Exit and the duty to admit

Lenard, Patti Tamara

doi:10.3402/egp.v8.25975

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The right to exit can also be asserted and examined solely by discussing what it specifically entails or protects. Patti Lenard (2015) For instance, one of the implications of the political asymmetry argument might be to treat a plausible reason for limiting a person's right to immigrate or freedom of internal movement also as a reason for limiting the right to exit (Ypi 2008). However, an ostensible reason to justify restrictions on both rights does not imply that the reasons behind the right to exit and the right to entry or the right to internal movement would be identical.…”

Section: Direct Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Doctors Behind Borders : The Ethics of Skilled Worker Emigration

Yuksekdag

2019

Linköping Studies in Arts and Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Linköping Studies in Arts and Sciences No. 767 CTE No. 18 Faculty of Arts and Sciences Linköping 2019 Linköping Studies in Arts and Sciences-No. 767 At the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Linköping University, research and doctoral studies are carried out within broad problem areas. Research is organized in interdisciplinary research environments and doctoral studies mainly in graduate schools. Jointly, they publish the series Linköping Studies in Arts and Sciences. This thesis comes from the Department of Culture and Communication.

show abstract

Section: Direct Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Doctors Behind Borders : The Ethics of Skilled Worker Emigration

Yuksekdag

2019

Linköping Studies in Arts and Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Notably, the right to exit is argued to be a vital right, which especially protects individuals in authoritarian states and their exercise of an exit option. It is even considered a right that ensures a certain level of political accountability (Lenard 2015;Hobden 2017). The ICCPR does however permit states to place restrictions on the exercise of the right that are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and to be consistent with other rights recognised by the ICCPR (Council of Europe 2013).…”

Section: Background: Health Worker Emigration From Under-served Regionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Understand Limitations of the Right to Exit with Respect to Losses Associated with Health Worker Emigration: A Clarification

Yuksekdag

2018

Etikk Praksis - Nord J Appl Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a recent interest in the ethics of high-skilled worker emigration through which the limitations of the right to exit are discussed. Insightful arguments have been made in favour of (or against) the emigration restrictions on skilled workers in order to tackle the deprivations in developing countries. However, there is still a need for clarification on how we can understand, discuss and implement limitations of a right from a normative perspective. Significantly, how we understand the limitation of a right might determine how we approach such limitations – both in terms of the process of assessing the limitations and in terms of their implications. In this paper, I identify two distinct ways to understand limitations of the right to exit with respect to losses associated with health worker emigration, while also pointing to their implications for restrictive policies: (i) as a matter of scope, and (ii) as a matter of weight or emergency, which requires a compensatory scheme for the individual right holders. While the emergency restrictions seem to be a point of convergence in the literature, what defines an emergency and the nature of the compensation still warrant exploration. To that end, I also discuss from a normative perspective what might constitute a public emergency that would give states a prima facie prerogative to regulate temporary limitations on the exercise of the right to exit. In addition, I briefly introduce the implications of emergency restrictions, with a particular focus on compensatory schemes for individual right holders.

show abstract

“…This type of cantilever argument has been most forcefully advanced by Kieran Oberman and Joseph Carens. Importantly, this argument differs from the question of whether the internationally recognized right to emigrate from any country requires either a symmetrical right to immigrate to any country or a global duty among all states to distribute the right to entry among those seeking to exit (See Cole 2000, 43-59;Miller 2007, 208-9;Lenard 2015). The Oberman-Carens approach simply focuses on the analogy between immigration and domestic movement, not on the right to emigrate per se.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Can the right to internal movement, residence, and employment ground a right to immigrate?

James

2019

Ethics & Global Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article challenges Kieran Oberman's derivation of a right to immigrate from the right to internal movement, residence, and employment. His argument depends on a cantilever strategy, which finds it illogical to recognize one right without recognizing an analogous second right. This differs from a direct argument, which derives a right directly from an essential human interest, and an instrumental argument, which identifies one right as a means to protecting another right. The strength of a cantilever argument depends on the direct or instrumental foundations of the initial right and the aptness of the analogy between it and the new right that one seeks to establish. Oberman's argument fails on both accounts. First, his defense of the initial right to internal movement, residence, and employment, although portrayed as a direct argument, actually rests on inapt cantilever analogies with other rights, such as freedom of speech or religion. Second, the overall cantilever argument for deriving the right to immigrate fails, because immigration across fiscally separate states is not analogous to movement, residence, and employment within a single, fiscally unified state. Instead, a right to travel and visit is the proper outcome of Oberman's argument. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Exit and the duty to admit

Cited by 9 publications

References 16 publications

Doctors Behind Borders : The Ethics of Skilled Worker Emigration

Doctors Behind Borders : The Ethics of Skilled Worker Emigration

How to Understand Limitations of the Right to Exit with Respect to Losses Associated with Health Worker Emigration: A Clarification

Can the right to internal movement, residence, and employment ground a right to immigrate?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About