How History Separated Refugee and Migrant Regimes: In Search of Their Institutional Origins

The current international framework for protecting migrants and refugees is often criticised as being fragmentary, with a multiplicity of categories of persons, and of organizations for addressing their problems. Many scholars have called for a new international regime and a more unified institutional arrangement, which would provide for the orderly movement of people. The basic weakness of the current regimes derives from the artificial distinction between ‘refugees' and ‘migrants' created after the Second World War. The article explores the institutional origins of the system and determines the major causes of the different treatment of refugees and migrants. The paper argues the following: First, the system, which might be in need of reconstruction in order to suit today's world of high mobility and diversified patterns of international movement, resulted from the battle between the United States and the international institutions (the ILO and UN). The conflict was over how to deal with the surplus populations in Europe. The US favoured an institution with specifically designed functions based on inter-governmental negotiations. The ILO-UN plan recommended international co-operation under the leadership of a single international organization. After the conferences in Naples and Brussels in 1951, the US plan was accepted and the Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe (now renamed the International Organization for Migration) was created. Second, the distinction between migrants and refugees also emerged as a way of helping the restructuring and dissolution of the pre-war refugee protection organisations. Two parameters for the division — forced movement and violation of civil and political rights — appeared inadvertently rather than deliberately. From the perspective of the US government, the main goal was to limit international influence over national migration and refugee policies as much as possibl

La disparition des genres

L’attitude que Sōseki a définie comme étant fondamentale à l’écriture du shaseibun est ce que Freud nomme « humour ». Par ailleurs, l’humour en tant qu’un « sens du monde » devrait être distingué du carnavalesque selon Bakhtin. Pour Freud, la plaisanterie, en tant qu’une « contribution au comique au moyen de l’inconscient », doit être différenciée de l’humour, « la contribution faite par le comique par l’intermédiaire du surmoi ». Pour moi l’humour peut entretenir quelque rapport à la psychose et le shaseibun de Sōseki peut être lié à une sorte de souffrance qui ne peut facilement guérir à l’aide de plaisanteries ou de la catharsis tragique. Ce n’est pas la souffrance de la névrose, mais de la psychose. C’est la souffrance de la personne moderne. Et pourtant elle ne peut être totalement racontée dans le style du roman moderne. Selon les normes de la littérature moderne, les longs romans de Sōseki sont des échecs. Et pourtant, il n’y a aucune raison pour nous de voir les romans de Sōseki comme des échecs. Ils ont constitué, bien plutôt, la lutte de Sōseki contre le type de fiction par laquelle la littérature moderne cherchait à résoudre et à trouver la synthèse pour de tels dérapages.The attitude defined by Sōseki as fundamental to the writing of shaseibun is what Freud calls “humour”. On the other hand, humour qua “sense of the world” should be distinguished from the carnavalesque according to Bakhtin. For Freud, the joke, qua “contribution to the comical by means of the unconscious” must be distinguished from humour, “the contribution of the comical through the superego”. For me, humour may entertain some rapport to psychosis and Sōseki’s shaseibun may be tied to a sort of suffering which cannot be easily cured with the help of jokes or of the tragic catharsis. It is not the suffering of neurosis, but that of psychosis. It is the suffering of the modern person. And yet it cannot wholly be told in the style of the modern novel. According to the norms of modern literature, Sōseki’s long novels are failures. Yet there is no reason for us to see his novels as failures. They constituted, rather, Sōseki’s struggle against the type of fiction through which modern literature sought to resolve and to find a synthesis for such failures

[Research Note] A Preliminary Study to Reconsider \u27Britishness\u27 in 21st-Century Britain : in Search for a Theoretical Framework

