Abstract

This paper examines the evolution over time of attempts to establish an international law principle that states have a legal responsibility, at least under certain circumstances, to combat irregular emigration, defined as the exit of individuals who would be arriving at their destination in a manner that is not compliant with the destination country’s immigration laws. Through examination of contemporaneous statements and travaux préparatoires during six separate negotiating episodes, I shed light on attempts to develop such a norm since the beginning of the twentieth century, along with the evolving set of legal and ethical justification that were used in the process. I also examine the different practical and principled objections that other states and civil society actors employed to oppose the development of such a legal norm. I conclude by arguing that this historic research challenges current perceptions that home state controls are of recent origin, and that international migration law is inherently progressive.

Publication Type:	Article
Additional Information:	This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article published in International Journal of Refugee Law following peer review. The version of record is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eez012
Subjects:	J Political Science > JX International law K Law > KZ Law of Nations
Departments:	The City Law School > Academic Programmes The City Law School > International Law and Affairs Group

Preview

Text - Accepted Version Download (341kB) | Preview

Export

Downloads