While concerns over terrorism have not shaped Italian migration policy in a comprehensive way, the increased use of the administrative measure of expulsion of foreigners for counter-terrorism purposes must be questioned. It poses serious challenges to fundamental rights and rule of law principles and might foster a shift from a punitive to a preventive approach in the field of migration control.
So sehr sich die komparative Migrationsforschung in jüngster Zeit auch weiterentwickelt hat, so sehr leidet sie immer noch unter einer eklatanten Annahme: dass Staaten über die gleiche souveräne Macht verfügen, ihre Migrationspolitik entsprechend ihren eigenen Interessen zu bestimmen. Der Begriff der "Externalisierung", der heutzutage so häufig diskutiert wird, erinnert uns an die Asymmetrien der Macht. In Fällen extremer Asymmetrie, wie im Verhältnis zwischen Mexiko und den Vereinigten Staaten, ist der Spielraum für souveräne Entscheidungen in der Migrationspolitik äußerst gering bis nicht vorhanden.
As much as the comparative study of migration policies has developed recently, it still suffers from a blazing assumption: that states have equal sovereign power to determine their migration policy according to their own interests. The notion of “externalization”, so widely discussed nowadays, reminds us of asymmetries of power. In cases of extreme asymmetry though, as in the relation between Mexico and the United States, the spaces for sovereign decision making on migration policy are extremely thin to nonexistent.
Amid the unfolding „moral catastrophe“ of COVID-19, and across the entries in this symposium, we see a clamor for any pandemic law-making exercise to promote more justice in global health. However, this universally-embraced imperative masks a wide array of divergent views about the nature and sources of inequalities in global health, and in turn what should be done if we were to think beyond a narrow pragmatism of the moment.
This final webinar of the 'International Pandemic Lawmaking: Conceptual and Practical Issues' Symposium will bring together leading scholars to critically discuss cross-cutting themes of the Symposium, and key points of contention and recommendation for the future of global pandemic governance.
Migrations- und Staatsangehörigkeitsrecht sind politisch gestaltbare Materien, wie alle anderen. Alle terroristischen Bedrohungen berühren die staatliche Schutzpflicht für das Leben, möglicherweise staatliche Infrastruktur und das Sicherheitsgefühl im öffentlichen Raum. Sicher verwerfen die Meisten eine Gleichsetzung von Migration und Terrorismus als politisch (und rechtlich) zurückgeblieben. Das Bild einer Unterwanderung von Migration durch Terrorismus aber wirkt.
Migration and citizenship law are politically configurable matters, like all others. All terrorist threats affect the state's duty to protect life, possibly state infrastructure and the sense of security in the public sphere. Picking up a connection to migration, in contrast to already existing domes-tic right-wing and left-wing extremism, can promise a quick reduction of external dangers in the political competition. Certainly, most people reject an equation of migration and terrorism as politically backwards. However, the image of migration being infiltrated by terrorism is effective.
The COVID-19 pandemic has raised unprecedented challenges for the global health framework and its long-term consequences are not yet in full sight. The alarm mechanism based on the declaration of Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), in particular, has been severely tested. As underlined by some scholars, a reform of the PHEIC’s mechanism would not solve the core issues of the alert and response system behind the IHRs, that do have mainly a political dimension.
Any future international treaty or instrument on pandemic preparedness and response should refrain from further perpetuating an understanding of international borders that is primarily based on considerations of territoriality – rather, it should ensure that borders are no longer a constitutive element determining the international community’s effort of fighting the spread of dangerous diseases.
The COVID-19 pandemic has blatantly exposed the flaws of the World Health Organization (WHO) and its International Health Regulations (IHR) in addressing cross-border communicable diseases. We argue that the IHR is ill-designed: its rules and mechanisms are disproportionately tied to the Director General’s (DG) exercise of power, rendering insufficient member access to and participation in core decision-making and greater tendency of regulatory capture.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters