researchmap

researchmap

researchmap

researchmap

researchmap

researchmap

researchmap

researchmap

researchmap

DOI： 10.1007/978-1-137-40360-5_8

researchmap

researchmap

researchmap

記述言語：日本語   出版者・発行元：JAPAN ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS  

This paper aims to clarify the dynamic interplay between immigration/nationality and external policies in 21^st-century Britain. The year 2002, the year of enactment of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, was a watershed moment for British policy regarding immigration and nationality, and the government has since carried out drastic reform of immigration and nationality policy in order to reframe their system around the concept of "Britishness". The precise meaning of "Britishness" is difficult to discern, and even if it can be defined, a more difficult task may be creating a single definition upon which everyone can agree. Heated debates on the meaning of "Britishness" nevertheless continue to rage among the government, academia and the media.<br>Although the two fields examined here—immigration/nationality and external policies—seem unrelated, in reality they are strongly intertwined, shaping and reshaping each other in response to policy changes. By focusing on the three indispensable issues of Britain's external policies in the 21^st century—namely,counter-terrorism, the European Union and the legacy of imperial past—this article demonstrates that governmental action toward each of them has led to the enactment of new legislation and the introduction of new rules in the field of immigration and nationality, and consequently has had a tangible impact on debates on "Britishness".<br>This article consists of three parts. The first part gives a brief outline of what the "Britishness" question is about. The second section discusses the concept of nationhood and the way its understanding is embodied in legislation, focusing on Britain's official claim of achieving "managed migration", and briefly explains how each administration since Blair has attempted to link its immigration and nationality policy to debates on "Britishness". In the third section, specific policies on counter-terrorism, EU relations and the citizenship status of residents in the remaining overseas territories and of discharged Gurkhas are investigated. The strengthening of counter-terrorism measures caused the government to question who can be trusted, resulting in an increased number of deportations and the empowerment of the Home Secretary to deprive dual nationals of their British citizenship. When faced with the arrival of EU workers and those with connections to Britain dating back to the imperial era, the government was forced to re-examine who is welcome in Britain. The point-based system introduced and justified a hierarchy of non-British residents on the basis of origin (EU/non-EU) in combination with ability. The enactment of the British Overseas Territories Act in 2002 and the granting of resettlement rights to Gurkha veterans showed that the concept of "Britishness" still remains entangled in the legacy of British imperial past.

DOI： 10.11375/kokusaiseiji.173_141

researchmap

researchmap

researchmap

記述言語：日本語   出版者・発行元：移民政策学会  

CiNii Books

researchmap

researchmap

researchmap

researchmap

記述言語：英語   出版者・発行元：JAPAN ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS  

This article focuses upon the point-based system which the UK government introduced in 2008 as a part of its attempts to modernise and streamline the British immigration system. By examining how female overseas care workers are treated under the point-based system, this article indentifies the immigration system as consisting of a three-step series of (i) sorting, (ii) positioning and (iii) (dis) favouring migrants accordingly. In this process, those women who work in the female-dominated sectors such as caring and domestic work are sorted in accordance with their assumed "skills and talents" and, on that, are then positioned within the labour market hierarchy. Their low status within it, the government argues, accounts for their disfavoured (or subjugated) treatments in their daily lives. The aim of this article is to demonstrate that, in the current era of "managed migration", the concrete sufferings of those female overseas care workers are <i>a priori</i> legitimatised, if not created, through this new point-based system. Alleged to operate in an efficient and objective manner, the system categorises those women as low skilled and replaceable workers <i>per se</i>, thereby implying that harsh treatment as such is deserved or at least legitimate.<br>This article consists of three parts. First, it presents a general overview of international migration today, and the treatment of female overseas workers in immigration laws and policies in particular. It also explains how systems of entry control are established. The second part explores immigration policy in Britain and, in so doing, highlights how the point-based system was prepared as the foundational system of the current phase of "managed migration". Once in office, the Labour government officially acknowledged the economic benefits which immigration had brought to Britain, and subsequently tailored its immigration system to the needs of the economy. The third section focuses on the practice of sorting and positioning of female overseas care workers through the newly introduced system.<br>In conclusion, the author argues that the female overseas care workers in Britain actually face two layers of sorting; horizontal sorting based on place of origin, i.e. inside or outside the EU, and vertical one in relation to the alleged skills and the defined needs of the domestic labour market. Under the new point-based system, nonetheless, it becomes justifiable to treat women from outside the EU in a tough manner on the basis of their alleged talent and ability. It is debatable, however, on what grounds the point-based system could claim that its judgement of their skills is fair and objective. It, as a result, leads us to question the overall validity of the system.

