international responses to the refugee crisis using liberalism as a theoretical approach including neoliberal institutionalise.

Student’s Name
Instructor’s Name
Course
Date
Introduction
In the present generation, immigration is the greatest issue facing the international community. However, it is not a new phenomenon. The world has recently witnessed the rise in the level of international immigration, which has been gradually politicized because of economic factors as well as the rise of immigrants displaced due to political instabilities (Castles, Mark & Giuseppe 539). The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) approximated that during 2015 over 64 million individuals were displaced from their homes owing to civil wars, persecution, violence as well as other human rights (HR) abuses (UNHCR 13). This sum represents the highest figure of immigrating persons ever recorded. Some of these immigrants move across the international borders into other states. It is normally agreed that nations usually possess the ethical and legal right to apply extensive discretionary regulation over who gets in as well as stays within their territorial jurisdiction (Stern 2). Intricate legal structures have thus been established to manage and regulate immigration. Further, the rising inflow of international immigrants in various states has posed various problems and opportunities which have become intricate for the nation of destination, transit, and origin (Stern 2). These problems are made exceptionally clear by the influx of refugees that have been compelled to move instead of moving willingly. This circumstance may be explained as a conflict of interests looking at legal and moral views (Stern 3).

The recent developments in refugee crisis experienced may be observed as the exemption to the overall tenet that nations may freely regulate who gets in and stays in their territories since it is broadly believed that nations have an obligation to allow within their territory some refugees looking for international safety (Carens 194). From a legal standpoint, the conflict of interests arises on the one hand, from the sovereignty principle plus the right of a nation to apply discretionary regulation on admitting refugees, on the other side, the nations has the obligatory legal duties to migrants as created by international law. From a moral standpoint, the immigrants’ rights may be perceived to be positioned against the rights of nationals of the host state such as the right to a proper allocation of national resources as well as the right to public participation in decisions regarding who gets and stays in their state (Nethery 729). In this paper, the writer shall apply liberalism and neoliberalism theories to explain the states’ responses to the refugee crisis witnessed in the present international realm.
State Responses to Refugees
The immigration issue has dominated the international field for years. Some states accept the refugees while others reject their admission into their territories based on the national interests. For example, the approaches to immigrants coming to Europe as depicted by various governments are strongly connected to their state political affairs. Critics explain that the upsurge of populist parties is crucial aspects impacting immigration policies in various European nations (Stern 10). During the start of the refugee crisis from Syria various European states reacted variedly. A few nations adopted the “welcoming culture” (Lehne Para. 15), for instance, Germany, Sweden as well as Austria, all conveyed their intention as well as readiness to offer safety for several Syrian refugees. Other nations, adopted the less active welcoming approach by allowing the refugees to stay in their jurisdiction while they were on the road to other nations. Greece (Medecins Sans Frontiers 16) and Croatia (Buzinkic Para. 5) allowed passage with no registration through their territory and provided the necessary help across the country to their destination state. However, some states fortified their border regulations to keep off the refugees from moving into their territories to settle or pass through on their way to other states. Hungary (Juhász & Bulcsú Para. 1) and Czech Republic (Jurečková Para. 5) momentarily closed their borders, and also used violence against immigrants attempting to pass through their borders.
Explaining State Responses to Refugee Crisis through Liberalism and Neoliberalism Institutionalism Theories
In this section, the writer shall explain the states’ responses to the refugee crisis using the theory of liberalism and neoliberalism. Liberalism theory holds that nations engage in as well as abide by the International Human Rights Law (IHRL) via North-South collaboration founded on cross issue persuasion. The cross issue persuasion is a notion whereby a weaker nation creates a matter vital to a powerful nation through connecting that matter to a different matter that is vital to the powerful nation (Betts 57). Liberals contend that immigrants are results of the global state system as well as that via the global collaboration, countries’ responses includes temporary assistance (Haddad 27). However, the liberal viewpoint is incapable of explaining the independent as well as the commanding function of UNHCR that is better explained by the neoliberalism theory. Also, liberals do not clarify issues of individual country obedience to the IHRL separated from the global collaboration among nations.
Contrary to realism, the liberalism theory underscores the international community of countries, global cooperation, mutual global standards, as well as a language of shared interests (Davidoff-Gore 29). Therefore, liberals provide many paradigms for comprehending state engagement in as well as obedience to IHRL, including the international laws relating to refugees, thereby affecting the way they deal with the refugees. Liberalism theorists contend that countries obedience to international refugee laws depends on collaboration as well as interaction among the countries and with other non-state actors such as UNHCR. Besides, liberal theorists deemphasize resources or military intimidation; rather they stress on the advantages of collaboration in solving global refugee issues. Liberalism theory presents three paradigms: coordination, collaboration, as well as cross issue persuasion in explaining the nations’ responses to the refugee crisis (Davidoff-Gore 30).
