Books and Reports by Paul de Guchteneire
Réseau universitaire international de Genève (RUIG). 2 Introduction _____________________________... more Réseau universitaire international de Genève (RUIG). 2 Introduction ______________________________________________________________ 3 Contexte__________________________________________________________________ 5 Le Sénégal : de pays d'immigration à pays d'émigration ______________________________ 5 La crise socio-économique sénégalaise _____________________________________________ 6 Louga, les caractéristiques d'une région d'émigration ________________________________ 7 Les activités agricoles et la pêche___________________________________________________________8 Les autres secteurs d'activité ______________________________________________________________9 La culture et le réseau associatif __________________________________________________________10 Louga, 'Ville du Millénaire' ______________________________________________________________10 Méthode_________________________________________________________________ 11 Le concept interdisciplinaire de représentation _______________________________________________11 Une observation participante filmique basée sur la collaboration ________________________________11 Le quartier de Niang Bâ Mbodji, un terrain communautaire_____________________________________12 Représentations autour de la migration_______________________________________ 12 Le voyage, entre rêve et réalité __________________________________________________ 13 Le voyage dans l'imaginaire collectif sénégalais______________________________________________13 Les jeunes veulent partir _________________________________________________________________13 Les désavantages du visa d'entrée _________________________________________________________15 La déception vis-à-vis de l'Etat ___________________________________________________________16
Papers by Paul de Guchteneire
Nordic Journal of International Law, 2014
The UN Convention on Migrant Workers' Rights is the most comprehensive international treaty in th... more The UN Convention on Migrant Workers' Rights is the most comprehensive international treaty in the field of migration and human rights. Adopted in 1990 and entered into force in 2003, it sets a standard in terms of access to human rights for migrants. However, it suffers from a marked indifference: only forty states have ratified it and no major immigration country has done so. This highlights how migrants remain forgotten in terms of access to rights. Even though their labour is essential in the world economy, the non-economic aspect of migrationand especially migrants' rightsremain a neglected dimension of globalisation. This volume provides in-depth information on the Convention and on the reasons behind states' reluctance towards its ratification. It brings together researchers, international civil servants and NGO members and relies upon an interdisciplinary perspective that includes not only law, but also sociology and political science. ryszard cholewinski was a reader in Law at the University of Leicester from 1992 to 2005. He now works at the International Organization for Migration. paul de guchteneire is Chief of the International Migration and Multicultural Policies Section at UNESCO and director of the International Journal on Multicultural Societies.
Hommes et Migrations
La Convention des Nations unies sur les droits des travailleurs migrants Enjeux et perspectives
Canadian Studies in Population
... It is increasingly recognised that diasporas, and diaspora knowledge networks in ... Traditio... more ... It is increasingly recognised that diasporas, and diaspora knowledge networks in ... Traditionally, the relationship between geography, science, technology and innovation(used here broadly to describe all activities relating to scientific and techno-economic change) has been ...
Migraciones Publicacion Del Instituto Universitario De Estudios Sobre Migraciones, 2008
L Information Geographique, Dec 1, 2011
Marion Fresia est professeure assistante à l'Institut d'ethnologie de Neuchâtel. Ses recherches p... more Marion Fresia est professeure assistante à l'Institut d'ethnologie de Neuchâtel. Ses recherches portent depuis 2001 sur les processus de changements sociaux liés aux politiques d'asile et aux interventions humanitaires en Afrique de l'Ouest. Elle s'intéresse également aux mondes sociaux des experts internationaux et à la circulation des savoirs, des normes et des politiques publiques dans le champ de l'asile et de la migration.
1 This book is about the political governance of cultural diversity. It analyses how public polic... more 1 This book is about the political governance of cultural diversity. It analyses how public policy-making has dealt with the claims for cultural recognition that have increasingly been expressed by ethno-national movements, language groups, religious minorities, indigenous peoples and migrant communities in the past decades. Its major aim is to understand, explain and assess public policy responses to ethnic, linguistic
The United Nations International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Worker... more The United Nations International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families entered into force in 2003. It represents the most comprehensive international treaty protecting migrants' rights and therefore plays a crucial role in fostering the respect for migrants' human rights throughout the world.
