“停止契约!”极右翼反对全球移民契约运动对外交政策的影响

IF 3 1区 社会学 Q1 GEOGRAPHY Geopolitics Pub Date : 2023-10-13 DOI:10.1080/14650045.2023.2260314
Julia Rone, Maik Fielitz
{"title":"“停止契约!”极右翼反对全球移民契约运动对外交政策的影响","authors":"Julia Rone, Maik Fielitz","doi":"10.1080/14650045.2023.2260314","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTIn 2018, the UN Global Compact for Migration (GCM) was signed by a majority of countries. The GCM was the first intergovernmentally negotiated agreement, prepared under the auspices of the United Nations, to cover all dimensions of international migration in a holistic and comprehensive manner. Seventeen countries, among them Italy, Austria, Hungary and Poland, abstained or voted against this non-binding agreement as they feared interference in their national sovereignty. The polarising potential of the GCM, that supposedly sets global regulations against national policies, has been fuelled by far-right actors throughout Europe. Framing the decision on the GCM as a referendum against the allegedly liberal governance of migration in the European Union, movements and parties launched a multi-faceted campaign that generated protest and spurred advocacy networks transnationally. In this paper, we analyse the extent to which the campaign against the GCM influenced foreign policy in the narrow sense of countries signing or not signing the pact (short-term impact), but also in terms of discourse and policy on immigration (long-term impact), more broadly. We explore the relative role of campaigning against the GCM by contrasting four country cases – Austria, Belgium, Germany, and Italy, each of which had different governmental constellations and previous extra-parliamentary mobilisation on migration. Our work offers a first in-depth comparative study of this key campaign that has otherwise remained understudied in the field of protest, media and extremism studies. By providing a comparative analysis of the same campaign in four European countries, we aim to offer important insights on how the far right is attempting to impact decision making in foreign policy contexts and what factors might explain its mobilisation and influence capacity. Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung [13N16050].","PeriodicalId":47839,"journal":{"name":"Geopolitics","volume":"87 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Stop the Pact‘! The Foreign Policy Impact of the Far-Right Campaigning Against the Global Compact for Migration\",\"authors\":\"Julia Rone, Maik Fielitz\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14650045.2023.2260314\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACTIn 2018, the UN Global Compact for Migration (GCM) was signed by a majority of countries. The GCM was the first intergovernmentally negotiated agreement, prepared under the auspices of the United Nations, to cover all dimensions of international migration in a holistic and comprehensive manner. Seventeen countries, among them Italy, Austria, Hungary and Poland, abstained or voted against this non-binding agreement as they feared interference in their national sovereignty. The polarising potential of the GCM, that supposedly sets global regulations against national policies, has been fuelled by far-right actors throughout Europe. Framing the decision on the GCM as a referendum against the allegedly liberal governance of migration in the European Union, movements and parties launched a multi-faceted campaign that generated protest and spurred advocacy networks transnationally. In this paper, we analyse the extent to which the campaign against the GCM influenced foreign policy in the narrow sense of countries signing or not signing the pact (short-term impact), but also in terms of discourse and policy on immigration (long-term impact), more broadly. We explore the relative role of campaigning against the GCM by contrasting four country cases – Austria, Belgium, Germany, and Italy, each of which had different governmental constellations and previous extra-parliamentary mobilisation on migration. Our work offers a first in-depth comparative study of this key campaign that has otherwise remained understudied in the field of protest, media and extremism studies. By providing a comparative analysis of the same campaign in four European countries, we aim to offer important insights on how the far right is attempting to impact decision making in foreign policy contexts and what factors might explain its mobilisation and influence capacity. Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung [13N16050].