水库移民安置研究论文

INTRODUCTIONThe 19-member Global Commission on International Migration (GCIM) releaseda six-chapter consensus report on 5 October 2005 calling on all nations torespect the human rights of migrants and recommending a new InteragencyGlobal Migration Facility to help coordinate migration policies at the regionaland eventually global level. The GCIM mandate was to put migration on theglobal agenda, to highlight gaps in policy responses to people crossing nationalborders, and to examine links between migration and other global report includes six principles and 33 more specific recommendations aimedat creating a comprehensive global framework in six broad areas: migrants in aglobalizing labour market, migration and development, irregular migration, migrantsin society, the human rights of migrants, and the governance of the 33 recommendations, 25 are directed primarily at developed or receivingcountries, 15 to sending countries, and eight to the international of these recommendations have been made previously, and some areincluded in earlier United Nations’ system reports and WORKERS AND DEVELOPMENTChapter one begins with the estimate that 200 million people are outside theircountries of birth or citizenship (the UN is revising this figure to 190 million in2005), that half are in the labour forces of receiving countries, and that developmentand demographic disparities, as well as deficits in the protection of humanrights, promise more migration. Perhaps the most important GCIM recommendationis the call to open more doors for guest workers in order to reduce praises traditional immigration countries such as Australia, Canada, andthe United States, but calls for more temporary worker programmes becausethey are more acceptable in “non-immigrant Europe” as well as in many developingcountries attracting migrants from their poorer neighbours. GCIM asserts thatsome sending countries believe that the circular migration promised by guestworker programmes is more beneficial to them, and concludes that “the oldparadigm of permanent migrant settlement is giving way to temporary and circularmigration” (GCIM: 31).GCIM acknowledges the problems of temporary worker programmes, includingthe fact that migrant workers have limited rights and may settle rather thanreturn, but argues that well-designed programmes can work as intended, that is,admit temporary workers rather than permanent residents. GCIM says that welldesignedguest worker programmes are those that fully inform migrants of theirrights and obligations; allow them to change jobs in receiving countries; andhave governments enforcing laws that regulate contractors, employers, andothers involved in moving workers over borders and employing them. GCIMbelieves that regular returns to countries of origin as well as reintegration assistancecan minimize guest worker migrants cross national borders for higher wages and more opportunities,but only 25 per cent work in countries in which they are covered by bilateralpension agreements, so that the work-related taxes paid abroad by 75 per centof the migrants do not necessarily provide them with benefits. GCIM arguesthat non-portability of pension benefits is one reason why migrants are willingto work in the informal sector abroad and reluctant to return generally welcomes the movement of professionals from developing todeveloped countries, but also notes that their exodus can slow idea of receiving countries compensating migrant countries of origin forthe loss of their human capital is rejected as impractical, and GCIM does notthink that codes of conduct that discourage, . “aggressive recruiting” ofhealth-care personnel can be effective. Instead, GCIM calls for sending countriesto value nurses and other professionals likely to emigrate more highly, forreceiving countries to train more nurses rather than recruit foreigners, and forboth to co-invest in human capital in developing countries, such as by usingforeign aid to train health-care urges that the GATS Mode 4 negotiations be brought to a “successfulconclusion”, and notes that some developing countries see Mode 4 as a way tobegin to liberalize the movement of professionals. GCIM asserts that globalcorporations want and should get more power to “deploy the right people at theright time and place”.Chapter two covers migration and development. GCIM sees mostly benefitsfrom the US$150 billion in remittances to developing countries in 2004. GCIMemphasizes that remittances belong to migrants and should not be “subjectto undue official regulation”; urges efforts to reduce transfer costs with technology,education, and competition; and calls on sending countries to create a“conducive environment” to encourage migrants to invest their remittances athome (GCIM: 27-28). GCIM recognizes that remittances can lead to dependencyamong recipients, and that going abroad to earn them can impose significantpsychological costs on migrant third “R” in the migration and development nexus is returns. GCIM highlightsthe development potential of diasporas, noting that many of the 600 MexicanHometown Associations (HTAs) in the United States voluntarily contribute todevelop the infrastructure of their communities of origin, with their contributionsmatched by federal, state, and local governments under 3 x 1 programmes(US$3 in government funds for each US$1 of HTA contributions). In addition toproviding funds, diasporas can forge trade and investment links and provide theideas and energy needed to get development going, but GCIM emphasizes thatdevelopment must begin at home. GCIM notes that diasporas can, but need notalways, contribute to development, and can impede development when they, forexample, finance conflicts in their countries of AND INTEGRATIONChapter 3 tackles irregular migration, emphasizing that 25 to 35 per cent of allmigrants in many industrial countries are irregular and that there are large numbersof irregular migrants in some developing countries as well. GCIM acknowledgesboth the complexity of irregular status and the conditions that encouragemigrants to risk migrating illegally, and laments the divide between those concernedprimarily with human rights and those concerned primarily with national between these extremes can prevent governments from adoptingone or both of GCIM’s preferred solutions – regularization or returns (GCIM:37-38).GCIM notes the significant investments that have been made in border controls,and calls on receiving countries to combat irregular migration by opening newchannels for legal migrants (“appropriately designed temporary migrationprogrammes”). GCIM also calls for prosecuting employers of irregular workersto de-magnetize the labour market for irregular migrants and the smugglersand traffickers who emerge to facilitate illegal are called on to protect the human rights of the migrants they are removing,and countries of origin are reminded that they should accept the return oftheir nationals. Meanwhile, GCIM urges case-by-case regularization. In anotherdifficult trade off, GCIM acknowledged the link between irregular migrationand asylum and called for maintaining respect for asylum by having a fairand fast procedure to determine if an applicant is in need of protection whileimplementing policies to reduce irregular 4 turns to integration, noting that major cities in industrial countrieshave become very diverse. Diverse societies can find it difficult to achieve consensus,especially when residents cannot communicate easily and there is competitionfor limited resources. GCIM calls on host countries to respect the humanand labour rights of migrants, and for employers, unions, and migrants and theirassociations to cooperate to promote integration. As with irregular migration,GCIM sought a balance between respecting cultural differences and condemningcultural practices that violate international human rights noted the special problems of women, children, and irregular migrants,asserting that irregular migrants “who have been living in a country for longperiods of time” have some claim on the services of the state (GCIM: 51).GCIM takes aim at journalists and groups who fan xenophobia, calling insteadfor a “responsible debate on migration” (GCIM: 52).INTERNATIONAL LAW AND GOVERNANCEChapter 5 turns to the international legal framework for managing internationalmigration. It notes that international law sets out the rights and responsibilitiesof governments to regulate migration into their countries, the rights and responsibilitiesof migrants, and areas in which cooperation among states is essential to improving responses to international flows of people. GCIM emphasizes thatthe basic rights of migrants are established in the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights and seven human rights treaties, most of which have beenratified by a large majority of states. The exception is the 1990 InternationalConvention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Membersof their Families, which has been ratified by 30 mostly migrant-sendingcountries. Recognizing that receiving countries are unlikely to ratify the MigrantRights Convention in large numbers, GCIM focuses on the pressing need forgovernments to implement the laws that they have ratified and recommends thatthe UN human rights machinery should be used more effectively to ensure theprotection of migrant rights.