A Reappraisal of the State Sovereignty Debate

Abstract

The ability of European nation-states to control migration has been at the forefront of the immigration debate. Some scholars have argued that international human rights and the freedom of circulation required by a global economy and regional markets are the two sides of a liberal regime that undermine the sovereignty of nation-states. Others have gone even further and declared the double closure of territorial sovereignty and national citizenship to be outmoded concepts. This article inscribes itself in that debate by answering the following questions: (a) To what extent do international legal instruments constrain the actions of national policy makers? and (b) How have nation-states reacted to international constraints and problems of policy implementation? Focusing on Council of Europe's jurisprudence, the authors assess the extent to which national courts have incorporated European norms and governments take them into account. The article examines ways that national policy makers have responded by shifting the institutional locations of policy making. In evaluating state responses, the article identifies the devolution of decision making upward to intergovernmental fora, downward to local authorities, and outward to nonstate actors.

Exit, vote and sovereignty: migration, states and globalization

“…Most of the new political literature on migration focuses on receiving country effects -if very narrowly defined: they concern national variations in migration control systems, and their effectiveness. National controls regimes can be seen as part of larger nation-building projects (Torpey, 2000), the result of domestic interest group pressures (Money, 1998(Money, , 1999, the rights-based politics of liberal states (Hollifield, 1992a), state interests -broadly defined (Weiner, 1985;Zolberg, 1981), or changes in 57 the international system (Guiraudon and Lahav, 2000;Hollifield, 1992b;Sassen, 1996). There are also several studies that consider the effect of migration on assimilation, national identities and conceptions of citizenship (e.g.…”

Policies of Exclusion and Practices of Inclusion: How Municipal Governments Negotiate Asylum Policies in the Netherlands

“…Others, such as the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (COA), have to collaborate and operate at a regional and local level, even though they function as executive agencies of the national government. In the words of GUIRAUDON and LAHAV (2000), the necessity to co-opt lower level governments and 'shifting policy implementation down' increases the likelihood of 'gaps in policy implementation'. In addition, it may result in direct and indirect protests by lower levels of authority, because formal obligations, interests and ensuing policy priorities may significantly differ between administrative levels and branches of government ( VAN DER LEUN, 2003).…”

Who speaks for the European border security industry? A network analysis

“…Akkerman 2016). Since the 1980s, with the advent of carrier sanctions, migration control and border security in Europe have been outsourced and commercialised, leading to high profits for a number of non-state actors (Guiraudon and Lahav 2000, Leander 2010, Gammeltoft-Hansen and Sorensen 2013. With the reduction of defence spending across European Union (EU) countries since 2008 (SIPRI n.d.), the market for security technologies has shifted towards so-called "dual-use" purposes, whereby defence products may have civilian uses and vice versa.…”