The Responses of Pakistan and Turkey to Refugee Influxes: A Comparative Analysis of Durable Solutions to Protracted Displacements

Hidayet Sıddıkoğlu, A. Sağıroğlu
{"title":"The Responses of Pakistan and Turkey to Refugee Influxes: A Comparative Analysis of Durable Solutions to Protracted Displacements","authors":"Hidayet Sıddıkoğlu, A. Sağıroğlu","doi":"10.1177/23315024231160764","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This research aims to study how Turkey and Pakistan (the world’s largest refugee hosting countries) have reacted to and managed protracted refugee challenges. In the context of Pakistan, the study explores the Afghan refugee influx since the late 1970, while for Turkey the focus is on the Syrian refugee inflow since 2011. While cognizant of contextual differences (time and space) between these two countries, we aim to comparatively explore policies, best practices, and short and long-term solutions developed to protracted displacement issues in each country. To do this we intend to comparatively explore the role of institutional environments and the international refugee regime in resolving protracted refugee issues in a chronological sequence. First, we investigate how each state’s “open-door policies” toward the first influx of refugees evolved into ad-hoc solutions in the course of protracted displacement. Second, we comparatively assess multilevel integration approaches and solution strategies at the macro (states and their cooperation with countries of origin and inter-governmental organizations such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and International Organization for Migration (IOM)), meso (interventions/implementations), and micro levels (civil society and refugee-led initiatives). Third, we examine how refugee policies in each country are negotiated with national and international humanitarian and refugee agencies, including regional organizations and countries of origin. Theoretically, this article is grounded on a macro structural approach (state’s international humanitarian obligations and responsibilities), refugee diplomacy (state’s use of diplomatic tools, process administering refugees), and management theories.","PeriodicalId":90638,"journal":{"name":"Journal on migration and human security","volume":"8 1","pages":"41 - 56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal on migration and human security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23315024231160764","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This research aims to study how Turkey and Pakistan (the world’s largest refugee hosting countries) have reacted to and managed protracted refugee challenges. In the context of Pakistan, the study explores the Afghan refugee influx since the late 1970, while for Turkey the focus is on the Syrian refugee inflow since 2011. While cognizant of contextual differences (time and space) between these two countries, we aim to comparatively explore policies, best practices, and short and long-term solutions developed to protracted displacement issues in each country. To do this we intend to comparatively explore the role of institutional environments and the international refugee regime in resolving protracted refugee issues in a chronological sequence. First, we investigate how each state’s “open-door policies” toward the first influx of refugees evolved into ad-hoc solutions in the course of protracted displacement. Second, we comparatively assess multilevel integration approaches and solution strategies at the macro (states and their cooperation with countries of origin and inter-governmental organizations such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and International Organization for Migration (IOM)), meso (interventions/implementations), and micro levels (civil society and refugee-led initiatives). Third, we examine how refugee policies in each country are negotiated with national and international humanitarian and refugee agencies, including regional organizations and countries of origin. Theoretically, this article is grounded on a macro structural approach (state’s international humanitarian obligations and responsibilities), refugee diplomacy (state’s use of diplomatic tools, process administering refugees), and management theories.
巴基斯坦和土耳其对难民涌入的反应:对长期流离失所的持久解决办法的比较分析
本研究旨在研究土耳其和巴基斯坦(世界上最大的难民收容国)如何应对和管理长期的难民挑战。在巴基斯坦的背景下,该研究探讨了自20世纪70年代末以来阿富汗难民的涌入,而对土耳其来说,重点是2011年以来叙利亚难民的流入。虽然认识到这两个国家之间的背景差异(时间和空间),但我们的目标是比较探索每个国家针对长期流离失所问题制定的政策、最佳做法以及短期和长期解决方案。为此,我们打算按时间顺序比较探讨制度环境和国际难民制度在解决旷日持久的难民问题中的作用。首先,我们研究了在长期流离失所的过程中,每个国家对第一批难民的“门户开放政策”是如何演变成临时解决方案的。其次,我们比较评估了宏观层面(国家及其与原籍国以及联合国难民事务高级专员办事处(UNHCR)和国际移民组织(IOM)等政府间组织的合作)、中观层面(干预/实施)和微观层面(民间社会和难民主导的倡议)的多层次整合方法和解决策略。第三,我们研究了每个国家的难民政策是如何与国家和国际人道主义和难民机构(包括区域组织和原籍国)谈判的。理论上,本文基于宏观结构方法(国家的国际人道主义义务和责任),难民外交(国家使用外交工具,管理难民的过程)和管理理论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信