International Migration: Security Concerns and Human Rights Standards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last two decades, the reinforcement of security-related migration policies has resulted in the perception of the foreigner, and especially the irregular migrant, as a category outside the circle of legality. The rights of foreigners in host countries have deteriorated due to the connection made between immigration and criminality. Restrictions imposed upon irregular migrants' basic political and civil rights have been accompanied by major obstacles to their access to economic and social rights, including the right to health. The events of 9/11 further contributed to this trend, which contradicts the basic premises of the human rights paradigm. Recent policy developments and ongoing international cooperation implementing systematic interception and interdiction mechanisms have led to the securitization of migration. The preventive and deterrent measures reinforce the security paradigm. By contrast, various national and international actors have been successful in defending irregular migrants' rights. At the domestic level, the involvement of the judiciary and civil society enhances the rights-based approach to foreigners. The role of judges is vital in holding policy-makers accountable for respecting the high national standards of human rights protection. This article elaborates on the dichotomy between the state's legitimate interest to ensure national security, and its domestic and international obligations to protect human rights for all, including irregular migrants. It focuses on the changing relationship between migration and security, on the one hand, and between state and individual, on the other hand. It affirms the necessity to recognize the pre-eminence of fundamental rights upon security concerns.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".