Stefan Rother

Democratisation Through International Migration? Explorative Thoughts on a Novel Research Agenda

The article provides an introduction into this EJEAS issue on democratisation and international migration. Third Wave democratisation and the recent unprecedented increase in international labour migration may have the same structural origins, but so far few attempts have been made to link the two research agendas. One explanation might be that existing research on democratisation has neglected the exogenous dimension, and that migration research was preoccupied with destination countries. By drawing from the contributions to this Issue and the literature on norm diffusion, we argue that migrants have the potential to act as norm entrepreneurs and as agents of democratisation. The article maps out three avenues of norm diffusion: Migration can be the cause for changes of political attitudes at the individual level, it can be an enabling factor for collective action and it may lead to institutional change at the national and global level. To further assess how precisely these pathways might support or impede democratisation, more theory-guided empirical studies on the subject are urgently needed.

Let's Argue about Migration: advancing a right(s) discourse via communicative opportunities

Abstract The emerging global governance of migration is dominated by two discourses which shape policy approaches: 1) migration management and 2) the migration–development nexus. With large numbers of labour migrants being marginalised, migrant rights organisations have formed global alliances to argue for the centrality of a third discourse, the rights-based approach to migration. The question is how to inject this into the global debate which has sidelined migrant rights issues. Despite having hardly any bargaining power and restricted space for direct access vis-à-vis global governing institutions, migrant rights organisations are employing a number of strategies to overcome this marginalisation. We analyse these efforts by drawing on social movement studies and International Relations research on communicative action. Empirically this article draws on observations made during two major global fora: the negotiations in connection with the new Convention on ‘Decent Work for Domestic Workers’ at the International Labour Conference (ilc) and civil society participation in the Global Forum on Migration and Development (gfmd).

Wendt meets East: ASEAN cultures of conflict and cooperation

The major theories of International Relations (IRT) differ significantly as far as their concepts of conflict and cooperation are concerned. However, they share one common denominator: They are deeply rooted in Western experiences and intellectual history. Recently, a growing literature on the possibilities and benefits of a non-Western IRT has emerged. This article proposes a ‘via media’: a theoretical approach that can be applied to Western and non-Western IR alike, taking into consideration the specific historical, ideational and cultural contexts. Based on social constructivism as developed by Alexander Wendt, it is argued that the existence of a collective identity among states in a given region can manifest itself in distinctive logics or cultures of anarchy. These are based on norms of conflict or cooperation that can be established through interaction, can be proposed by outside agents and localized, or can be affected by the re-negotiation of state identity caused by domestic events. In addition, there are cultural path dependencies: norms rooted in the cultural memory or consciousness of a region which tend to be ignored by interpretations that merely focus on current events or established Western models of cooperation. Area studies can contribute to provide this context.

Transnational Inequalities, Transnational Responses: The Politicization of Migrant Rights in Asia

Times have been tough for the concept of the nation-state: the early literature on globalization predicted its impending decline, giving way to ‘a new transnational political geography’ (Sassen 1998, p. xxi) or ‘deterritorialization’ (Scholte 2000, p. 3), as research on transnational phenomena took off during the 1990s across the social sciences (Jonsson 2010). Likewise, the emerging subfield of transnationalism within migration studies found the nation-state to have become ‘unbound’ and ‘deterritorialized’ (Basch et al. 1993). The literature on ‘transnational spaces’, however, disagrees with the latter point but still observes a ‘growing uncoupling of social space and geographical space’ (Pries 2001). But when summing up the debate on transnational migration in 2003, a special issue of the International Migration Review arrived at the conclusion that ‘the state is here to stay’ (Levitt et al. 2003, p. 568). Similarly, social movement scholarship has pointed to the continuing importance of the role of the state as primary target of political action (Tarrow 2006).

A Tale of Two Tactics

The disciplining of migration includes the way this issue is framed on the global level: The securitization of migration, the technical concept of “migration management” and the promotion of the “migration and development mantra” were all put on the agenda by nation-states and international organizations (IOs). But in recent years, migrant organizations have increasingly worked on establishing a counter-discourse that questions or negates these “truths”. Their aim is to shift the focus towards issues like human development, gender awareness, a rights-based approach to migration and the de-militarization of borders. While these goals may be widely agreed upon among many of those globally active organizations, there are significant differences regarding the strategies on how to reach them and contribute to global migration governance “from below”.

Indonesian migrant domestic workers in transnational political spaces: agency, gender roles and social class formation

ABSTRACT The focus of this article is a cluster of grassroots movements and networks of networks: the Association of Indonesian Migrant Workers (ATKI) based in Hong Kong. By using Kellys [2007. Filipino Migration, Transnationalism and Class Identity (ARI Working Papers Series, 90). Singapore: Asia Research Institute.] typology of four dimensions of class (i.e. position, process, performance and politics) as a framework of analysis, the article shows that Indonesian migrant domestic workers can hold multiple class identities at various positions in transnational political space(s). Through organising in these particular spaces, Indonesian migrant domestic workers express agency, reformulate their gender roles and identify themselves as a transnational social class. This social class identification is based on their awareness of the transnational nature of the exploitation that migrants experience but is also framed within a wider global perspective of ‘root causes’ such as neoliberal policies and unjust trade agreements. By not accepting the class position ascribed to them as domestic workers, these migrant organisations chose to define their social class by performance and generate political capital. The article adds the notion of positionality to the intersectionality approach, that is, the way social class intersects with gender, economic status/occupation, ethnicity and transnational status might differ depending on the position.

