The issue of forced migration has been a difficult challenge for ASEAN to address. Despite the number of international, regional and national frameworks in place, it is clear that within the international community, emigration is regarded as a right but immigration is seen as a matter of national sovereignty and security. Irregular migrants, especially migrant workers, asylum seekers and refugees, are not only forced to leave their own state but they are vulnerable to the whims of their host state, because they are considered to be secondary to citizens and national interests. The purpose of this article is to examine forced migration in the ASEAN context and how ASEAN member states have perceived and dealt with the issues so far. It also looks critically at how ASEAN as a group has been approaching forced migration and whether the establishment of the ASEAN human rights regime has contributed to changing ASEAN's approach to forced migration. ASEAN has some policies and frameworks in place for the protection of immigrants, including for those who are forced, but are assumed to be voluntary. Although ASEAN has a number of regional frameworks which could be applied to protect the rights of those forced to migrate, it is regrettable that the overall policies and laws on migration are left to the will of national governments which, in many ways, may not comply with international human rights standards. Moreover, while the existence of the ASEAN human rights regime is significant, there are no guarantees that it will lead to the adoption of a common regional approach to forced migration. The fact that ASEAN has been upholding very strong working principles -respect of state sovereignty, noninterference in the international affairs of member states, consultation and consensus -weakens the existing ASEAN human rights system. In addition, although ASEAN is one organisation, it is made up of ten member states, each driven by their prevailing national approach to the issues. A regional approach like the one applied two decades ago, would be difficult to reach now, as the member states do not yet see forced movements and forced migration as a 'crisis'. While ASEAN does react to issues, it is always reluctant to act before the issue becomes a 'crisis'. However, even if ASEAN reacts, it might not be in support of the interests of those who are forced to leave their country.
This article explores the challenges and prospects of mainstreaming RtoP in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (asean) through the analysis of the roles and performance of the asean human rights bodies, in particular the asean Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (aichr). The author argues that although asean has made some progress in institutionalizing the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, it will take more time for asean to mark substantial shift in intra-asean relations and suggests that, in Southeast Asia where sovereignty is still jealously guarded, norms and ideas such as RtoP cannot yet have a decisive impact in practice. Specifically, mainstreaming RtoP in asean is constrained by the principles of non-interference and consensus decision-making, which unfortunately remains the norm. In order for asean to effectively care for people, a paradigm shift is necessary. Such shift can be anchored in the asean Human Rights Declaration (ahdr) as well as employing the 'asean minus X' decision-making formula, activating the Troika, and dispatching of special envoys. These options, which are not new to asean and have historically helped in its engagement with human rights, could also enable asean to prevent and respond to systematic human rights violations and other issues which may amount to war crimes. As well, promoting national and regional dialogues on RtoP could influence asean member states, especially those who are not yet comfortable with the principle. Different workshops and seminars that the aichr has been organizing already provide the body opportunities for sharing and learning from other regions.
After nearly a decade of political polarization and deepening conflicts, Thailand is embarking on yet another cycle of reform and democratization project. While one of the proposed reform and democratizing strategies is to strengthen civic education curriculum and value inculcation, there has been a limited critical understanding on how schools-as important sites for political and cultural socialization-play a role in contributing toward or hindering the construction of citizens for a democracy. This qualitative study examines citizenship learning that takes place through school routines, system, and structure in a 'democratic' and an alternative Thai school and the implications for the development of democratic citizens. Findings suggest that civic/citizenship education embedded in everyday's school practices follows a traditional conception of good citizen and thus provides limited condition for participatory and thoughtful citizenship.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.