Sociological Research Online, 1997
UNESCO's Management of Social Transformations (MOST) Programme fosters social science resear... more UNESCO's Management of Social Transformations (MOST) Programme fosters social science research and promotes the use of scientific knowledge by policy makers. The Programme focuses on three priority research areas: multiethnic and multicultural societies; cities; and the links between globalization and local structures and practices.
critical in manufacturing a top-down framework of understanding while reinforcing, at the same ti... more critical in manufacturing a top-down framework of understanding while reinforcing, at the same time, the managerial centrality of the state. Conditions of Modern Return Migrants-Editorial Introduction 99 Any scholar having worked on return migration would soon notice that such a terminological confusion was not part of the open and recurrent debates about return migration during the 1970s and 1980s (e.g. Kubat 1984; King 1986). Return was not mixed with expulsion, let alone with readmission, and migrants' motivations to return home, on a temporary or permanent basis, as well as their manifold patterns of reintegration and readaptation, constituted at that time the main research interests of scholars across various disciplines (Cassarino 2004). Since the 1990s, the growing politicisation of international migration movements, the ensuing adoption of restrictive laws regarding the conditions of entry and residence of migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees, reinforced border controls, the heightened debates on national sovereignty and identity, constitute the main ingredients that have gradually been conducive to different perceptions of migration, in general, and to return, in particular. Such new taxonomies as "voluntary return" and "forced return" started to shape more intensive public discourse and action by governmental and intergovernmental institutions. Conditions of Modern Return Migrants-Editorial Introduction 101 Beyond the plurality of return migrants' experiences there is a primary element that needs to be taken into consideration: return preparedness. Return preparedness is not a vague notion. It refers to a process which, by definition, takes place in a person's life, through time, and is shaped by changing circumstances (i.e. personal experiences, contextual factors in sending and receiving countries) in their broadest sense. It is not only about preparing for return. It is about having the ability, though not always the opportunity, to gather the tangible and intangible resources needed to secure one's own return home. Additionally, return preparedness calls for a twofold question. Why do some migrants have a stronger degree of preparedness than others? How is the issue of return preparedness dealt with or taken into consideration in the framework of contemporary migration management policies? This is what the contributions to this issue are all about. 4. Free will and readiness to return Free will and the readiness to return are the two fundamental elements that compose return migrants' preparedness. Free will is the act of deciding or choosing on one's own initiative to return. Free will is the subjective power to choose to return at a certain time, because it seems to be a timely and logical phase in the migratory process. The freedom to choose to return, i.e. free will, may appear superficial, because the migrant as a person will necessarily have to weigh the pros and cons, the costs and benefits, of the decision to return. However, what matters is the subjective feeling that the decision to return was neither dictated by others nor by external circumstances, regardless of whether it is justified in absolute terms or not. Free will refers to whether it is the time, and whether it is right, to choose to return or not. Clearly, given the heterogeneity of return migrants' experiences and profiles, free will is far from being a constant, for it does not happen all the time in the return process. Sometimes, unexpected events or obstacles may disrupt the migration cycle and compel migrants to return home at shorter notice than expected. In this case, return is not chosen and the lack of freedom to choose to return might have severe implications on the conditions of the migrant. Readiness to return reflects the extent to which migrants have been in a position to mobilise the adequate tangible (i.e. financial capital) and intangible (i.e. contacts, relationships, skills, acquaintances) resources needed to secure their return, whether it is temporary or permanent. This notion allows the manifold resources mobilised by migrants to be analysed. It also stresses the need to view return as an ongoing process, as Davids and van Houte argue, which requires time. As mentioned above, migrants have different capacities for readiness. Some may be optimal, others may be insufficient. Time, resources, experience, knowledge and 102 Jean-Pierre Cassarino awareness of the conditions in the host and home countries, constitute the main factors shaping their capacities for readiness to return. Free will and readiness to return reflect the ability of a person to decide how, when and why it is time to go back home. This ability is not a given, for the conditions of return may vary substantially, leading to various degrees of preparedness. In other words, not all migrants choose to return on their own initiative, nor do they have the readiness to do so. Preparedness pertains not only to the free choice of migrants to return home, but also to their readiness to return. In other words, to be optimally prepared, return is an issue of individual capacity to decide freely to return and to mobilise the tangible (i.e. financial capital) and intangible (i.e. contacts, relationships, skills, acquaintances) resources needed to secure return (i.e. readiness). Clearly, at the same time, readiness to return varies with the types of experience of migration and with migrants' context of return. 