Analysis

In this analysis, migration and its relation with climate change and development are examined through Sen's (1999) capabilities framework for human mobility. Migration is a people-centric activity where one may want to reside in or relocate to a desired area. Discussions around the connection between climate change and migration are growing in academic and governance contexts. Scholars are increasingly recognising migration's role as a strategy for adaptation and development. The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) suggests that there is no direct relation between climate changes and migration decisions. Viewing migration as merely adaptation can understate the varied causes of forced migration, which include sociology, economics, politics, and ecology. Addressing climate migration effectively requires considering political and economic processes and their interrelations.

Traditionally, the world of international cooperation has been split in a binary, where refugee responses and the creation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) were situated in the humanitarian action field, with the consequence that help provided to refugees was reduced to specific situations of short-term displacement, assuming that the initial situation would eventually resolve and refugees would be able to go back to their countries of origin. For many crises, however, this has not been the case, given their complexity and scale. These ‘protracted’ crises, despite the language of urgency, have been at the centre of the humanitarian stage for decades. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the longest protracted situation are the more than 2.4 million Afghan refugees in Iran and Pakistan, but the situation of Syrian, South Sudanese, Somalis, Sudanese, Congolese or Eritrean refugees also qualifies as ‘protracted’, according to the definition that the UNHCR has been employing since 2004. The evidence of this long-term persistence of crises has been the search for durable solutions, which have been traditionally three: resettlement in another country, voluntary repatriation to the countries of origin and local integration. Yet, these solutions have not been curated by refugees themselves, but rather from the interests of the so-called ‘developed’ nations or the Global North, who have established the policies of the UNHCR through its governing body, the Executive Committee (ExCom).

Refugees as a particularly vulnerable group have increasingly found their way into recent discussions in philosophy, public policy, law, judicial decisions, etc. In fact, the Global Compact on Refugees aims to present a preliminary version of the importance of refugees in contemporary ideas of human agency-based development. Building on this, I propose that deeper engagement through a refugee lens must underlie two interlinked conceptions that are informing law and policy on various rights issues, i.e., ‘human dignity’ and a human capability-based development theory, the Capability Approach (CA). These conceptions are relevant since they have been reifying the way development is viewed to simultaneously address global issues and promote human agency. Yet, till now, even these two ideas are confronted by a (non)citizenship blind spot, particularly in relation to refugees. Thus, I wish to emphasise that the complementary understanding of dignity and CA needs to incorporate the category of ‘refugees’ to be fully coherent as theories of development. I particularly utilise Martha Nussbaum’s foregrounding on dignity in her theory of the CA to highlight its relevance yet the need for further work to include the legally ‘non-citizen’ refugee who does not neatly fit into the idea of nation states and the closely connected citizenship paradigm.

It has been 25 years since Sen’s seminal book “Development as Freedom” was published. A lot has changed since then, also in terms of how we tend to perceive the relationship between migration and development. For one, and to paraphrase Sen, migrants have begun to be perceived as “responsible persons” who “chose to act one way rather than other”. To migrate, or to stay. This reasoning is reflected in the recent work of, among others, Hein de Haas (2021) and Kerilyn Schewel (2020), who perceive migration – or lack thereof – as a result of people’s aspirations both in terms of their right to move (de Haas) and to stay (Schewel). Importantly, as argued by the latter, a systematic neglect of the causes and consequences of immobility – i.e. of people’s staying preferences – obscures any efforts to understand why, when, and how people migrate. By developing the aspirations-capabilities frameworks to explore the determinants of (im)mobility, de Haas and Schewel have contributed a great deal to altering the status quo in migration research, which has often focused on the more easily quantifiable, economic factors underlying migration decision-making. Importantly, unlike most mainstream theories of migration, the aspirations-capabilities framework becomes even more relevant when acknowledging the highly gendered nature of migration.

The symposium brings together four contributions by four distinguished authors. The contributions articulate both the potential and pitfalls of the aspirations/capabilities model of the nexus and highlight particularities when the framing is applied together with other layers (gender, climate crisis, refugees). Two of the contributions discuss their topic using the term “migration” while others look into the issue in the context of “refugees.” Notwithstanding the importance of the distinction between “migrants” and “refugees” in current global frameworks, the purpose here is to stimulate debate that goes beyond this fluid dichotomy. In popular parlance, the term “refugees” is used to connote “migrants” or “non-citizens” in general.