Coordination and Collaboration
The coordination paradigm is the same to the realism theorists’ convergence of interest .” since the nations’ interests congregate. However, the coordination paradigm maintains that a nation’s action will impact on another nation’s action and these nations shall implement the same action to collaborate better (Barnett 112). For example, the majority of the European states had various intentions of assisting or rejecting the Syrian refugees; therefore, they collaborated through the EU to respond to the crisis in many modes. In 2015, the EU approved the European Agenda on Migration (Stern 5), which established instant responses and lasting policy reforms. The instant responses comprised the start of an armed forces mission at sea to look for as well as save refugees stuck at sea. The military was also to avert human trafficking as well as smuggling; the establishment of receiving centers in nations where the refugees enter the EU zone (Morrison 9). These centers were used identify and register refugees. They are also points in which settlements, repatriation as well as their relocations are coordinated (Stern 5). The lasting plan coordinated by the EU on behalf of its members comprised decreasing inducements for improper immigration, outlining a fresh strategy for legal immigration and rescuing lives.
Moreover, the cooperation paradigm envisages that nations shall collaborate to create agreements which are agreeable to all the parties. This collaboration takes place if the advantage of cooperation among the states overrides the advantages of operating against one another (Goldsmith & Eric 32). For example, after the EU Agenda for Migration, the organization undertook several decisions on transfer as well as the settlement of refugees. The EU also started negotiation with Turkey on the EU-Turkey Joint Action Plan which was intended to stop the immigrants’ influx from Turkey to the EU states. However, despite much criticism for not adhering to the international refugee laws and violating the notion of nonrefoulement, it was agreed upon and came into force in 2016 (Stern 6).
Cross Issue Persuasion
This principle denotes the processes where weaker nations persuade powerful nations also to consider matters they would otherwise perceive as unimportant or minor. In attaining this persuasion, a country initially utilizes issue connection to link matters of differing levels of interest to its collaborators (Davidoff-Gore 31). If several issues are presented during negotiation, the issue link functions as the basis for cross-issue influence since it is the condition within which country A may convince country B to take part in a matter X because of A’s interest in matter Y that may be impacted by matter X (Betts 63). If country A does not connect matter X and Y, state B shall not take part in matter X, because it may view issue X as irrelevant to it. Applying the concept to the collaboration within the global refugee responses system the South state must connect the refugees’ matter to a different matter that is vital to the North Country, for example, international security, for the North Country to accept to participate in allowing/accepting the immigrants into its territory. For example, the EU states had to convince the US also to take some Syrian refugees and intervene in ending the conflict in Syria since as they argued it is a breeding ground for terrorist organizations threatening both the US and global security. Through this persuasion, the US has accepted some Syrian refugees and is currently involved in the restoration of peace in Syria. Therefore, the achievement of positive global refugee responses by states relies on the victory of weaker countries persuading the powerful nations that immigrants are important matters. Betts asserts that the immigrants’ responses regime depends on overpowering the realism view that strong nations (the North) are not supporting the refugee crisis and that it is the weaker nations (the South) that carry the load of accommodating the immigrants (Betts 14). As a result, the South nations depend on the cross issue persuasion principle to alleviate some of the load of accommodating as well as safeguarding the immigrants, largely via financial support from the North nations.
Neoliberal institutionalism theory, on the other hand, supports the advancement of human rights as well as states’ collaboration via global organizations (Stein 203). Neoliberals argue that institutions such as the UN and UNHCR ease States’ collaboration through the creation of the mutual system and regulations that assist in managing shared interests and the also function as umpires to find answers to interstate challenges such as the refugee crisis. They further assert that the states are very much interdependent through globalization such that refugee economic challenges in one state could affect the other states economically (Stein 205). Therefore, neoliberals argue that due to this interconnection, the global non-state actors such as the UN and UNHCR are needed to uphold the policies fair for all and coordinate the issues of global refugee responses. Their function is to direct the allied states to advance collaboration to finding solutions to the international refugee crisis. If every state is to handle the refugee crisis separately, this will lead to conflicts and more expensive. It is the reason the states depend on the international institutions to handle refugee issues. UNHCR offers material assistances, information as well as counsel to states on refugee matters. Therefore, neoliberal institutionalism perceives UNHCR as pacts among states to decrease uncertainty and decrease refugee responses expenses.
