Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
11
result(s) for
"Vitikainen, Annamari"
Sort by:
LGBT rights and refugees: a case for prioritizing LGBT status in refugee admissions
This article discusses the case of refugees who are LGBT, and the possible grounds for using LGBT status as a basis for prioritizing LGBT persons in refugee admissions. I argue that those states most willing and able to protect LGBT persons against a variety of (also) non-asylum-grounding injustices have strong moral reasons to admit and prioritize refugees with LGBT status over non-LGBT refugees in refugee admissions. These states - typically, Western liberal democracies - are uniquely positioned to provide effective protection for refugees who are LGBT, owing to the failures of other, also refugee receiving, states to do so. The case for prioritizing refugees with LGBT status is built upon two interrelated factors. First, on the specific vulnerability of LGBT persons to a variety of (also) non-asylum-grounding injustices, and second, on the relatively low number of countries that are both willing and able to protect LGBT persons against such injustices.
Journal Article
Migration and discrimination: exploring the pathways of a more integrated research agenda
This special issue consists of four articles, contributed by David Owen; Désirée Lim, Sahar Akhtar and (as co-authors) Mollie Gerver, Miranda Simon, Patrick Lown and Dominik Duell. These contributions address issues related to migration policies with the aim of bringing normative theories of migration and discrimination into dialogue. These theories describe the various types of discrimination inherent in the domestic and global migration systems, as well as assess arguments, pro et contra, about whether these forms of discrimination are permissible.
Journal Article
The ethics of refugee prioritization: reframing the debate
Faced with the worst displacement crisis since the second world war, many states are unlikely to accept as many refugees as they ought, and very few are likely to accept more than they are required. Accordingly, though some refugees will be admitted, many with sound claims will thus be wrongfully rejected. Are some ways of wrongfully rejecting refugees less objectionable than others? If ‘yes’, is it then morally justifiable to give priority to refugees who flee from worse forms discrimination or persecution of minority groups than refugees who flee less severe forms of discrimination? In the abstract, this might seem like a reasonable position. Yet, many have found it objectionable to give priority to Christian refugees from the Middle East – especially without a similar scheme for Muslim refugees from countries where they experience comparable forms of discrimination. Furthermore, giving priority to refugees on the basis of the degree to which they experience discrimination and persecution in the countries from which they flee might involve drastic divergences from present patterns of asylum admittances. For instance, given the widespread and severe discrimination women and homosexuals face in many parts of the world, should such refugees be given priority, considering fewer men and heterosexuals would then be admitted? Some might reject the very idea of sorting refugees who all merit asylum into different groups – triage for refugees as it were. And some may instead reject the particular principle of risk of persecution for the distribution of asylum, on the basis of this principle’s implications. If so, which alternative or additional principles should regulate the admission of refugees? This symposium aims to tackle such issues by addressing the question: What role ought minority protection play, and, more generally, what are the right principles of admitting and rejecting refugees when asylum, whether permanent or temporary, is under-supplied in a non-ideal world? What are the implications for the present situation given the correct answer to the previous questions? And should we at all consider prioritizing among refugees? If not, why not?1 Each paper in this symposium addresses one or more of the issues above. Before presenting the content of the symposium, let us briefly explain how we conceptualize the prioritization of refugees in the non-ideal context of a world that does not give asylum to all refugees who should, morally speaking, receive it.
Journal Article
Refugee-based Reasons in Refugee Resettlement – The Case of LGBTIQ
This paper discusses a recent turn in the ethics of refugee resettlement which involves taking the interests of refugees themselves into account in the distribution of refugees among potential refugee receiving countries. It argues that there is an important category of interest that does not align with the two commonly held views on what is owed to refugees: ‘safety’ or ‘conditions of a good life’. This category, focussing on the refugees’ interests in not being subjected to a variety of non-asylum-grounding injustices, should, by default, take precedence in the assessment of the refugee-based reasons in refugee resettlement. The normative salience of this category – not being subjected to injustice – is illustrated with the help of the case of LGBTIQ+ refugees, and the kinds of injustices they may be subject to in countries that provide them with asylum.
Journal Article
On Exit
Within liberal multicultural societies, the right of exit has assumed prominent position in the negotiations between the basic rights of individuals and the rights of cultural or religious groups to govern their internal affairs. The nature, role and scope of application of such a right are, however, dependent on various factors. These include the character of the group from which one wishes to leave, the surrounding society to which one wishes to enter, the role and status of the person who wants to exit, as well as the framework within which the responsibilities of different actors (individuals, groups, state) are negotiated. Whereas the right of exit is one of the central elements of any liberal democracy, several theoretical as well as practical difficulties persist. On Exit addresses some of the most pressing theoretical difficulties and gives normative guidance to the more concrete issues of cultural accommodation. Amongst the contributors to the volume are included political scientists, philosophers, legal scholars and experts on religion, thus providing genuinely interdisciplinary perspectives on the issues on exit.
eBook
Group Rights, Collective Goods, and the Problem of Cross-border Minority Protection
This article argues that there are both practical and conceptual reasons for relaxing the prevailing state-centric frameworks for minority protection in the global arena. The article discusses two example cases: the indigenous Sami and the Roma travellers. It draws on analyses of the kinds of rights protected by the key international minority rights documents, and the kinds of goods these rights provide access to. The article argues that the cross-border nature of certain minorities poses specific challenges to the prevailing system of distributing responsibilities for protecting minorities across individual states, each of which has territorially limited obligations. It concludes by paving the way towards a more cosmopolitan institutional approach to cross-border minority protections.
Journal Article
Liberal multiculturalism group membership and distribution of cultural policies
Among liberal multiculturalists, there is a relative consensus about cultural membership as the relevant criterion for distributing cultural policies. This article argues that membership in a cultural group cannot be defined in terms of the sharing of cultural content, but that politically relevant membership is better understood by the recognition of the larger political community. Due to the discrepancies in recognition, as well as reasons for recognition, cultural policies should not be distributed along the lines of membership in a cultural group. This has to do with the discrepancy between cultural policies as advancing certain conceptions of cultural content, and the aim of these policies as accommodating people's cultural differences.
Journal Article