In this episode of ‘In conversation with’ we are interviewing dr. Amalia Campos Delgado about her research on migration and border control in Mexico.

Qualitative research in an immigration detention center in the Netherlands shows that detained unauthorized migrants consider the entry procedure in Immigration Centre Rotterdam procedurally just. These migrants are generally positive on the fairness of the entry procedure as their safety and welfare are guaranteed and existing procedural justice criteria are respected. However, they believe that immigration detention in itself is illegitimate and that they do not deserve to be detained. This shows that the focus on procedures and interactions is insufficient to understand the perceived legitimacy of immigration detention if shared values and consent with the legal basis of immigration detention are lacking.

Arbeidsmigratie is in de EU een belangrijk en actueel onderwerp. Enerzijds, omdat steeds meer landen in de EU te kennen geven dat ze voor het op peil houden van het arbeidspotentieel hun toevlucht moeten nemen tot het aantrekken van arbeidsmigranten van buiten de EU. Anderzijds blijkt dat er regelmatig sprake is van uitbuiting van deze arbeidsmigranten. In EU-wetgeving in het algemeen en de regulering van migratie van onderdanen van derde landen (derdelanders) naar de EU in het bijzonder wordt aandacht besteed aan de kwetsbare positie van derdelanders en een eerlijke behandeling. Het doel van migratiewetgeving is echter met name ook het beheersen van migratie, het bestrijden van illegale migratie en het stimuleren van economische ontwikkeling. Deze verschillende doelen kunnen met elkaar botsen. In dit artikel wordt onderzocht wat de invloed is van de EU-migratiewetgeving op de uitbuiting van arbeidsmigranten.

While the legal path to ending marital captivity has been cleared, socio-cultural obstacles continue to prevent victims from going to court. This article focuses on the religious and socio-cultural elements within the Dutch-Pakistani community that promote the continued existence of marital captivity, thereby zooming in on the importance of the nikah, the prevalence of (transnational) arranged marriages, and the concept of family honor.

States apply different material conditions to attract or restrict residence of certain types of migrants. But states can also make use of time as an instrument to design more welcoming or more restrictive policies. States can apply faster application procedures for desired migrants. Furthermore, time can be used in a more favourable way to attract desired migrants in regard to duration of residence, access to a form of permanent residence and protection against loss of residence. This contribution makes an analysis of how time is used as an instrument in shaping migration policy by the European Union (EU) legislator in the context of making migration more or less attractive. This analysis shows that two groups are treated more favourably in regard to the use of time in several aspects: EU citizens and economic- and knowledge-related third-country nationals. However, when it comes to the acquisition of permanent residence after a certain period of time, the welcoming policy towards economic- and knowledge-related migrants is no longer obvious.

International human rights law (IHRL) was established in the aftermath of the Second World War to prevent a reoccurrence of the atrocities committed in the name of fascism. Central to this aim was the recognition that out-groups are particularly vulnerable to rights violations committed by the in-group. Yet, it is increasingly apparent that out-groups are still subject to a wide range of rights violations, including those associated with mass atrocities. These rights violations are facilitated by the dehumanisation of the out-group by the in-group. Consequently, this article argues that the creation of IHRL treaties and corresponding monitoring mechanisms should be viewed as the first step towards protecting out-groups from human rights violations. By adopting the lens of dehumanisation, this article demonstrates that if IHRL is to achieve its purpose, IHRL monitoring mechanisms must recognise the connection between dehumanisation and rights violations and develop a positive State obligation to counter dehumanisation. The four treaties explored in this article, the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, all establish positive State obligations to prevent hate speech and to foster tolerant societies. These obligations should, in theory, allow IHRL monitoring mechanisms to address dehumanisation. However, their interpretation of the positive State obligation to foster tolerant societies does not go far enough to counter unconscious dehumanisation and requires more detailed elaboration.

