政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/125597
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 91913/122132 (75%)
Visitors : 25833574      Online Users : 181
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/125597

    Title: 遷徙自由的倫理學:以歐盟和英國脫歐為例
    Ethics of Free Movement: Cases of the EU and Brexit
    Authors: 張均
    Chang, Chun
    Contributors: 王華
    Wang, Hua
    Chang, Chun
    Keywords: 遷徙自由
    free movement
    European Union
    Date: 2019
    Issue Date: 2019-09-05 15:58:57 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 在本文中,我將闡述遷徙自由的倫理,特別是在經濟移民脈絡下的內在價值及外在價值,我認為國家有道德責任接受經濟條件不佳且掙扎求生的移民,在一個經濟發展條件極度不均的世界,出生地國家幾乎決定我們一生中能夠獲取的資源,因此遷徙自由是改變局勢和實現分配正義的方式,然而,遷徙自由並不意味其他價值,例如主權、文化或國家認同在“開放邊界”的政策下被犧牲,在移民基本需求獲得滿足沒有困難的情況下,各國應擁有主權,在合理狀況下防止移民進入,我稱這個立場為「封閉邊界」。「開放邊界」與「封閉邊界」隱含著「政治自由主義」和「社群主義」的觀點,兩者差別在於對不同價值的重視程度。開放邊界倡導者重視分配正義和自由多過於主權,因此他們認為即使一個人的生存並不會馬上受到威脅,只要移入國比移出國經濟條件有顯著富裕,那麼接受國就不能拒絕這個移民除非有其他合理正當的理由,相較之下,從社群主義的角度來看,保持社群的完整性的價值高於分配正義,因此就算移入國比移民者母國的經濟條件富裕,移入國也沒有道德上的義務接受他。
    In this thesis I will elaborate the ethics of free movement, including its instrumental values and intrinsic value in the context of economic immigrants. I argue that there is a moral justification for states to accept immigrants who live in countries with poor economic situations and struggle for survival. Since we live in an extremely unbalanced economic world where birth citizenship almost determines the resources we are able to get in our lives, free movement is a means to alter the situation and to achieve distributive justice. However, to emphasize the values of free movement does not mean other values such as sovereignty, culture or national identity which may be undermined because of the “open borders” policy should not be embraced. Under the condition that the potential immigrants have no difficulty acquiring basic needs, states should still hold the sovereign power to prevent them from entering their borders based on proper justifications. I call this position “closed borders”. The hidden perspectives of the “open borders” and “closed borders” are libertarianism and communitarianism respectively. The fundamental difference between “open borders” and “closed borders” policy lies in how much weight they give to different values. Advocates for open borders value distributive justice and freedom over sovereignty, and therefore, they argue that even one is not under immediate threat to survival, as long as the accepting country is conspicuously wealthier than the sending country, then the accepting country cannot reject the potential immigrant unless there are valid reasons for them to do so. In contrast, from a communitarian perspective of view, the value of keeping a community integrated is higher than distributive justice, and therefore, even a state is much wealthier than a potential immigrant’s original state, there is no moral requirement for a state to accept him.
    I will analyze the two positions and the different values stressed by them respectively. The “open borders” position emphasizes that equality and freedom are the most fundamental values in human lives. Therefore, to open borders is to allow those who do not own birth citizenship of certain states to also enjoy the resources as those who do. It exemplifies equality and freedom of movement. In contrast, the “closed borders” position emphasizes the features of a community, and the values embedded in it. Since a nation-state is a political community, it involves values that are vital to human lives, and to open borders will very likely undermine these values. Therefore, it is argued that a nation-state, in order to preserve these values, has the right to close its borders. Both lines of thoughts reflect issues of fundamental importance to human beings; however, when making moral judgements, contexts should be taken into consideration. Therefore, I use the European integration (particularly the foundation of the EU) and Brexit as illustrations to see what may happen as a result of the ideas from the two positions being implemented in reality. The EU represents the idea of open borders so that people within the region enjoy free movement and the values brought by it. However, Brexit reveals the counter force that wants to retain the integrity of the state, rejecting the sacrifice of a certain level of sovereignty in exchange for potential prosperity since the values of a self-determined community can outweigh other values. The purpose of adding the real cases to the analysis is not to say that reality triumphs over normativity but that understanding the real situation helps us evaluate values in concrete contexts.
    To conclude, I argue that whether states should accept economic immigrants or not should be based on both the levels of how economically disadvantaged the immigrants are and how economically and socially strong the accepting states are.
    Reference: Advani, Arun, and Bryony Reich. 2015. "Melting pot or salad bowl: The formation of heterogeneous communities." IFS Working Papers No. W15/30. London: Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    Alter, Peter. 1994. Nationalism. 2nd Edition. Translated by Stuart Mckinnon-Evans. London: Perfection Learning Corporation.
    Borjas, George J. 2016. We Wanted Workers. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
    Carens, Joseph H. 1987. "Aliens and Citizens." Review of Politics 49 (2): 251-273.
    —. 2013. The Ethics of Immigration. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Carter, Ian. 1995. "The Independent Value of Freedom." Ethics (The University of Chicago Press) 105 (4): 819-845.
    Castles, Stephen. 1986. "The Guest-Worker in Western Europe - An Obituary." The International Migration Review 20 (4): 761-778.
    Dhingra, Swati, Gianmarco Ottaviano, Thomas Sampson, and John Van Reenen. 2016. "The consequences of Brexit for UK trade and living standards." Brexit Work.