DOI： 10.11375/kokusaiseiji.161_26

researchmap

researchmap

researchmap

researchmap

記述言語：日本語   出版者・発行元：関西大学  

CiNii Books

researchmap

その他リンク： http://hdl.handle.net/10112/1128

researchmap

researchmap

researchmap

researchmap

researchmap

東北大学２１世紀ＣＯＥプログラム「男女共同参画社会の法と政策―ジェンダー法・政策研究センター」

researchmap

researchmap

出版者・発行元：広島大学  

The current international framework for protecting migrants and refugees is often criticised as being fragmentary, with a multiplicity of categories of persons, and of organizations for addressing their problems. Many scholars and practitioners have called for a new international regime and a more unified institutional arrangement, which would provide for the orderly movement of people .The basic weakness of the current regimes derives from the artificial distinction between 'refugees' and 'migrants' created after Second World War. The article explores the institutional origins of the system and determines the major causes of the differentiated treatment of refugees and migrants. The paper argues the following: First, the system, which is unsuitable in today's world of high mobility and diversified patterns of international movement, resulted from the battle between the United States and the international institutions (the ILO and UN) and not, as traditionally assumed, from the East-West divide. The conflict was over how to deal with the surplus populations in Europe. The US favoured an institution with specifically designed functions based on inter-governmental negotiations. The ILO-UN plan recommended international co-operation under the leadership of a single international organization. After the conferences in Naples and Brussels in 1951, the US plan was accepted and the Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe (now renamed to the International Organization for Migration) was created. Second, the distinction between migrants and refugees also emerged as a way of helping the restructuring and dissolution of the pre-war refugee protection organisations. Two parameters for the division ? forced movement and violation of civil and political rights ? appeared inadvertently rather than deliberately. They aimed to confine international influence over national migration and refugee policies, especially those of the US. Third, the very basis on which the institutional

CiNii Books

researchmap

その他リンク： http://ir.lib.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/00015291

researchmap

記述言語：日本語   出版者・発行元：九州大学  

DOI： 10.15017/8657

CiNii Books

researchmap

その他リンク： http://hdl.handle.net/2324/8657

記述言語：日本語   出版者・発行元：九州大学  

This paper has tow aims. First, it presents a brief account of citizenship, as a status, as a right and obligation, and as a sense of identity, and establishes an analytical framework for understanding what I call national as well as non-national types of citizenship. Second, by using the analytical framework, I will account for the various types of citizenship in British history, i.e., British subjecthood and Commonwealth citizenship, and their citizenship structure, none of which fit into the national type of citizenship.

DOI： 10.15017/8638

CiNii Books

researchmap

その他リンク： http://hdl.handle.net/2324/8638

researchmap

記述言語：英語   出版者・発行元：上智大学国際関係研究所  

CiNii Books

researchmap

その他リンク： http://digital-archives.sophia.ac.jp/repository/view/repository/00000020968

researchmap

記述言語：英語   出版者・発行元：上智大学国際関係研究所  

CiNii Books

researchmap

その他リンク： http://digital-archives.sophia.ac.jp/repository/view/repository/00000020917

開催年月日： 2005年3月

International Political Association

researchmap

開催年月日： 2005年

日本国際政治学会、2005年年次総会

researchmap

開催年月日： 2000年

日本平和学会、２０００年春季大会

researchmap

会議種別：口頭発表（一般）  

添付ファイル： 提出稿23政治思想学会（柄谷）.pdf

researchmap

会議種別：口頭発表（一般）  

researchmap