Why do similar postcommunist states respond differently to refugees? Why do some states privilege certain refugee groups, while other states do not? This book presents a theory to account for this puzzle, and it centers on the role of the politics of nation-building and of the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). A key finding of the book is that when the boundaries of a nation are contested (and thus there is no consensus on which group should receive preferential treatment in state policies), a political space for a receptive and nondiscriminatory refugee policy opens up. The book speaks to the broader questions of how nationalism matters after communism and under what conditions and through what mechanisms international actors can influence domestic polices. The analysis is based on extensive primary research the author conducted in four languages in the Czech Republic, Poland, Russia and Ukraine.

With the unrelenting unrest in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan and the Sudan, the plight of refugees has become an increasingly discussed topic in international relations. Why do we have refugees? When did the refugee 'problem' emerge? How can the refugee ever be reconciled with an international system that rests on sovereignty? Looking at three key periods - the inter-war period, the Cold War and the present day - Emma Haddad demonstrates how a specific image has defined the refugee since the international states system arose in its modern form and that refugees have thus been qualitatively the same over the course of history. This historical and normative approach suggests new ways to understand refugees and to formulate responses to them. By examining the issue from an international society perspective, this book highlights how refugees are an inevitable, if unanticipated, result of erecting political borders.

The volume reflects on citizenship practices and policies across post-socialist states. Seven original research chapters look at the effects of institution-building on the relationship between citizens residing beyond the borders of “their” state and the political processes taking place both in their countries of residence and in their kin states.

How do immigration and refugee laws work 'in action' in Russia? This book offers a complex, empirical and nuanced understanding.

The Soviet Union comprehensively governed the mobility of its citizens by barring emigration and strictly regulating internal migration. In the aftermath of the Soviet collapse, the constitution and laws of the new Russian Federation appeared to herald a complete break with the repressiveness of the previous government. Russian law now proclaims the right of Russian citizens and residents to move around their country freely. This book examines how and why this post-Soviet legal promise of internal freedom of movement has been undermined in practice by both federal and regional policies. It thereby adds a new dimension to scholarly understanding of the nature of rights, citizenship, and law enforcement in contemporary Russia. Most contemporary works focus on the attempts of developed Northern countries to regulate migration from the global South to the global North: here Matthew Light examines the restriction of migration within Soviet and post-Soviet Russia, providing a comprehensive view into an area rarely explored within migration scholarship. Fragile Migration Rights develops a comprehensive theoretical framework to analyse this complex subject. It is essential reading for students and academics from a range of disciplines including criminology, human rights, migration studies, and political science.

While the fall of the Berlin Wall is positively commemorated in the West, the intervening years have shown that the former Soviet Bloc has a more complicated view of its legacy. In post-communist Eastern Europe, the way people remember state socialism is closely intertwined with the manner in which they envision historical justice. Twenty Years After Communism is concerned with the explosion of a politics of memory triggered by the fall of state socialism in Eastern Europe, and it takes a comparative look at the ways that communism and its demise have been commemorated (or not commemorated) by major political actors across the region. The book is built on three premises. The first is that political actors always strive to come to terms with the history of their communities in order to generate a sense of order in their personal and collective lives. Second, new leaders sometimes find it advantageous to mete out justice on the politicians of abolished regimes, and whether and how they do so depends heavily on their interpretation and assessment of the collective past. Finally, remembering the past, particularly collectively, is always a political process, thus the politics of memory and commemoration needs to be studied as an integral part of the establishment of new collective identities and new principles of political legitimacy. Each chapter takes a detailed look at the commemorative ceremony of a different country of the former Soviet Bloc. Collectively the book looks at patterns of extrication from state socialism, patterns of ethnic and class conflict, the strategies of communist successor parties, and the cultural traditions of a given country that influence the way official collective memory is constructed. Twenty Years After Communism develops a new analytical and explanatory framework that helps readers to understand the utility of historical memory as an important and understudied part of democratization.

Recounts the history of citizenship in 20th century Europe, focusing on six countries: Great Britain, France, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Russia. It is the history of a central legal institution that significantly represents and at the same time determines struggles over migration, integration, and belonging.