In this context, cooperation on readmission, as it is currently in the course of international trade, involves more than an absolute obligation to take back one`s own nationals or a mere administrative means. The willingness of a country of origin to conclude a readmission agreement does not mean that it has the institutional and structural legal capacity to deal with the expulsion of its nationals, let alone the expulsion of aliens and the protection of their rights. Nor does it mean that the agreement is effectively or fully implemented in the long term, as it concerns two parties that do not necessarily have the same interest in bilateral cooperation on readmission. Nor do they have the same implications, as has already been mentioned. Those considerations are important in order to show that the conclusion of a readmission agreement is motivated, on the one hand, by the expected benefits, unevenly perceived by the parties, and, on the other hand, by the fact that the implementation of the agreement is based on a delicate balance between the concrete benefits and the associated costs. States are very different when it comes to readmission cooperation, probably due to the nature of the flows that affect their national territory. At the same time, the way in which States codify their interaction over time plays a decisive role in developing their models of readmission cooperation. Cooperation on readmission is perhaps the most symptomatic feature of this process of consensus and “common perception of problems”.  Today, it is at the top of the hierarchy of priorities set by countries of destination, transit and origin, whether poor or rich, large or small, democratically organized or totalitarian.
. El Arbi Mrabet, “Readmission agreements: The Case of Morocco,” European Journal of Migration and Law, p. 5 (2003), pp. 379-385. The claim that readmission extends across different policy areas only partially explains why it remains at the top of the current hierarchy of state priorities. Its priority is probably linked to the growing awareness of all migrant countries that it allows them to express their capacity for forced regulation if necessary. Indeed, not only does it classify by legal provisions desirable and useful foreigners, on the one hand, and undesirable and disposable foreigners, on the other, but it also redefines the contours of a sense of belonging and identity naturally taken into account. Although they are part of a mutual context, readmission agreements or agreements contain reciprocal obligations that may apply equally to both parties due to the asymmetric effects of the effective application of the agreements and the structural and legal capacity of both parties to manage the removal of unauthorized aliens. if they are identified as nationals of the Contracting Parties or as nationals of third countries passing through the territory of a Contracting Party. These are the main reasons why I argued that readmission agreements are characterised by unbalanced reciprocity.  There is no doubt that the search for relative benefits can help explain why two state actors cooperate on readmission. These relative gains provide an incentive for state actors to cooperate or not.
But this assumption does not necessarily mean that “relative gains permeate international politics almost enough to maintain the strong realistic position in general.”  There are also “specific systems” characterized by dominant beliefs, values, and patterns of understanding, which can affect the conditions of cooperation, as well as the perceptions and behavioral changes of states. . . .
No recent posts found!
Please contact the office if you require a paper copy of any of these documents.
© 2020 Woodland View Primary School