Global Compacts and the EU Pact on Asylum and Migration: A Clash Between the Talk and the Walk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current global mobility paradigm suffers from a great paradox. The illegality of human mobility is manufactured through restrictive migration and asylum policies, which claim to address the supposed challenges of human mobility, such as erosion of border security, burden on the labour market, and social disharmony. On the contrary, they reinforce them, resulting in strengthened anti-migrant sentiments at the domestic level. The contradiction is that the more restrictive migration policies are and the more they are directed at containment of human mobility, the more counterproductive they become. The fact that the policies of the destination states are shaped through the votes of their citizens, and migrants are never part of the conversation which would bring the reality check of their lived lives, is a defining factor that enables state policies preventing and deterring access to territory and containing asylum seekers elsewhere. We demonstrate that this is the dynamic behind the new EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, as it thickens the European borders even further through harsher border procedures and expanded externalisation of migration control. Whereas the Global Compacts represent the paradigm of facilitated mobility and are a significant step in the right direction for moving beyond the defined paradox, the EU Pact represents the containment paradigm and showcases that the tension between the commitments and the actions of states is far from being resolved. Through an assessment of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum’s alignment with the Global Compacts, this article scrutinizes the trajectory of the global mobility paradigm since the adoption of the Global Compacts.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 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".