or contextual factors.

State use of organised forced migration has played a central role in geopolitics and foreign policy. In this piece, we draw attention to its prevalence, including its widespread use as a tool in contemporary migration management policies. In order to effectively tackle questions of forced migration, it is necessary to first recognise that it is frequently purposefully perpetuated by states.

In 2015, the first obligatory scheme re-distributing forced migrants from Italy and Greece to other EU member states was launched. The scheme anticipated the intra-EU relocation of 160,000 people in 2 years. Ultimately, as few as 34,705 have actually been resettled. Drawing on Bourdieu's field-theoretical approach, this paper treats the relocation scheme as an attempt to appease conflicts over responsibility-sharing by integrating a relocation procedure into the Dublin system. In so doing, the scheme paved the way for the new solidarity mechanism which will enter into force in 2026 and targets at 30,000 relocations each year. Based on a qualitative investigation, the paper analyses the administrative design of the relocation scheme, and how this implied a redefinition of responsibilities within the European field of asylum administration. Second, the paper works out how this triggered struggles around the scheme's implementation and works out actors' relative capacity of enforcement and refusal.