\",\"PeriodicalId\":47839,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Geopolitics\",\"volume\":\"87 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Geopolitics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2023.2260314\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geopolitics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2023.2260314","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2018年,大多数国家签署了《联合国全球移民契约》。《全球移民契约》是在联合国主持下编制的第一个政府间谈判协定,以整体和全面的方式涵盖国际移民的所有方面。包括意大利、奥地利、匈牙利和波兰在内的17个国家对这项不具约束力的协议投了弃权票或反对票,因为它们担心自己的国家主权受到干涉。GCM的两极分化潜力被认为是针对国家政策制定全球法规,而欧洲各地的极右翼行动者则助长了这一潜力。各运动和政党将关于GCM的决定视为反对欧盟所谓的自由移民治理的公投,发起了一场多方面的运动,引发了抗议,并刺激了跨国倡导网络。在本文中,我们分析了反对GCM的运动在多大程度上影响了狭义上的国家签署或不签署协议(短期影响)的外交政策,以及在更广泛的移民话语和政策方面(长期影响)。我们通过对比奥地利、比利时、德国和意大利这四个国家的案例,探讨了反对GCM运动的相对作用,每个国家都有不同的政府星座和以前在移民问题上的议会外动员。我们的工作首次对这一关键运动进行了深入的比较研究,否则在抗议、媒体和极端主义研究领域仍未得到充分研究。通过对四个欧洲国家的同一运动进行比较分析,我们旨在就极右翼如何试图影响外交政策背景下的决策以及哪些因素可以解释其动员和影响能力提供重要见解。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。本研究得到了德国联邦政府建设与研究基金会[13N16050]的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
‘Stop the Pact‘! The Foreign Policy Impact of the Far-Right Campaigning Against the Global Compact for Migration
ABSTRACTIn 2018, the UN Global Compact for Migration (GCM) was signed by a majority of countries. The GCM was the first intergovernmentally negotiated agreement, prepared under the auspices of the United Nations, to cover all dimensions of international migration in a holistic and comprehensive manner. Seventeen countries, among them Italy, Austria, Hungary and Poland, abstained or voted against this non-binding agreement as they feared interference in their national sovereignty. The polarising potential of the GCM, that supposedly sets global regulations against national policies, has been fuelled by far-right actors throughout Europe. Framing the decision on the GCM as a referendum against the allegedly liberal governance of migration in the European Union, movements and parties launched a multi-faceted campaign that generated protest and spurred advocacy networks transnationally. In this paper, we analyse the extent to which the campaign against the GCM influenced foreign policy in the narrow sense of countries signing or not signing the pact (short-term impact), but also in terms of discourse and policy on immigration (long-term impact), more broadly. We explore the relative role of campaigning against the GCM by contrasting four country cases – Austria, Belgium, Germany, and Italy, each of which had different governmental constellations and previous extra-parliamentary mobilisation on migration. Our work offers a first in-depth comparative study of this key campaign that has otherwise remained understudied in the field of protest, media and extremism studies. By providing a comparative analysis of the same campaign in four European countries, we aim to offer important insights on how the far right is attempting to impact decision making in foreign policy contexts and what factors might explain its mobilisation and influence capacity. Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung [13N16050].
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Geopolitics
Geopolitics Multiple-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
10.30%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: The study of geopolitics has undergone a major renaissance during the past decade. Addressing a gap in the published periodical literature, this journal seeks to explore the theoretical implications of contemporary geopolitics and geopolitical change with particular reference to territorial problems and issues of state sovereignty . Multidisciplinary in its scope, Geopolitics includes all aspects of the social sciences with particular emphasis on political geography, international relations, the territorial aspects of political science and international law. The journal seeks to maintain a healthy balance between systemic and regional analysis.
期刊最新文献
From ‘Territorial Peace’ to ‘Total Peace’ in Colombia: A Geopolitical Balance Between ‘ Trochas ’, Orphans and Mourning: Migrant Mobilities and the Effects of US ‘Soft’ Remote Control in Ecuador Regionalism and Alliances in the Middle East, 2011-2021: From a “Flash in the Pan” of Regional Cooperation to Liquid Alliances Veterans, Families and the Domestic Geopolitics of Remembering War Entangled Vulnerabilities: Gendered and Racialised Bodies and Borders in EU External Border Security
×
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