This article argues that it is legitimate for the state to practice soft paternalism towards changing hearts and minds in order to prevent behaviour that is discriminatory. Liberals accept that it is not legitimate for the state to intervene in order to change how people think because ideas and beliefs are wrong in themselves. It is legitimate for the state to intervene with the actions of a person only when there is a risk of harm to others and when there is a threat to social coexistence. Preventive action of the state is legitimate if we consider the immaterial and material harm that discrimination causes. It causes harm to the social standing of the person, psychological harm, economic and existential harm. All these harms threaten peaceful social coexistence. This article traces a theory of permissible government action. Research in the areas of behavioural psychology, neuroscience and social psychology indicates that it is possible to bring about a change in hearts and minds. Encouraging a person to adopt the perspective of the person who has experienced discrimination can lead to empathetic understanding. This, can lead a person to critically evaluate her prejudice. The paper argues that soft paternalism towards changing hearts and minds is legitimate in order to prevent harm to others. It attempts to legitimise state coercion in order to eliminate prejudice and broader social patterns of inequality and marginalisation. And it distinguishes between appropriate and non-appropriate avenues the state could pursue in order to eliminate prejudice. Policies towards eliminating prejudice should address the rational and the emotional faculties of a person. They should aim at using methods and techniques that focus on persuasion and reduce coercion. They should raise awareness of what prejudice is and how it works in order to facilitate well-informed voluntary decisions. The version of soft paternalism towards changing minds and attitudes defended in this article makes it consistent with liberalism.

The article analyses the jurisprudence of international tribunals on the education and housing of Roma and Travellers to understand whether positive obligations can change the hearts and minds of the majority and promote minority identities. Case law on education deals with integration rather than cultural specificities, while in the context of housing it accommodates minority needs. Positive obligations have achieved a higher level of compliance in the latter context by requiring majorities to tolerate the minority way of life in overwhelmingly segregated settings. Conversely, little seems to have changed in education, where legal and institutional reform, as well as a shift in both majority and minority attitudes, would be necessary to dismantle social distance and generate mutual trust. The interlocking factors of accessibility, judicial activism, European politics, expectations of political allegiance and community resources explain jurisprudential developments. The weak justiciability of minority rights, the lack of resources internal to the community and dual identities among the Eastern Roma impede legal claims for culture-specific accommodation in education. Conversely, the protection of minority identity and community ties is of paramount importance in the housing context, subsumed under the right to private and family life.

Centraal in het Beter Wetgeven-beleid van de EU staat de verbetering van de kwaliteit van wetgevingsprocessen. Is er daarnaast aanleiding om de kwaliteit van de inhoud van Europese wetgeving te verbeteren? Beter Wetgeven omvat ook nu al inhoudelijke elementen. Via het evenredigheidsbeginsel worden bijvoorbeeld lidstatelijke belangen beschermd. Andere elementen, zoals de keuze voor de rechtshandeling en de keuze om regelgevende bevoegdheden aan de Commissie of de Raad te delegeren, zijn veel minder systematisch uitgewerkt. Dat geldt ook voor de wijze waarop grondrechten in de EU-wetgeving tot uitdrukking komen.

Two major shifts in the Dutch policy have changed how social professionals work for migrants. These two refer to the change from a multicultural in an assimilation policy and a participative society where people are more dependent on their network or resilience for dealing with their needs. Based on our exploratory interviews with eight professionals and a focus group of six participants with a non-western cultural background we conclude that what migrants expect from social professionals and what they can offer do not match. It is due to contrasting views and cultural differences. This has a negative impact on their participation.

Criminology, as an inherently interdisciplinary field, has built on anthropology (and other social sciences) in its development. This contribution addresses the question which insights in criminology have most been inspired by anthropology. First, it looks into the ‘criminal anthropology’ of Lombroso; then it embarks on an appreciation of the ethnographic research design within criminology (as first adopted by the Chicago School); and, finally, it assesses the link between anthropology, and cultural and global criminology. I conclude that anthropology has been valuable to our discipline on four levels: methodologically (in the importance of the ethnographic research design), theoretically (in its role in the development of symbolic interactionism and structuralism, for example), geographically (in the global scope of anthropological research), and analytically, in its experience with ‘doing ethnography’ in economically, politically and culturally embedded ways.

