Concepts of human trafficking and contemporary forms of slavery are storming the notorious island of distant-water fisheries. Some foreign fishermen recruited overseas aboard Taiwanese fishing fleets have been reported as victims of exploitations. While a fiercer criminalization against the employers and human resources agencies is indeed necessary, there are nevertheless a considerable number of cases fallen into the grey area between human trafficking and reasonable labor standard. For instance, confiscation of passports or collective shelter under heavy surveillance arises from the responsibility charged against employers or HR agencies regarding “running-away” foreign fishermen. Becoming illegal migrant workers by abandoning their fleets seems a better solution than dealing with a human trafficker. As contradictory as the legal norms applied to the distant-water fisheries, including immigration policies, isn’t Taiwan tempting everyone to break the rules or to turn clandestine?
As the immigration debate tops policy makers’ agendas, the classical migration patterns and policies are challenged by how globalisation has transformed boarders. States, especially western democracies, attempt to find new modes of governance. They do so, notably, by involving non-state actors such as NGOs, international organisations, and private companies in their migration management policies. The growing private involvement in the migration field, long considered as a regalian prerogative of the State, poses a number of questions. Notably, migration policies are increasingly defined in international forums, and a number of internationally agreed texts define the State responsibility to protect individuals, particularly those seeking protection. This adds a global dimension to the norms States have to comply to, even when delegating. This paper aims at understanding how delegation in the migration field is apprehended by international instruments of human rights protection.
In dealing with migration a new constitutional and administrative flexibility is needed. Even administrative procedures are re-invented, as to become humane, effective, adaptive, resilient environments. They are therefore tailored on a case-by-case basis (one size doesn’t fit all), capable of being shortened or rather enlarged and extended beyond their traditional boundaries (i.e. according to a new concept of single procedure), interconnected to other procedures. This flexibility allows for smarter regulatory approaches and shows the functional side of EU’s Constitution. As the ECJ’s case law confirms, even due process rights need to be re-thought in the light of the new procedural flexibility provided by EU Law in the migration field. The paper aims at presenting the variety and novelty of these administrative procedures, raising some critical issues on the steps that still need to be put in place in order to build a greater unity and integration (and, maybe, an even closer Union).
POLITICAL RIGHTS AND MIGRATION POLICIES
This paper aims to contribute on debates about the legal regime of political rights in migration policies. The Brazilian constitutional system establishes that nationals from other countries have the right to vote and are eligible for the majority of office positions only if attended some criteria. Two of these criteria are: a) that foreigners be residing in Brazil for at least fifteen years, without criminal condemnation; and b) in the case of nationals from Portuguese-speaking countries, that they be residing in Brazil for at least on year and do not have historical of “moral deviances”. Problems arise if considered that many foreigners that do not match these criteria effectively contribute with the development of the country, since they work, pay taxes and participate regularly in communitarian life. In an attempt to give some steps forward in the matter, the Senate is considering to allow that foreigners run for office in municipal level.
Democracy is premised on the existence of a polity with members by whom (and for whom?) democratic discourse takes place. Hence, the ECtHR's determination that democracy is the only ECHR-compatible system of governance does not in and of itself resolve the tension between, OTOH, limitations of participation in democratic self-governance, and, OTOH, demands of (universal) human rights. In turn, the ECHR is silent on citizenship criteria, reserving it to the state’s domain notwithstanding its profound and direct implications for political participation. This paper considers the function of &relationship between, political communication rights & electoral rights. If CoE states may apply a citizenship qualification to participation in (some or all of) their electoral processes, does that weaken or strengthen entitlement of aliens to political communication rights falling short of decision-making? Absent a vote, should aliens' voice be limited, too, given its (intended) effects on voters?