5. Degrees of return preparedness The authors' contributions are, at various levels, reflective of different degrees of return preparedness. Regardless of the heterogeneous experiences of migration and return conditions that are analysed here, three main degrees of preparedness may be identified. The first degree refers to actors who feel they have gathered enough tangible and intangible resources to carry out their projects in their home countries. These returnees have a strong degree of preparedness. They have also developed valuable contacts, and acquired skills and knowledge that can constitute a significant adjunct to their initiatives. They have had time to evaluate the costs and benefits of return, while considering the changes that have occurred in their countries of origin, at institutional, economic and political levels. Some of them may maintain their residential status in their former areas of settlement with a view to securing their cross-border mobility. Of course, despite their strong degree of preparedness, return migrants are not immune to a process of readaptation in the home country and to a personal "reflective experience of belongingness" that Anastasia Christou extensively analyses with reference to the narratives of her respondents who returned to Greece. In a similar vein, return-friendly state-sponsored programmes and legal measures in countries of origin may be viewed as a positive change by returnees able to instil new social dynamics and changes not only in the origin but also in the former destination country. This double-edged process is interestingly analysed by Edson Urano and Lucia Yamamoto. The second degree pertains to migrants whose length of stay abroad was too short to allow tangible and intangible resources to be mobilised. These returnees have a Conditions of Modern Return Migrants-Editorial Introduction 103 weak degree of preparedness impacting on their capacity to reintegrate. They consider that the cost of remaining is higher than returning home, even if few resources were mobilised before their return. Hence, resource mobilisation in receiving countries remains extremely limited and the returnee will tend to rely on resources available at home (e.g. local social capital). The third degree refers to migrants who did not freely choose to return at this stage, nor did they have the opportunity to provide for the preparation of return. Adverse circumstances, in their broadest sense, prompted them to leave, leading to the abrupt interruption of their migration cycle. Their degree of preparedness is nonexistent, as Anisseh Van Engeland-Nourai shows in her study on Afghan and Iraqi refugees repatriated from the Islamic Republic of Iran. Readiness and free will to return are closely intertwined in the notion of return preparedness, although they differ substantially. The former lays emphasis on the ability to mobilise with time the resources needed for return, whereas the latter focuses on free will and the individual choice to return or otherwise. Clearly, there are as many degrees of preparedness as there exist pre-and post-return conditions, for circumstances have a decisive impact on return migrants' reintegration process and ability to convey new ways of thinking about governance and rights, as Diane King observed interviewing returnees in Iraqi Kurdistan. Admittedly, the three degrees mentioned above roughly plot the actual plurality of conditions facing return migrants. Nonetheless, the rationale for identifying various degrees of return preparedness lies precisely in emphasising that, regardless of the heterogeneity characterising return migrants' experiences and profiles, free choice and readiness to return constitute key elements to understand why some succeed in reintegrating back home whereas others do not. Return preparedness provides a response regarding the variety of patterns of reintegration back home. At the same time, it also generates many questions as to whether and how state authorities involved in the management of migration have taken this into consideration in their political agendas. This issue calls for an analysis combining a top-down (Blitz, Hamood, Van Engeland-Nourai) with a bottom-up (Davids and van Houte, Christou, Urano and Yamamoto, King) approach to return migration. It is through this combination that we can comprehend return and returnees' modern conditions, beyond their intrinsic plurality and beyond dominant schemes of interpretation.
The United Nations Convention on Migrant Workers' Rights, 2009
It is important to distinguish at the outset between the European Union (EU) and the European Com... more It is important to distinguish at the outset between the European Union (EU) and the European Community (EC); the former is governed-on a largely intergovernmental basis-by the Treaty on European Union (TEU) while the Community (commonly referred to as the 'first pillar' of the Union) is for present purposes the more relevant entity, given that it is action by the EC and not the EU that has impacted most greatly on minority language rights. The Community is regulated by and responsible for the implementation of the EC Treaty; for more details on the structure of the EU and EC, see Curtin (1993) and Everling (1992). 16 See Resolution on a Community Charter of Regional Languages and Cultures and on a Charter of Rights of Ethnic Minorities (Arfé Resolution), 16 October 1981, [1984] OJ C287/106; Resolution in favour of Minority Languages and Culture (Arfé Resolution No. 2), 11 February 1983, [1983] OJ C68/103; and Resolution on the Languages and Cultures of Regional and Ethnic Minorities in the European Community (Kuijpers Resolution), 30 October 1987, Doc. A 2-150/87. 17 Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana/European Commission (1986). 18 Resolution on Linguistic and Cultural Minorities in the European Community (Killilea Report), 9 February 1994, [1994] OJ C061/110. 19 See for example, Resolution of the European Parliament calling for a Community policy on culture ([1974] OJ C62/5); statement issued by the Summit of Heads of State and Government at The Hague in 1969, recognising the need to preserve Europe as 'an exceptional seat of development, culture and progress' (EC Bulletin I-1970, Part One, Ch. 1); the European Council's Solemn Declaration on European Identity (EC Bulletin 1983/6). 20 See Community Action in the Cultural Sector, EC Bulletin Supp. 6/77; Stronger Community Action in the Cultural Sector, EC Bulletin Supp. 6/82. 21 EC Bulletin Supp. 4/87. 22 This action was supplemented by a separate resolution in the Council-see [1987] OJ C309/3. 23 i.e. New Prospects for Community Cultural Action, COM(92) [1992].
Uploads
Books and Reports by Paul de Guchteneire
Papers by Paul de Guchteneire