In this article a critical reflection upon age limits applied in the law is provided, in light of the tension that exists in international children’s rights law between the protection of children and the recognition of their evolving autonomy. The main research question that will be addressed is to what extent the use of (certain) age limits is justified under international children’s rights law. The complexity of applying open norms and theoretically underdeveloped concepts as laid down in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, related to the development and evolving capacities of children as rights holders, will be demonstrated. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child struggles to provide comprehensive guidance to states regarding the manner in which the dynamic legal position of children should be applied in practice. The inconsistent application of age limits that govern the involvement of children in judicial procedures provides states leeway in granting children autonomy, potentially leading to the establishment of age limits based on inappropriate – practically, politically or ideologically motivated – grounds.

Kritische analyse van jurisprudentie van de Raad van State over gezinshereniging van vaders met kinderen, in het licht van de Gezinsherenigingsrichtlijn en de toepasselijke mensen- en kinderrechten.

In deze zaak geeft het Hof van Justitie voor het eerst uitleg aan artikel 7 lid 3 onder c Richtlijn 2004/38/EG. De taalkundige onduidelijkheid in deze bepaling leidde in de zaak Tarola tot de vraag of een werknemer die na twee weken te hebben gewerkt onvrijwillig werkloos wordt, de status als werknemer behoudt. Het Hof van Justitie antwoordt hier bevestigend op waarbij nog eens wordt bevestigd dat het Hof van Justitie streeft naar een interpretatie van het begrip werknemer waar zo veel mogelijk personen onder vallen.
HvJ 11 april 2019, zaak C-483/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:309 (Neculai Tarola/Minister for Social Protection)

This contribution advocates a fresh look at counteracting radicalization. Two frameworks are used for this. In the first place, that is the restorative justice that we have coined here as ‘making amends’. We need this normative framework because it provides clues for the prevention of ‘transgressing’ forms of radicalization, which can lead to extremism and terrorism. Secondly, we use an Activism of Hope framework, which states that we may and must resist social deprivation and injustice. After all, deprivation and injustice are the breeding ground for radicalization.

De razendsnelle verspreiding van covid-19 binnen de EU leidde ertoe dat lidstaten afzonderlijk een groot aantal maatregelen namen om de verspreiding van het virus in te dammen. Deze vormden een belangrijke beperking van het vrij reizen binnen de EU, als ook van de mogelijkheden om van buiten Europa in te reizen. In deze bijdrage verkennen wij het (ontbreken van een) juridisch kader op EU-niveau voor de herinvoering van controles aan de binnengrenzen en het verbieden van niet-essentiële reizen op grond van de volksgezondheid.

‘Illiberal’ is an adjective that is commonly used by scholars. For example, they might speak of ‘illiberal cultures’, ‘illiberal groups’, ‘illiberal states’, ‘illiberal democracies’, ‘illiberal beliefs’, and ‘illiberal practices’. Yet despite its widespread usage, no in-depth discussions exist of exactly what it means for someone or something to be illiberal, or might mean. This article fills this lacuna by providing a conceptual analysis of the term ‘illiberal practices’, which I argue is basic in that other bearers of the property of being illiberal can be understood by reference to it. Specifically, I identify five ways in which a practice can be illiberal based on the different ways in which this term is employed within both scholarly and political discourses. The main value of this disaggregation lies in the fact that it helps to prevent confusions that arise when people use the adjective ‘illiberal’ in different ways, as is not uncommon.

Increasingly often, it is stated that the universal values underpinning Western liberal democracies are a product of a ‘Judeo-Christian’ tradition. This article explores the legitimacy of this claim from the perspective of liberal-democratic theory. It argues that state-endorsed claims about the historical roots of liberal-democratic values are problematic (1) if they are promoted as though they are above democratic scrutiny and (2) if they insinuate that citizens who belong to a particular (majority) culture remain the ‘cultural owners’ of the core values underpinning the state. More pragmatically, the paper suggests that the claim carries the risk of failing to facilitate all citizens becoming or remaining committed to nurturing fundamental rights and a shared society based on norms of democratic equality.

Socio-political concepts are not singularities. They are, instead, complex and evolving contextures. An awareness of the latter and of what we need to do when we handle concepts opens up space for the resolution of political disagreements and multiplies opportunities for constructive dialogue and understanding. In this article, I argue that the concepts-as-contextures perspective can unravel conceptual connectivity and interweaving, and I substantiate this by examining the ‘contexture’ of liberty. I show that the different, and seemingly contested, definitions of liberty are the product of mixed articulations and the development of associative discursive links within a contexture.