Lastly, neoliberals view the current international structure as an international community that concentrates on the international state structure as a single amalgamated community of nations (Stein 205). As per Haddad, “International community is constituted by principles, laws as well as establishments, for instance, the common acknowledgment of states’ sovereignty, the principle of states equality, the tenet of non-interventionism as well as international law, which are generally acknowledged by every nation within the global system” (Haddad 11). By looking at the international state structure in this manner, the neoliberals properly explains the strengths of global institutions such as UNHCR as well as its link to the nations. Moreover, neoliberals stress the collaboration as well as shared respect that are crucial for the achievement of the global human rights system through UNHCR as an instrument for transmitting opinions, provide financial support, as well as material assistance in responding to the refugee crisis.
Conclusion
International immigration has remained one of the greatest challenges that the global community encounters in the present times. The states have responded variedly with some allowing the refugees resettlement in their territory, providing security and food supplies, other states allow their passage through their lands to their destination states but some nations close their borders and reject the refugees. Liberalism theory explains these responses through three paradigms of coordination, collaboration, as well as cross issue persuasion. Neoliberalism, on the other hand, supports the advancement of human rights as well as states’ collaboration via global organizations such as UNHCR. Neoliberals argue that UNHCR eases states’ collaboration through the creation of the mutual system and regulations that assist in managing shared interests of refugee resettlement, provision of life necessities as well as repatriation.
Works Cited
Barnett, Michael. “Humanitarianism, Paternalism, and the UNHCR.” Refugees in International Relations (2011): 105-132.
Betts, Alexander. “Protection by Persuasion: International Cooperation in the refugee regime.” Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, (2009): 53-84.
Buzinkic, Emina. “The European Refugee Crisis – The Croatian View | Heinrich Böll Foundation.” Heinrich Böll Foundation. N.p., 2016. Web. 25 Nov. 2016. https://www.boell.de/en/2016/05/24/european-refugee-crisis-croatian-view
Carens, Joseph. “The ethics of immigration.” Oxford University Press, (2013). 194.
Castles, Stephen, Mark J. Miller, and Giuseppe Ammendola. “The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World: New York: The Guilford Press,(2003), $30.00, 338 pages.” (2005): 537-542. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10803920500434037
Davidoff-Gore, Samuel A. “Compliance without Obligation.” Diss. Brown University, 2015. http://watson.brown.edu/ir/files/ir/imce/honors/Davidoff-Gore_Final2015.pdf
Goldsmith, Jack L., and Eric A. Posner. “The limits of international law.” Vol. 199. Oxford: Oxford University Press, (2005): 32-33.
Haddad, Emma. “The refugee in international society: between sovereigns.” Vol. 106. Cambridge University Press, (2008): 10-104.
Juhász, Attila, and Bulcsú Hunyadi. “Driven By Domestic Politics: Anti-Immigration Policy In Hungary | Heinrich Böll Foundation.” Heinrich Böll Foundation. N.p., 2016. Web. 25 Nov. 2016. https://www.boell.de/en/2016/06/13/driven-domestic-politics-ant-immigration-policy-hungary
Jurečková, Adéla. “Refugees In The Czech Republic? Not A Trace – But Still A Problem | Heinrich Böll Foundation.” Heinrich Böll Foundation. N.p., 2016. Web. 25 Nov. 2016. https://www.boell.de/en/2016/05/24/refugees-czech-republic-not-trace-still-problem
Lehne, Stefan. “The Tempting Trap Of Fortress Europe.” Carnegie Europe. N.p., 2016. Web. 25 Nov. 2016. http://carnegieeurope.eu/2016/04/21/tempting-trap-of-fortress-europe/ixdx
Medecins Sans Frontiers “Obstacle course to Europe. A policy made humanitarian crisis at EU borders” report, (December 2015): http://www.borderline-europe.de/sites/default/files/background/MSF%20Obstacle%20Course%20to%20Europe%20FINAL.pdf
Morrison, John. “The trafficking and smuggling of refugees: the end game in European asylum policy?.” Geneva: UNHCR, 2000. http://library.gayhomeland.org/0047/EN/EN_traffick.pdf
Nethery, Amy. “Partialism, Executive Control, and the Deportation of Permanent Residents from Australia.” Population, Space and Place 18.6 (2012): 729-740.
Stein, Arthur A. “Neoliberal institutionalism.” The Oxford handbook of international relations (2008): 201-221. http://www.grandstrategy.net/Articles-pdf/11-Smit-Snidal-c11.pdf
Stern, Rebecca Thorburn. ” Responses to the “refugee crisis”: What is the role of self-image among EU countries?” European Policy Analysis: Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies. (2016): 1-13.
UNHCR. “Global Trends Forced Displacement in 2015,” available at http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/country/576408cd7/unhcr-global-trends-2015.html (last visited 22/06/16).