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

最近的事件将移民问题，以及更集中的边界和边境政策推到了学术和公众讨论的前沿。关于移民所面临的死亡和伤害的报道已经变得太常见了，然而，国家声称几乎是单方面控制边界的权利。目前，各国只有在《世界人权宣言》和1951年《难民公约》及其1967年补编《关于难民地位的议定书》中规定的非常有限的几种情况下才有义务允许移民入境。这些情况仅限于接受国认为移民遭受了政治迫害，而不是造成流离失所的更广泛的伤害，如战争、贫困和日益严重的环境崩溃。这一立场导致国际救援责任过于薄弱，而实施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。对此，自由主义理论家进行了广泛而深入的规范调查，研究在什么情况下（主要是西方）国家有道德义务“开放边界”，或者在道德上有能力排除非成员，关于边境安全的文献可以大致分为两个阵营。一边是那些几乎在所有情况下都呼吁开放边界的人，他们认为边界在道德上是武断的，需要有充分的理由。另一边的理论家认为，各国在维护国内民主合法性、文化同质性、经济稳定和社会和谐方面有相互竞争的义务，为严格的边境管制辩护。然而，在这些辩论的过程中，至少犯了两个错误。首先，这些立场虽然代表了极端，但也存在问题。第一种立场低估了成员国的身份，导致各国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各国所具有的国际救助义务。这样做就犯了与第一个阵营相反的错误，从而未能充分支持保护和促进人权的国际移徙制度。其次，同样至关重要的是，对于研究移民的理论家来说，很多关键术语没有定义，而是急于探索在讨论人口跨境流动时发挥作用的规范基础，这是太常见了。这样说太快了，因为对“国家”、“边境接纳”、“边界”和“边境控制”等术语的简化解释未能充分捕捉到移民的现实，从而在理论和实践之间造成了脱节。我的研究旨在通过强调对移民如何与“边界”相互作用的更细致的理解的需要，在寻求建立一个能够认识到非公民和接受国之间复杂关系的中间点之前，扩大在移民进行规范调查时使用的分析镜头，并平衡对救援职责的道德原则方法的需要。

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.