![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Due to the lack of formal refugee protection framework, the Asia-Pacific region represents a particularly interesting case study regarding the interface between migration management and refugee protection. Since the end of the Indochinese refugee crisis in the late 1990s, priorities have largely shifted towards a more security and law enforcement approach, as embedded in particular in the Bali Process on People smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime, the main Regional Consultative Process in the region. Yet, various others migration-related initiatives have been taken in recent years outside the Bali Process, and somehow against the Bali Process. These resulted in the adoption of numerous statements, roadmaps or of more formal (albeit non-binding) ‘declarations’, some of them with a stronger focus on refugee protection. This contribution sets out to shed light on the development of regional migration governance in the Asia-Pacific by analysing the reasons behind the proliferation of migration-related initiatives in the region and the resulting increase in the number of non-binding intergovernmental frameworks on migration in the region. Against this backdrop, it is argued that this phenomenon is essentially the result of a situation of “contested regionalism” where either substantive issues (in particular the inclusion or lack thereof of human rights and refugee protection considerations in the work of the Bali Process) or organizational/institutional issues (essentially the prominent role of Australia) have been contested by other states and/or international organizations through processes known as “regime shifting” and “competitive regime creation”.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 There is no universally agreed definition of the ‘Asia-Pacific’. For the purposes of this article, we consider as part of the Asia-Pacific region the countries covered by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), minus France, the Federation of Russia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States which are not in the Asia-Pacific but are members for other reasons. UNHCR also excludes Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey from the region. See ESCAP Member States and Associate Members, https://www.unescap.org/about/member-states.
2 For the list of participants, see IOM, Asia-Pacific Consultations on Refugees, Displaced Persons and Migrants (PAC), https://www.iom.int/apc.
3 For the list of participants, see IOM, Manila Process, https://www.iom.int/manila-process.
4 Bali Process, Membership, https://www.baliprocess.net/membership/.
5 The Bali Process’ Ad Hoc Group currently comprises 16 states: Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the United States of America, and Vietnam, plus IOM, UNHCR, and UNODC.
6 The Conference included Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. Iran participated in subsequent meetings.
7 Jakarta Declaration on Addressing Irregular Movement of Persons, 20 August 2013, https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/530db94f4.pdf.
8 This was made clear by the Australian government announcing that Australia would not resettle any of the refugees because it might ‘encourage people to get on boats’. See Lisa Cox, ‘“Nope, nope, nope”: Tony Abbott says Australia will not resettle refugees in migrant crisis’, in The Sydney Morning Herald, 21 May 2015, https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/nope-nope-nope-tony-abbott-says-australia-will-not-resettle-refugees-in-migrant-crisis-20150521-gh6eew.html.