英语论文网

her transnational contexts*for example the global economic system*different states even in the industrialised world are differentially impacted (Sassen 1996). It is tempting to suggest that the same may not be the case in the context of asylum. At least across the industrialised world, there appears to be a singleness of purpose to restrict the entry of asylum-seekers, even if widely different policies are adopted, and to maintain strict control on conditions of residence. The second concerns the validity of disaggregating transnationalism into categories such as ‘economic’, ‘political’ and ‘social transnationalism’. One way, for example, of resolving the conceptual dilemma about whether or not state power really is being undermined by transnationalism, is to argue that it is by certain elements or ‘types’ of transnationalism, but not others. Thus, while every state has been transformed to some degree by the growth of the global economic system, most simultaneously are reasserting political control over borders, immigration and asylum. The End of Asylum? The last two sections have focused in turn on interactions between refugees and transnationalism, and between transnationalism and the state. The final interaction to be considered in the triangular relationship is that between refugees and the state. The beginning of this article depicted a fairly gloomy picture for asylum advocates, arguing that asylum is under assault from states. It then went on to ask whether and how transnationalism might change this picture. Subsequent analysis has offered little reason to be optimistic. The policy of ‘temporary protection’ has been argued to provide an example of the exertion of national interests over the obligations of the international refugee regime and away from any sense of inter-state burden sharing. Particularly as demonstrated
250 K. Koser later in the 1990s during the Kosovan displacement, the overriding concern for European states was protection from refugees rather than protection for refugees. What is more, ‘temporary protection’ is by no means the most obvious or starkest example of states reneging on these obligations. At least they were willing to negotiate a form of compromise with UNHCR in this instance*the same cannot be said for recent initiatives introduced in the UK, Australia or the USA against which UNHCR has rallied in vain. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that, at least in the realm of asylum, ‘transnationalism from above’ holds little sway over states. Analysis of the growth in the smuggling of asylum-seekers, furthermore, implied that, far from lifting the assault on asylum, transnationalism might in effect be intensifying it. While human smuggling does represent a genuine challenge to states’ control of their borders, it is also used as justification to strengthen those controls still further. These policies may not in fact have the desired effect of reducing the number of undocumented entrants, but they are reducing still further standards for asylum-seekers. Several commentators fear, indeed, that should the industrialised nations succeed in combating human smuggling, then asylum in those countries will effectively come to an end as there will be no way *either legal or illegal*for asylum-seekers to arrive (Morrison 2000). And the implication of the final case study of ‘transnationalism from below’ was that, even where they have legally been admitted, subsequent activities by asylum-seekers and ref