With More Opportunities for Migration, State Sovereignty Will Come into Question

Today we’re talking migration. On September 20–21, RIAC is hosting a fourth annual conference on migration together with the International Committee of Red Cross and the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. Today we have a special guest from the UK, Professor Bernard Ryan who is a professor of Migration Law at University of Leicester.

Today we’re talking migration. On September 20–21, RIAC is hosting a fourth annual conference on migration together with the International Committee of Red Cross and the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. Today we have a special guest from the UK, Professor Bernard Ryan who is a professor of Migration Law at University of Leicester.

Thank you for coming and welcome to Russia.

Thanks very much. Very glad to be here.

How would you assess the global policy-making process on migration, especially the level of communication between the states, has it become more active or less active after the infamous migration crisis of 2015?

Sergei Sokolov:
EU Migrant Crisis: A Blast From The Past

We certainly have discussions on migration at the international levels, in the European Union, also in the United Nations now we have contacts on migration and refuges that came out in 2018 which are...the end product of the crisis 2015, or linked to it. We see a lot more discussion, we see some cooperation, but it tends to be on more local, bilateral, regional level. I don’t necessarily say that we have solutions to some of the problems that exist, states are still taking very separate solutions, pursuing quite separate agendas, and I think there’s still a reluctance to accept responsibility for migrants on the part of states as a whole. So, yes, there is more discussion, but it tends to be focused on prevention and not so much on the question of responsibility.

You’ve mentioned that there’s some cooperation on the bilateral and regional level, but do you think that’s enough, or is global approach possible and needed in this case?

Well, I think we could have a consensus at the global level that we could be looking for, and the global contacts contribute to that, they are a positive thing. I think it’s probably unrealistic too much in that all of the answers, all of the detail, given that different regions are going to be very different, and the challenges that they present. We see that in Europe. You know it’s a very unusual situation with migration in the Mediterranean area right now. So, we don’t necessarily look at the global level to provide all the answers, but it can still set the spirit. I think it’s the spirit within, responsibility for migrants that is especially recognized by developed countries. I don’t really like prevention, I think prevention of irregular migration is a legitimate thing for states to seek to do, but it can’t be the only thing they try to do.

You’ve mentioned that the EU is active in solving the migration problem, but there’re disagreements within the Union. Do you see any binding agreements being signed in the future, is it possible?

I think that crisis of refugees has shown the conflict of interests between the different states in the EU. The border states have one interest, which is to get sharing of responsibility that they feel they get much of the burden placed on them, like Greece in particular, but maybe other border states as well. For the other states throughout the EU, their overriding interest is, I suppose, to maintain the Schengen zone to keep the principle of the open borders as far as possible. But they are under pressure domestically, to ensure that the Schengen principle does not lead to irregular migration and refugees travelling freely throughout the EU. There’s a very big difference in opinion and it’s hard to see right now where that can be abridged. My reading is that what happens…all of the member states can agree to cooperation with the third countries, that suits them, it could be Turkey, or Libya, or other, but when it comes to sharing out costs and responsibility for migrants, that’s when all that breaks down. And I don’t see any obvious solution to that difference in opinion right now. I just wanted to say that I don’t think that what they do is fatal for the EU, the EU is undoubtedly doing many other things and there’re many other aspects to EU integration. I think the Schengen open borders, the idea, if you take a long historical view, is a very ambitious one. We’re discovering some tensions with it, nevertheless, it has survived and it has survived the crisis, and if it would be compromised further, still I believe there would not be a fundamentally change of the European Union.

The latest EU summit was held in June this year and the member states agreed that they were going to extend cooperation with the countries of origin, particularly in order to reduce illegal migration, human trafficking and provide human rights protection. What measures do you think can be taken by both the EU states and the countries of origin in order to actually achieve the goals? What can they do together?

Igor Ivanov:
International Migration Flows: a Global Challenge Requires a Global Response

It’s very difficult for countries of origin to prevent migration realistically. It depends, I suppose, on the nature of the geography but I see, looking at the Mediterranean area, we have a lot of people coming form a lot of places. Countries of origin can take some steps in preventing irregular departures, or in addressing migrants smuggling networks – they can do something. But I think it’s unrealistic that they will be able to stop people who want to leave and who have the opportunity to leave, they have some money, they have connections, and I think it’s unrealistic to think they will be able to stop that. I think sometimes it’s easier from the state perspective to address transit countries because people who are migrating, they’re not in a secure position there, they are not from there. I think a lot of activity tends to be focused on transit countries for that reason. As I have said earlier, developed countries must take responsibility for, let’s say, people in transit, people who are near the European Union, if we’re talking about the EU must take responsibility for them too. The solution is often to let people come and then on arrival to decide if they’re going to be able to stay or make arrangements if they return…so, maybe the cooperation with countries of war region should be focused on return, rather than prevention.

We’ve talked about the practical aspects of migration and managing problems that we’ve had recently. Shifting a little towards the theory, I think in the academia there’s a discourse battle on state sovereignty vs. moral obligations and human rights protection. Where do you think this battle could lead to?

I think at the moment we’re stuck, very much stuck in relation to that battle, which I agree, exists. State sovereignty is the older idea in the field, states are still the main actors in the world and they have their legitimacy when they act, so, historically they’ve taken responsibility, acquired responsibility for the power to regulate people. But I think in the world we live in we see more and more migration, we see more opportunities for migration as I said, people are going from all kinds of countries to all kinds of other countries, it’s very diffuse now, mobility and migration, and state sovereignty looks like a very incomplete or out of date principle, if it’s the only principle, for controlling all of that, because it tends to refuse to take on responsibility or to pass responsibility elsewhere. So, I think in the long run state sovereignty is going to be questioned. Certainly, if the world stays much as it is, with more and more opportunities for migration, state sovereignty will come more and more into question. Now I think we need a consensus on limits to state sovereignty when it comes to what acceptable uses and unacceptable uses of state sovereignty are, when it comes to migration and mobility. Probably we need international norms, whether they’re legal or not legal, so that states are not left to themselves, and they accept obligations because they know that other states are doing like wards.

Well, thank you so much. Some of the answers to the questions that we’ve discussed will be found during our conference, and all the information about the conference the report will be found in our website, russiancouncil.com, as well as in our Twitter.