难以捉摸的三赢:通过公平代表制解决临时劳动力迁移困境

IF 2.2 2区 社会学 Q1 DEMOGRAPHY
R. Bauböck, M. Ruhs
{"title":"难以捉摸的三赢:通过公平代表制解决临时劳动力迁移困境","authors":"R. Bauböck, M. Ruhs","doi":"10.1093/migration/mnac021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Temporary Labour Migration Programmes (TLMPs) are controversial because they are caught in a dilemma between global and domestic justice. From a global justice perspective, TLMPs expand opportunities for workers in poor countries to access labour markets of rich countries and they improve the situation of origin countries through remittances. From a domestic justice perspective, TLMPs violate principles of domestic equality because they always afford migrant workers more restricted rights than those enjoyed by citizens and long-term residents of the host country. Although this dilemma cannot be fully resolved, we argue that TLMPs can be morally justified and recommended if they are characterised by ‘fair representation’ in policy design and implementation and also meet certain democratic legitimacy conditions. TLMPs can be justified if they provide triple benefits for destination and origin countries as well as for migrants themselves, yet the relevant benefits can only be achieved cooperatively through transnational governance in which each of the three groups of actors is fairly represented. This conclusion is supported by our interpretation of the democratic principle of including all affected interests. Under such conditions, some rights of temporary migrant workers in host countries can be regarded as a legitimate outcome of negotiations, while others need to be fixed in advance under a democratic principle of equal protection of all subjected to the laws. Democratic legitimacy also requires that migrants enjoy protection and participation rights as citizens of their countries of origin as well as local citizenship in their countries of residence.","PeriodicalId":46309,"journal":{"name":"Migration Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The elusive triple win: addressing temporary labour migration dilemmas through fair representation\",\"authors\":\"R. Bauböck, M. Ruhs\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/migration/mnac021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Temporary Labour Migration Programmes (TLMPs) are controversial because they are caught in a dilemma between global and domestic justice. From a global justice perspective, TLMPs expand opportunities for workers in poor countries to access labour markets of rich countries and they improve the situation of origin countries through remittances. From a domestic justice perspective, TLMPs violate principles of domestic equality because they always afford migrant workers more restricted rights than those enjoyed by citizens and long-term residents of the host country. Although this dilemma cannot be fully resolved, we argue that TLMPs can be morally justified and recommended if they are characterised by ‘fair representation’ in policy design and implementation and also meet certain democratic legitimacy conditions. TLMPs can be justified if they provide triple benefits for destination and origin countries as well as for migrants themselves, yet the relevant benefits can only be achieved cooperatively through transnational governance in which each of the three groups of actors is fairly represented. This conclusion is supported by our interpretation of the democratic principle of including all affected interests. Under such conditions, some rights of temporary migrant workers in host countries can be regarded as a legitimate outcome of negotiations, while others need to be fixed in advance under a democratic principle of equal protection of all subjected to the laws. Democratic legitimacy also requires that migrants enjoy protection and participation rights as citizens of their countries of origin as well as local citizenship in their countries of residence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46309,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Migration Studies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Migration Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/migration/mnac021\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DEMOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Migration Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/migration/mnac021","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

临时劳工移民计划(TLMP)备受争议,因为它们陷入了全球和国内司法之间的两难境地。从全球司法的角度来看,TLMP扩大了贫穷国家工人进入富裕国家劳动力市场的机会,并通过汇款改善了原籍国的状况。从国内司法的角度来看,TLMP违反了国内平等原则,因为他们总是为移民工人提供比东道国公民和长期居民享有的权利更受限制的权利。尽管这一困境无法完全解决,但我们认为,如果TLMP在政策设计和实施中具有“公平代表性”的特点,并且符合某些民主合法性条件,那么它们在道德上是合理的,并得到推荐。如果TLMP为目的地国和原籍国以及移民本身提供三重利益,那么它们是合理的,但相关利益只能通过跨国治理来合作实现,三组行为者中的每一组都有公平的代表性。这一结论得到了我们对包括所有受影响利益的民主原则的解释的支持。在这种情况下,东道国临时移民工人的一些权利可以被视为谈判的合法结果,而另一些权利则需要根据平等保护所有受法律保护者的民主原则预先确定。民主合法性还要求移民享有原籍国公民的保护和参与权,以及居住国的当地公民身份。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The elusive triple win: addressing temporary labour migration dilemmas through fair representation
Temporary Labour Migration Programmes (TLMPs) are controversial because they are caught in a dilemma between global and domestic justice. From a global justice perspective, TLMPs expand opportunities for workers in poor countries to access labour markets of rich countries and they improve the situation of origin countries through remittances. From a domestic justice perspective, TLMPs violate principles of domestic equality because they always afford migrant workers more restricted rights than those enjoyed by citizens and long-term residents of the host country. Although this dilemma cannot be fully resolved, we argue that TLMPs can be morally justified and recommended if they are characterised by ‘fair representation’ in policy design and implementation and also meet certain democratic legitimacy conditions. TLMPs can be justified if they provide triple benefits for destination and origin countries as well as for migrants themselves, yet the relevant benefits can only be achieved cooperatively through transnational governance in which each of the three groups of actors is fairly represented. This conclusion is supported by our interpretation of the democratic principle of including all affected interests. Under such conditions, some rights of temporary migrant workers in host countries can be regarded as a legitimate outcome of negotiations, while others need to be fixed in advance under a democratic principle of equal protection of all subjected to the laws. Democratic legitimacy also requires that migrants enjoy protection and participation rights as citizens of their countries of origin as well as local citizenship in their countries of residence.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Migration Studies
Migration Studies DEMOGRAPHY-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
5.30%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Migration shapes human society and inspires ground-breaking research efforts across many different academic disciplines and policy areas. Migration Studies contributes to the consolidation of this field of scholarship, developing the core concepts that link different disciplinary perspectives on migration. To this end, the journal welcomes full-length articles, research notes, and reviews of books, films and other media from those working across the social sciences in all parts of the world. Priority is given to methodological, comparative and theoretical advances. The journal also publishes occasional special issues.
×
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