This study attempts to present a theoretical framework for the research project whose purpose is to clarify the dynamic interplay between immigration/nationality and external policies in post - imperial and pre-Brexit Britain. On the basis of the theoretical framework, the author later aims to write a full research paper. Although the fields examined here - immigration / nationality and external policies - seem unrelated, they are in reality strongly entwined, shaping and reshaping each other in response to policy changes. The two questions addressed in this paper are as follows. Why do the heated debates on \u27Britishness\u27 and government actions to base immigration / nationality legislation on it continue ? Given that the meaning of the \u27Britishness\u27 of the time was shaped, how did it accrue through the process of ongoing manoeuvring (in this paper, this process is termed the political project of belonging) each time ? The precise meaning of \u27Britishness\u27 is difficult to discern, and even if it can be defined, a more difficult task may be creating a single definition everyone agrees on. Debates on the meaning of \u27Britishness\u27 and the political project of linking immigration / nationality legislation with it continue among the government, academia, and the media, who are competing for a tangible impact within the project. The research project itself will focus on the years 1981 and 2002, which marked watershed moments for British policy regarding immigration and nationality. The British Nationality Act (BNA 1981) established \u27British citizenship\u27 into the statute book, thus representing the thorough overhaul of British immigration / citizenship policies needed since the Second World War. Nearly twenty years later in 2002, two pieces of legislation, namely the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act (NIAA 2002) and British Overseas Territories Act (BOTA 2002) again brought about substantial changes to the immigration / nationality legislation. NIAA 2002 claimed to introduce new meaning and value to the acquisition of British citizenship by introducing a citizenship test and citizenship pledge, while BOTA 2002 expanded the geographic scope of British citizenship by renaming the existing dependent territories \u27overseas territories\u27 and providing British citizenship, in theory, to all citizens thereof. Despite successive immigration / nationality policy reforms to reframe their system around the concept of \u27Britishness\u27, government efforts failed, and as a result, amendments of immigration / nationality legislation followed. Now that Britain will be leaving the European Union (EU) at the end of March 2019, another round of searching for \u27Britishness\u27 and the political project of belonging that claims to link its results to nationality legislation will begin

The creation of 'migrants' : Institutional origins of the separete arrangements for refugees and migrants after World War II

The current international framework for protecting migrants and refugees is often criticised as being fragmentary, with a multiplicity of categories of persons, and of organizations for addressing their problems. Many scholars and practitioners have called for a new international regime and a more unified institutional arrangement, which would provide for the orderly movement of people .The basic weakness of the current regimes derives from the artificial distinction between ‘refugees' and ‘migrants' created after Second World War. The article explores the institutional origins of the system and determines the major causes of the differentiated treatment of refugees and migrants. The paper argues the following: First, the system, which is unsuitable in today's world of high mobility and diversified patterns of international movement, resulted from the battle between the United States and the international institutions (the ILO and UN) and not, as traditionally assumed, from the East-West divide. The conflict was over how to deal with the surplus populations in Europe. The US favoured an institution with specifically designed functions based on inter-governmental negotiations. The ILO-UN plan recommended international co-operation under the leadership of a single international organization. After the conferences in Naples and Brussels in 1951, the US plan was accepted and the Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe (now renamed to the International Organization for Migration) was created. Second, the distinction between migrants and refugees also emerged as a way of helping the restructuring and dissolution of the pre-war refugee protection organisations. Two parameters for the division ? forced movement and violation of civil and political rights ? appeared inadvertently rather than deliberately. They aimed to confine international influence over national migration and refugee policies, especially those of the US. Third, the very basis on which the institutiona

Architecture and association

Wissenschaftliches Kolloquium vom 24. bis 27. April 2003 in Weimar an der Bauhaus-Universität zum Thema: ‚MediumArchitektur - Zur Krise der Vermittlung

Kant's philosophy of the aesthetic and the philosophy of praxis

This is the author's accepted manuscript. The final published article is available from the link below. Copyright @ 2012 Association for Economic and Social Analysis.This essay seeks to reconstruct the terms for a more productive engagement with Kant than is typical within contemporary academic cultural Marxism, which sees him as the cornerstone of a bourgeois model of the aesthetic. The essay argues that, in the Critique of Judgment, the aesthetic stands in as a substitute for the missing realm of human praxis. This argument is developed in relation to Kant's concept of reflective judgment that is in turn related to a methodological shift toward inductive and analogical procedures that help Kant overcome the dualisms of the first two Critiques. This reassessment of Kant's aesthetic is further clarified by comparing it with and offering a critique of Terry Eagleton's assessment of the Kantian aesthetic as synonymous with ideology

大規模な人的被害発生に伴う社会的価値の損失の評価

第22回土木計画学研究発表