PANEL 7- Ethics of Migration, Integration and Territory in (Non-)Ideal Conditions: What could we Hope For?
Convenors: João Cruz Ribeiro and Leonardo Barros da Silva Menezes
All inquiries about the panel should be sent to [email protected] and [email protected]
Debates in migration ethics have long been accompanied by a call to drop abstract ideals and take into account real-world facts and constraints. While this picks up a general concern in practical philosophy about the degree to which normative theory should be grounded in existing practices and political realities, it seems like migration has been an especially prominent field for non-ideal theory. This is partly due to the practical urgency questions of migration have had recently.
One of the most recognized facets of the European integration process is the free movement of persons. Roughly speaking, it can be said that this fundamental freedom started as an economic one - consisting, at the time, in the free movement of workers in a broad sense - having evolved until it was recognized as a fundamental right: article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
of the European Union grants to nationals of the Member States the right to move and stay in the territory of the Member States of the European Union. Under this legal construction that began in the 50s of the last century, a continuous, significant and serene migratory process has taken place. However, we believe we can say that, to a significant extent, this process has escaped the debate on the ethics of migrations.
One of the reasons that might explain this fact is the deep-rooted consensus on one of the fundamental questions of the ethics of migration, that of access to territory. In fact, the conditions for crossing intra-community borders are regulated in detail in a way that leaves, perhaps, little room for discussion proper to the ethics of migration. This consensus - which would be characterized by the fact that the legal implementation already achieved gives sufficient satisfaction to questions of an ethical nature - would render the debate useless. However, among other things, it may also have to do with the fact that normative positions widely shared in the academic discourse – for example, on the justifiability of borders (Abizadeh 2008, Bertram 2018, Carens 2013) – often seem to be fundamentally at odds with mainstream public opinion. Another reason would be that such consensus is only the result of a methodological difference. Indeed, conceptions of what we should understand as non-ideal circumstances vary widely in the philosophical discourse – both generally (see, among others, Valentini 2012) and in migration ethics more specifically. It may serve, for instance, as a wider comment on the hopes we may hold in realizing migration justice, and how we should organize our practical aims accordingly. On this view, normative priorities might even privilege concerns of peace, security and order – instead of justice and fairness (Valentini, 2021: 659).
Now, if we look at intra-community migrations, we see that it may also be possible to frame migration issues under ideal theory. An example of this approach regards the conditions of permanence of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State may perhaps presuppose full compliance with an ideal of justice. In other words, it may be an example of what Rawls called a realistic utopia (Rawls, 1999).
These and other related questions have been extensively covered by issues on integration and ethics of migration. This panel aims at promoting the discussion of these problems. A non- exhaustive list of possible relevant topics to be addressed in the panel includes:
If you want to apply, please submit an abstract, of 400-500 words along with five keywords, of your paper prepared for peer review by 17 April 2022. We will respond by 28 April 2022. All proposals must be submitted online through our website using the Abstract submission Form (please, click “Submit Abstract” and fill the form).
All inquiries about the panel should be sent to [email protected] and [email protected]
Debates in migration ethics have long been accompanied by a call to drop abstract ideals and take into account real-world facts and constraints. While this picks up a general concern in practical philosophy about the degree to which normative theory should be grounded in existing practices and political realities, it seems like migration has been an especially prominent field for non-ideal theory. This is partly due to the practical urgency questions of migration have had recently.
One of the most recognized facets of the European integration process is the free movement of persons. Roughly speaking, it can be said that this fundamental freedom started as an economic one - consisting, at the time, in the free movement of workers in a broad sense - having evolved until it was recognized as a fundamental right: article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
of the European Union grants to nationals of the Member States the right to move and stay in the territory of the Member States of the European Union. Under this legal construction that began in the 50s of the last century, a continuous, significant and serene migratory process has taken place. However, we believe we can say that, to a significant extent, this process has escaped the debate on the ethics of migrations.
One of the reasons that might explain this fact is the deep-rooted consensus on one of the fundamental questions of the ethics of migration, that of access to territory. In fact, the conditions for crossing intra-community borders are regulated in detail in a way that leaves, perhaps, little room for discussion proper to the ethics of migration. This consensus - which would be characterized by the fact that the legal implementation already achieved gives sufficient satisfaction to questions of an ethical nature - would render the debate useless. However, among other things, it may also have to do with the fact that normative positions widely shared in the academic discourse – for example, on the justifiability of borders (Abizadeh 2008, Bertram 2018, Carens 2013) – often seem to be fundamentally at odds with mainstream public opinion. Another reason would be that such consensus is only the result of a methodological difference. Indeed, conceptions of what we should understand as non-ideal circumstances vary widely in the philosophical discourse – both generally (see, among others, Valentini 2012) and in migration ethics more specifically. It may serve, for instance, as a wider comment on the hopes we may hold in realizing migration justice, and how we should organize our practical aims accordingly. On this view, normative priorities might even privilege concerns of peace, security and order – instead of justice and fairness (Valentini, 2021: 659).
Now, if we look at intra-community migrations, we see that it may also be possible to frame migration issues under ideal theory. An example of this approach regards the conditions of permanence of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State may perhaps presuppose full compliance with an ideal of justice. In other words, it may be an example of what Rawls called a realistic utopia (Rawls, 1999).
These and other related questions have been extensively covered by issues on integration and ethics of migration. This panel aims at promoting the discussion of these problems. A non- exhaustive list of possible relevant topics to be addressed in the panel includes:
- Justification of Borders: Which principle(s) might justify state’s border control? Upon what moral basis are state restrictions on non-citizens arrival justifiable? Do the rights of migrant and human rights play a normative role in favor of free movement?
- Freedom of Movement: Should free movement within regions like the European Union be discussed according to Ideal-Theory methodological assumptions? From what normative standpoint could we analyze such phenomena?
- Integration: What role should normative theory play on issues of integration? Should migrants be integrated only on a national basis? Could migrant integration be formulated from a broader, regional perspective?
- Methodological debates: Is the distinction between non-ideal and ideal theory helpful at all in the migration context? Or should we drop these concepts and think about real- world circumstances in different terms?
If you want to apply, please submit an abstract, of 400-500 words along with five keywords, of your paper prepared for peer review by 17 April 2022. We will respond by 28 April 2022. All proposals must be submitted online through our website using the Abstract submission Form (please, click “Submit Abstract” and fill the form).