Human Rights and Border Exclusion: Do States Have the Right to Create and Enforce Their Border Policies Unilaterally?

最近发生的事件将移民问题，以及更重要的边界和边界政策推到了学术界和公众讨论的最前沿。移民面临的死亡和伤害的报道已经变得太常见了，然而，各国声称几乎单方面有权控制边境。目前，各国只有在《世界人权宣言》和1951年《难民公约》及其1967年补充《关于难民地位的议定书》规定的非常有限的情况下才有义务允许移民入境。这些情况仅限于接收国认为移民遭受了政治迫害，而不是导致流离失所的更广泛的伤害，如战争，贫困和越来越多的环境崩溃。这一立场导致国际救援责任过于薄弱，而实行移民政策的国家不仅没有达到这些最低标准，更不用说任何合理的道德标准，而且对移民充满敌意，使这种情况更加严重。自由主义理论家进行了广泛而深入的规范性调查，研究在什么情况下（主要是西方）国家要么有道德义务"开放边界"，要么在道德上有能力排除非成员国，关于边界安全的文献大致可以分为两个阵营。一方是那些呼吁在几乎所有情况下开放边界的人，边界被视为道德上任意的结构，需要大量的理由。另一方是那些理论家，他们认为严格的边境控制是合理的，因为国家有义务在国内维持民主合法性、文化同质性、经济稳定和社会和谐。然而，在这些辩论中，至少犯了两个错误。首先，这些立场虽然代表极端，但存在问题。第一种立场低估了国家成员的价值，导致国家在控制边境准入方面的合理关切和利益被忽视。第二种立场未能充分认识到国家所承担的国际救助义务。这样做犯了与第一个阵营相反的错误，因此未能充分支持保护和促进人权的国际移徙制度。第二，同样重要的是，研究移徙问题的理论家在讨论人员跨越国际边界的流动时，往往对许多关键术语不加定义，而急于探讨起作用的规范基础。这太快了，因为对"国家"、"边境准入"、"边境"和"边境管制"等术语的简化解释未能充分反映移徙的现实，从而造成理论与实践之间的脱节。我的研究旨在扩大分析时使用的透镜进行规范性调查移民强调需要更细致入微的了解移民如何与"边界"互动，然后寻求建立一个中点能够认识到非公民和接收国之间的复杂关系，并平衡需要一个道德原则的方法来救援的职责。

Recent events have thrust migration, and more centrally borders and border policy, to the forefront of academic and popular discussion. It has become far too common to see reports of the deaths and the harms that migrants face, however, states claim a near unilateral right to control borders. At present, states are only obliged to grant entry to migrants in a very limited set of circumstances set out in, for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1951 Refugee Convention with its 1967 supplement, Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. These circumstances are limited to when the receiving state believes that a migrant has suffered political persecution and not the wider set of harms that cause displacement such as war, poverty and, increasingly, environmental collapse. This position has resulted in an overly weak international duty of rescue that is compounded by states operating immigration policies that not only fail to meet these minimal standards, let alone any reasonable moral standards, but are actively hostile towards migrants.In response to this, liberal theorists have conducted a broad and in-depth normative enquiry examining under what circumstances (primarily western) states have either a moral obligation to 'open their borders', or are morally capable of excluding non-members, with the literature on border security can broadly divided into two camps. On one side are those who call for open borders in almost all cases, with borders viewed as morally arbitrary constructs requiring significant justification. On the other side are those theorists who justify strict border controls on the basis that states have competing obligations to maintain democratic legitimacy, cultural homogeneity, economic stability and social harmony at home. In the course of these debates however, at least two mistakes are made. Firstly, these positions, whilst representing extremes, are problematic. The first position undervalues national membership, resulting in the legitimate concerns and interests that states have in controlling border access being overlooked. The second position fails to fully recognise international duties of rescue that states possess. In so doing making the opposite mistake of the first camp and so fail to adequately support an international migration regime that would protect and advance human rights. Secondly, and just as crucially, it is all too common for theorists examining migration to leave many key terms undefined and instead to rush to explore the normative underpinnings at play when discussing the movement of people across international borders. This is too quick as providing a simplified account of terms such as 'state', 'border admission', 'borders' and 'border controls' fails to adequately capture the realities of migration, thus creating a disconnect between theory and practice. My research seeks to broaden the analytical lens used when conducting a normative enquiry in migration by highlighting the need for a more nuanced understanding of how migrants interact with 'the border', before seeking to establish a mid-point capable of recognising the complex relationship between noncitizens and receiving states, and balance the need for a morally principled approach to duties of rescue.