„Inseln der Überzeugung“ nicht in Sicht: Der Nationalstaat, NGOs und die globale Governance von Migration

Der Beitrag geht der Frage nach, warum im Bereich der Arbeitsmigration, einem Globalisierungsphanomen par excellence, Global Governance bislang selbst in Ansatzen kaum zu verzeichnen ist. Als wesentlicher Hinderungsgrund wird identifiziert, dass entryund exit-Regeln fur den „Container Nationalstaat“ als dessen Kernkompetenz angesehen werden – und Migrationskontrolle als letzte Bastion staatlicher Souveranitat. Versuche zivilgesellschaftlicher Organisationen, als Normunternehmer ein auf Migrantenrechten basierendes Migrations-Management einzufordern, werden insbesondere durch zwei Umstande erschwert: Zum einen stehen sich Entsendeund Empfangerstaaten von Migrantinnen und Migranten1 im Schatten enormer okonomischer Disparitaten mit weitgehend unvereinbaren Interessen gegenuber. Zum anderen ist es Empfangerstaaten gelungen, offentliche Blosstellung und Beschuldigung (blaming und shaming-Strategien) der Zivilgesellschaft durch das framing von Migration als Sicherheitsrisiko abzuwehren. Uberzeugungsarbeit in idealer Sprechsituation ist bei internationalen Verhandlungen schwer zu leisten, wie am Beispiel des neugeschaffenen Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) aufgezeigt wird. Zudem ist die organisierte globale Migrantenbewegung gespalten und schwankt zwischen „inside-outside“-Strategien und Fundamentalopposition. Grosere Erfolgschancen verspricht dagegen bislang eine governance von unten, in Form von self-governance und Zusammenarbeit mit staatlichen Institutionen, Gewerkschaften sowie Migranten anderer Nationalitaten.

Angry birds of passage – migrant rights networks and counter-hegemonic resistance to global migration discourses

ABSTRACT The past decade has seen the emergence of a global migration governance architecture. But while – unlike other ‘objects’ of global governance – migrants are able to speak for themselves, only limited participatory space has been reserved for them in global processes. In reaction to this glaring democratic deficit, migrant organizations try to challenge and bring about change in the nascent global migration regime. Drawing from neo-Gramscian approaches, this paper analyses the various political spaces where a cluster of migrant rights organizations and ‘networks of networks’ express and organize resistance and counter-hegemonic discourses to the current paradigms within global migration governance. Particularly, this article focuses on two spaces of organizing: the International Assembly of Migrants and Refugees (IAMR), held by the International Migrants Alliance (IMA), and the Churches Witnessing With Migrants (CWWM) wherein temporary labour migrants, often referred to as ‘birds of passage’, form a large part of their constituency.

Challenging State Sovereignty in the Age of Migration: Concluding Remarks

This two-part Special Issue has examined the migration–sovereignty nexus in the context of intra-regional migration in Asia, with specific focus on Southeast Asia (‘Special Issue’). The sub-region represents the perfect laboratory for teasing out the complexities involved in (actual and rhetorical) attempts made by states to control and regulate migration in what has become a space characterised by increasing diversity of (collective and individual) actors operating at various levels. The diversity, complexity and breadth of migratory movements discussed in this Special Issue thus constitute one of the policy fields where the sovereignty norm clashes with the need to manage interdependence. The seven empirical studies in this Special Issue have examined current political, economic, social and legal dimensions of migration in Southeast Asia from an interdisciplinary perspective, linking the discussion of the migration–sovereignty nexus to ‘regional migration regimes’, ‘the transnational–national intersection’ and ‘grass-roots responses’. The common message that emerges from the papers in this issue—that state sovereignty in the area of migration is being challenged from multiple levels—leads us to argue for a future research agenda which would align the study of sovereignty more closely with governance studies as well as studies on norm diffusion. Such an agenda would contribute new insights into emerging forms of sovereignty beyond the confines of the state.

Demokratisierung und Migration – Ebenen, Akteure, Diffusionskanäle

Ziel dieses Beitrags ist eine erste Systematisierung des Zusammenhangs zwischen Migration und Demokratisierung. Wer sind die Akteure, auf welchen Ebenen und uber welche Kanale konnen sie Einfluss auf Demokratisierungsprozesse nehmen? Nach einem Uberblick zu Migration, Normdiffusion und Demokratisierungsforschung werden im Hauptteil verschiedene Ebenen analysiert, auf denen Migration und Demokratisierung sich wechselseitig beeinflussen konnen. Ausgangspunkt sind die individuellen Einstellungen von Migranten, aber auch ihren Angehorigen und ihres sozialen Umfelds im Herkunftsland. Eine weitere Ebene ist die (transnationale) Selbstorganisation von Migranten. Darauf wird analysiert, inwiefern die Zu- oder Abnahme von demokratischen Einstellungen und demokratischer Partizipation Einfluss auf die Demokratisierung von Ziel- und Herkunftslandern sowie regionalen und globalen Institutionen nehmen kann. Abschliesend wird diskutiert, inwieweit sich Entwicklungen auf den jeweiligen Ebenen beeinflussen konnen und inwieweit diese erste Systematisierung einen Ausgangspunkt fur weitere Forschung bilden kann.