Adjudicating labor mobility under France’s agreements on the joint management of migration flows: How courts politicize bilateral migration diplomacy

Q1 Social Sciences
M. Panizzon
{"title":"Adjudicating labor mobility under France’s agreements on the joint management of migration flows: How courts politicize bilateral migration diplomacy","authors":"M. Panizzon","doi":"10.1515/til-2022-0021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract France’s agreements on the joint management of migration flows (AJMs) figure centrally within studies of bilateral migration agreements. With their origins in friendship and navigation treaties of the late 19th century, the AJMs are successors to the postcolonial, circular mobility conventions of the 1960s, and are uniquely positioned for periodizing the evolution of bilaterally negotiated labor mobilities. Nonetheless, due to the European Union’s reluctance to embrace mass regularization and the EU Member States’ legislative powers over labor markets, they have time and again scotched France’s ambition to leverage preferential labor market entries in exchange for more cooperation over irregular migration. Through documents and statistical data analysis, this Article studies the case of Senegal’s negotiation of additional pathways to France for its lower-skilled workers. At the center is France’s administrative court of appeals, which has confirmed the broad margin of discretion over Art. 42 in the AJM between France and Senegal. This jurisprudence has decoupled the automatic linkage between a job listed under duress in France under the Annex to the AJM and the entitlement to exceptional admission. We argue that France’s courts have removed a privilege of Senegalese workers, which has re-politicized France’s migration diplomacy with Senegal. At the same time, retention of the prefectorial discretionary power has levelled the playing field among West and North African countries that have concluded similar bilateral agreements with France. This Article adds to the research on bilateral migration agreements by proposing a multilevel legal analysis, which studies AJMs in the context of France’s common law, EU labor and return directives, and the multilateral of WTO/GATS liberalization.","PeriodicalId":39577,"journal":{"name":"Theoretical Inquiries in Law","volume":"30 1","pages":"326 - 373"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoretical Inquiries in Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/til-2022-0021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract France’s agreements on the joint management of migration flows (AJMs) figure centrally within studies of bilateral migration agreements. With their origins in friendship and navigation treaties of the late 19th century, the AJMs are successors to the postcolonial, circular mobility conventions of the 1960s, and are uniquely positioned for periodizing the evolution of bilaterally negotiated labor mobilities. Nonetheless, due to the European Union’s reluctance to embrace mass regularization and the EU Member States’ legislative powers over labor markets, they have time and again scotched France’s ambition to leverage preferential labor market entries in exchange for more cooperation over irregular migration. Through documents and statistical data analysis, this Article studies the case of Senegal’s negotiation of additional pathways to France for its lower-skilled workers. At the center is France’s administrative court of appeals, which has confirmed the broad margin of discretion over Art. 42 in the AJM between France and Senegal. This jurisprudence has decoupled the automatic linkage between a job listed under duress in France under the Annex to the AJM and the entitlement to exceptional admission. We argue that France’s courts have removed a privilege of Senegalese workers, which has re-politicized France’s migration diplomacy with Senegal. At the same time, retention of the prefectorial discretionary power has levelled the playing field among West and North African countries that have concluded similar bilateral agreements with France. This Article adds to the research on bilateral migration agreements by proposing a multilevel legal analysis, which studies AJMs in the context of France’s common law, EU labor and return directives, and the multilateral of WTO/GATS liberalization.
根据法国移民流动联合管理协议裁决劳动力流动:法院如何将双边移民外交政治化
法国关于移民流动联合管理的协议(AJMs)在双边移民协议的研究中占据中心地位。ajm起源于19世纪末的友好和航行条约,是20世纪60年代后殖民、循环流动公约的继承者,在记录双边谈判劳工流动的演变方面具有独特的地位。尽管如此,由于欧盟不愿接受大规模正规化和欧盟成员国对劳动力市场的立法权,他们一次又一次地挫败了法国利用优惠劳动力市场进入来换取更多合作的野心。本文通过文献资料和统计数据分析,研究了塞内加尔为其低技能工人争取额外途径进入法国的谈判案例。处于中心的是法国的行政上诉法院,该法院确认了法国和塞内加尔之间的AJM第42条所规定的自由裁量权的广泛范围。这一判例解除了根据AJM附件在法国被列为受胁迫的工作与获得例外许可之间的自动联系。我们认为,法国法院取消了塞内加尔工人的特权,这使法国与塞内加尔的移民外交重新政治化。与此同时,保留地方自治政府的自由裁量权使与法国签订类似双边协定的西非和北非国家之间的竞争环境变得公平。本文在对双边移民协议研究的基础上,提出了一种多层次的法律分析方法,即在法国普通法、欧盟劳工和返回指令以及WTO/GATS自由化的多边背景下研究移民协议。
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
Theoretical Inquiries in Law
Theoretical Inquiries in Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Theoretical Inquiries in Law is devoted to the application to legal thought of insights developed by diverse disciplines such as philosophy, sociology, economics, history and psychology. The range of legal issues dealt with by the journal is virtually unlimited, subject only to the journal''s commitment to cross-disciplinary fertilization of ideas. We strive to provide a forum for all those interested in looking at law from more than a single theoretical perspective and who share our view that only a multi-disciplinary analysis can provide a comprehensive account of the complex interrelationships between law, society and individuals
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信