Today, November 1, 2024 two lawyers came to political power in Africa. In Botswana, Duma Boko President of the Umbrella for Democratic Change which includes his Botswana National Front swept to victory putting ending the 58 year-old hold on power of the independence ruling party the Botswana Democratic Party. So sweeping was Advocate Duma Boko victory that the ruling party is trailing fourth in the polls. To his credit, President Mokgweetsi Masisi conceded defeat even before the final results were announced and promised a peaceful transfer of power. Botswana therefore joins a few African countries like Ghana where there has been a peaceful transfer of power when an incumbent party loses to an opposition party.

Gender equality is the cornerstone of sustainable development. It is an important aspect of all social and economic undertakings at a personal, national, and international level. Sustainable development can only be achieved if the unique needs of men and women are addressed systematically. Trade is essential in the development of families, communities, and countries. However, we cannot view development only as an increase in gross domestic product (GDP); it is also measured as an increase in human well-being. This means that trade at all levels affects, and is affected by, human well-being. One of the debates around gender mainstreaming and trade has been whether international trade law can accommodate gender empowerment. Amrita Bahri in her work Women at the Frontline of COVID-19: Can Gender Mainstreaming in Free Trade Agreements Help? notes that FTAs can play an important role in reducing gender inequality; through them, countries can encourage their trade partners to create laws and procedures that can eliminate or reduce the barriers that impede women’s participation in trade. Men and women experience trade differently, mostly due to gender roles determining how both genders access resources, use their time and earn income. Trade liberalization, despite its best intentions, has often perpetuated gender inequalities, with women being on the losing end.

Once again, Africa finds itself trapped in the geopolitical tussle between China and the United States. This time, it is the struggle over Africa’s critical minerals. Beginning in August 2022, President Joe Biden of the United States signed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) into law with the promotion of American investments in clean energy and climate-driven technologies as a primary goal of this law. The IRA’s corollary objective was the promotion of environmental justice in the United States. Therefore, for both energy capitalists and transition economy enthusiasts, this was supposed to be a win-win situation. However, more was unsaid. The IRA’s passage was not only about building American industries and homegrown green technologies. One of its goals was to significantly reduce America’s reliance on China for the supply of critical minerals. Despite the significant steps taken under the IRA to reduce American dependence on China for critical minerals, it is evident that the United States feels the need to do more. Recently, the United States Senate passed the Intergovernmental Critical Minerals Task Force Act (ICMTFA). The expectation is that the ICMTFA would ramp up American efforts to reduce its demand on China and other states the United States labels as adversarial states. Together, a combined reading of the IRA and ICMTFA represents a new frontier of American national security interests styled as clean energy laws and transition policies. These developments take place against a backdrop of a significant demand in critical minerals that will outpace supply in less than two decades from now. These maneuvers also speak to the lesser-explored American experience with China nearly a decade ago in a dispute involving China’s restrictions on the export of rare earth minerals. The United States, together with other states, challenged China’s export quotas at the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The DSB ruled that China’s restrictions violated WTO law.

Rethink Trade is a program of the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP), a nonprofit research and advocacy organization that is a thought leader in the anti-monopoly movement. The Rethink Trade program of AELP was established to intensify analysis and advocacy regarding the myriad ways that today’s trade agreements and policies must be altered to undo decades of corporate capture and to deliver on broad public interests.

From September 16-27, 2024, U.S. and Kenyan negotiators held their eighth negotiating round of the US/Kenya Strategic Trade and Investment Partnership in Washington DC. The trade talks for a stand-alone Free Trade Agreement kicked off under the Trump and Kenyatta administrations following an August 2018 meeting of the two Presidents. The Biden administration relaunched the negotiations in July 2022. At the time, the Biden Administration identified protecting American firms in its new industrial policy of increasing manufacturing to counter China. It also sought access to the Kenyan market for American genetically modified crops and dealing with corruption to ensure transparency in public procurement for American businesses as key objectives. In the meantime, President William Ruto, who was elected as Kenya’s fifth President in August 2022, continued pursuing a trade deal with the U.S. with zeal.