    Dos-Santos, Maria José Palma Lampreia dos Santos, and Diz Henrique. 2017. "Analysing the Trump and Brexit Voters." 10th Annual Conference EuroMed Academy of Business, Global and national business theories and practice: bridging the past with the future. Rome: EuroMed Press. 537-551.
    Druckman, Daniel. 1994. "Nationalism, Patriotism, and Group Loyalty: A social Psychological Perspective." Mershon International Studies Review (Wiley on behalf of The Internaional Studies Association) 38 (1): 43-68.
    Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, Mette, and Daniel Verdier. 2005. "European Integration as a Solution to War." European Journal of International Relations 11 (1): 99-135.
    Elsner, Benjamin. 2011. "Emigration and Wages: The EU Enlargement Experiment." IZA Discussion Paper 1-40.
    Emerson, Michael, Matthias Busse, Mattia Di Salvo, and Jacques Pelkmans. 2017. An Assessment of the Economic Impact of Brexit on the EU27. Directorate-general, IMCO Committee, Brussel: European Parliament.
    European Parliament. 2019. Elections 2019: highest turnout in 20 years. May 27. Accessed June 15, 2019. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/eu-affairs/20190523STO52402/elections-2019-highest-turnout-in-20-years.
    Fillipa, Sa. 2015. "Immigration and House Price in the UK." Economic Journal 125: 1393-1424.
    Fontaine, Pascal. 2014. The European Union explained: Europe in 12 lessons. Brussels: Directorate-General for Communication Publications.
    Hurka, Thomas. 1987. "Why Value Autonomy?" Social Theory and Practice 13: 361-82.
    Jackson, James. 2019. "First-time buyers crowded out of booming German housing market." DW. April 19. Accessed June 28, 2019. https://www.dw.com/en/first-time-buyers-crowded-out-of-booming-german-housing-market/a-48387287.
    Koikkalainen, Saara. 2011. Free Movement in Europe: Past and Present. 4 21. Accessed 4 9, 2019. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/free-movement-europe-past-and-present.
    Kommerskollegium. 2015. Economic Effects of the European Single Market: Review of the empirical literature. Stockholm.
    Kukathas, Chandran. 2012. "Why Open Borders." Ethical Perspectives 19 (4): 649-675.
    Macbeth, Alex. 2018. Frankfurt confident it is the big Brexit-relocation winner: Special report. November 22. Accessed June 30, 2019. https://www.thelocal.de/20181122/frankfurt-confident-it-is-the-big-brexit-relocation-winner-ahead-of-dublin-luxembourg-paris-co.
    McClean, Paul. 2017. After Brexit: the UK will need to renegotiate at least 759 treaties. May 30. Accessed June 14, 2019. https://www.ft.com/content/f1435a8e-372b-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e.
    Miller, David. 2000. Citizenship and National Identity. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
    Miller, David. 2005. "Immigration: The Case for Limits." In Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics, edited by Andrew I Cohen and Christopher Heath Wellman, 193-206. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
    Miller, David. 2016. "Is There a Human Right to Immigrate?" In Migration in Political Theory, by Sarah Fine and Lea Ypi, 11-31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    —. 1997. On Nationality. Gloucestershire: Clarendon Press.
    Miscevic, Nenad. 2018. Nationalism. Accessed May 23, 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/nationalism/.
    Niblett, Robin. 2016. Britain, the EU and the Sovereignty Myth. research paper, Chatham House, London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs.
    Office for National Statistics. 2019. "UK and non-UK people in the labour market: May 2019." Office for National Statistics. May 14. Accessed June 15, 2019. https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/ukandnonukpeopleinthelabourmarket/may2019.
    Samuelson, Paul A., and William D Nordhaus. 2010. Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
    Schulz, Florence. 2019. "How strong is right-wing populism after the European elections." Euractiv. June 4. Accessed June 15, 2019. https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2019/news/how-strong-is-right-wing-populism-after-the-european-elections/.
    State Elections Offices. 2017. Official 2016 Presidential General Election Results. January 30.
    Sturge, Georgina. 2019. "Migration Statistics." www.parliament.uk. June 3. Accessed Jun 14, 2019. https://beta.parliament.uk/search?q=CBP06077.
    The Electoral Commission. 2019. Report: 23 June 2016 referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union. June 13. Accessed August 24, 2019. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/report-23-june-2016-referendum-uks-membership-european-union.
    The European Commission. 2017. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union - Q&A. March 29. Accessed June 30, 2019. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-648_en.htm.
    UNHCR. 2019. Operational Portal Refugee Situations. June 3. Accessed June 15, 2019. https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/syria#_ga=2.18661616.818512188.1560152733-830803220.1560152733.
    Wadsworth, Jonathan. 2018. "Off EU Go? Brexit, the UK Labour Market and Immigration." Fiscal Studies 39 (4): 625-649.
    Walzer, Michael. 1983. Equality, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and. New York: Basic Books.
    Description: 碩士
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105154002
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU201901054
    Appears in Collections:[Department of Philosophy ] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    400201.pdf5908KbAdobe PDF49View/Open

    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    社群 sharing

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback