Dialectic of State Responsibility and International Ethics in the Issue of Asylum and Immigration

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

• ali esmaeiliardekani ¹
• amirreza amirpour ²
• tanaz karimi ²

¹ Assistant

² Allameh Tabatabai University

https://doi.org/10.22067/irlip.2024.84704.1449

Abstract

There is a significant difference of opinion about the interaction and the relationship between ethics and responsibility of the government in the issue of immigration and asylum seeking. Some, like universalists, believe in the extensive responsibility of governments to create the necessary conditions for these people, and others, like statists, believe in the limited responsibility of governments in organizing this area. The contemporary philosopher Michael Walzer has a clear position in this area. His ideas are an evolutionary and dialectical combination of the responsibility of the national government and international ethics. Therefore, this article, based on this dominant duality in the philosophical-political approaches to immigration and asylum-seeking, and in particular Michael Walzer's approach, seeks an explanatory answer to the basic question: what relationship between the responsibility of the state and the international moral issue can be the basis for policy-making in the issue of asylum migration? In order to answer this question, we will first briefly explain the state-centered and universalist debate on immigration and asylum-seeking, and then explain our critique of it by explaining the combined ideas of Michael Walzer.

Keywords

• Government responsibility
• universalism
• immigration
• asylum seeking
• international ethics

References

 

 

Reference (in Persian)

Walzer, M. (1394). Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. Translated by Saleh Najafi, Tehran: Saless [in Persian]

Reference (in English)

Blake, M. (2013). Immigration, jurisdiction, and exclusion. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 41(2), 103-130.

Kukathas, C. (2004). The case for open immigration.

Song, S. (2018). Political theories of migration. Annual review of political science, 21, 385-402.

Beck, R. H. (1996). The case against immigration: The moral, economic, social, and environmental reasons for reducing US immigration back to traditional levels. Roy Beck.

Bolesta, A. (2003). Forced Migration and the Contemporary World: Challenges to the International Systsem. Available at SSRN 895949.

Carens, J. H. (1987). Aliens and citizens: the case for open borders. The review of politics, 49(2), 251-273.

Freiman, C. (2018). A Defense of Open Borders. The Palgrave Handbook of Philosophy and Public Policy, 161-171.

Gheciu, A., & Wohlforth, W. C. (Eds.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of international security. Oxford University Press.

Gibney, M. J. (1999). Liberal democratic states and responsibilities to refugees. American Political Science Review, 93(1), 169-181.

Haddad, E. (2003). Refugee protection: A clash of values. The International Journal of Human Rights, 7(3), 1-26.

Hibbert, N. (2008). Citizenship and the welfare state: a critique of David Miller's theory of nationality. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 41(1), 169-186.

Hollifield, J. F. (1992). Migration and international relations: Cooperation and control in the European Community. International Migration Review, 26(2), 568-595.

Hossack, K. (2016). Duties of Virtue and Justice: Rethinking Responsibility in the Global Refugee Regime (Doctoral dissertation, Brandeis University, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences).

Huemer, M., & Huemer, M. (2013). The problem of political authority (pp. 3-19). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Laegaard, S. (2007). David Miller on immigration policy and nationality. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 24(3), 283-298.

Levitov, A., & Macedo, S. (2018). Human Rights, Membership, and Moral Responsibility in an Unjust World. Human Rights: Moral or Political, 469-488.‏‏

Lindahl, H. (2007). Breaking promises to keep them: Immigration and the boundaries of distributive justice.

Mathis, S. E. (2018). The Statist Approach to the Philosophy of Immigration and the Problem of Statelessness. Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric, 11(1).

Miller, D. (2012). Territorial rights: Concept and justification. Political studies, 60(2), 252-268.

Miller, D. (2016). Strangers in our midst: The political philosophy of immigration. Harvard University Press.

Miller, D., & Straehle, C. (Eds.). (2021). The political philosophy of refuge. Cambridge University Press.

Mishra, K. (2021). Open borders: in defense of free movement: edited by Reece Jones, Athens, University of Georgia Press, 2019, 280 pp., $34.95 (Paperback), ISBN: 9780820354262.

Niño Arnaiz, B. (2022). Should we open borders? Yes, but not in the name of global justice. Ethics & Global Politics, 15(2), 55-68.

Orend, B. (2000). Considering globalism, proposing pluralism: Michael Walzer on international justice. Millennium, 29(2), 411-425.

Palm, E. (2020). Externalized migration governance and the limits of sovereignty: The case of partnership agreements between EU and Libya. Theoria, 86(1), 9-27.

Pölzler, T. (2019). Open Borders and the Ideality of Approaches: An Analysis of Joseph Carens’ Critique of the Conventional View regarding Immigration. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 15(1), 17-34

Seglow, J. (2005). The ethics of immigration. Political studies review, 3(3), 317-334.

Sutch, P. (2009). International justice and the reform of global governance: a reconsideration of Michael Walzer's international political theory. Review of International Studies, 35(3), 513-530.

Velasco, J. C. (2016). Open-Border immigration policy: A step towards global justice. Migraciones internacionales, 8(4), 41-72.

Walzer, M. (2011). On Humanitarianism: is helping others charity, or duty, or both?. Foreign Affairs, 69-80.

Weiner, M. (1985). On international migration and international relations. Population and Development Review, 441-455.

Wellman, C. H., & Cole, P. (2011). Debating the ethics of immigration: Is there a right to exclude?. Oxford University Press.