School of International Studies

This paper provides an overview of the relatively limited literature that applies the principles of game theory to the study of political or religious radicalization. After describing its main findings, it suggests how Rapoport’s seminal work on the historical “waves of terrorism” can be treated dynamically through some fundamental game-theoretic principles such as coordination problems, Thomas Shelling’s focal points and in the solutions proposed by the literature on correlated equilibria.

La responsabilità di proteggere (R2P), così come proposta da parte della Commissione internazionale sull’intervento e sulla sovranità dello Stato (ICISS) nel 2001, è stata dibattuta a lungo dal punto di vista sia teorico sia pratico. La controversa questione dell’intervento umanitario da cui la dottrina della R2P è emersa, nonché il sostenibile fallimento della medesima nel fornire una risposta soddisfacente sul campo nel caso libico del 2011 hanno ulteriormente complicato il futuro di un’autentica risposta lan-ciata per porre fine alle atrocità di massa. Tuttavia, una recente crisi ha nuovamente acceso il dibattito, perlomeno sull’applicabilità pratica della R2P: ovvero, l’esodo dei Rohingya birmani. La questione di chi potrebbe e dovrebbe intervenire riveste senz’al-tro enorme importanza. Nondimeno, ancor prima di confrontarsi sulla risposta più ade-guata, si potrebbe sostenere che la dottrina presenta una lacuna teorica fondamentale che diventa particolarmente saliente nel caso del suddetto esodo, ossia l’apolidia dei Rohingya. A partire da tali osservazioni, si evince che la principale aporia della R2P è allo stesso tempo un punto di partenza per il suo modesto perfezionamento. Senza dimenticare che essa acquisisce lo stato della pietra miliare nell’evoluzione della so-vranità statale solo in quanto rimane allo stesso tempo il portatore dell’imperfezione dello stesso concetto di sovranità in generale.
Parole chiave: R2P, Rohingya, Myanmar, apolidia, ASEAN

The responsibility to protect (R2P), as enshrined in the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) 2001 proposal has long been discussed, both from a theoretical and a practical point of view. The controversial issue of the unilaterality of humanitarian intervention from which the R2P itself stems and the ar-guable failure of the doctrine to provide a satisfactory on-field answer to the Libyan challenge in 2011 have just compounded the future of a genuine proposal for ending mass atrocities. However, a new crisis has recently rekindled at least a debate on the practical applicability of the doctrine: namely, the Rohingya exodus from Myanmar’s Rakhine State. The question of who could and should intervene is certainly of para-mount importance. Nevertheless, even before dealing with the most adequate and con-crete response to the predicament in question, it can be argued that there is a funda-mental theoretical shortcoming in the theory which becomes particularly evident with the aforementioned crisis: the question of the statelessness of the Rohingya. Drawing from such observations, this paper shows how the ostensibly main theoretical aporia of the R2P is at the same time the point of departure for its modest improvement. It thus both acquires a landmark status in the evolution of state sovereignty and becomes a bearer of the imperfection of the concept of sovereignty itself.
Keywords: R2P, Rohingya, Myanmar, statelessness, ASEAN

Since the outburst of  the Rohingya crisis in  Myanmar, the peopleof the latter have widely and quite light-heartedly been depicted as refugeesand itis no coincidence that such depictions often result in simply calling for Myanmar’s responsibility to protect (R2P). At a closer lookthough, the sole status of refugeesis debatableand there appears to be much more than the mere R2P(ICISS 2001). Actually, what ishappening at the Bangladesh-Burmese border is the recurrence of Hannah Arendt’s 1943 scenario,in which it was  notpossible to  be simply a refugee. In Agamben’s words, a refugee’s temporary state of exception hasto be resolved  through  either nationalization or repatriation.  But  how come  that  a WWII’s allegedly resolved situation still haunts us, notwithstanding even the most thorough legislative attempts to tackle the issue? Has the Universal Declaration of Human Rights really brought any improvement of the matter and what might be its drawbacks? Is it avoid tautology?This paper aims atsome responses also by examining whetherthe state of exception is actually the possibility of each and every sovereignty (Derrida 2009).
Keywords: Rohingya, Myanmar, homo sacer, statelessness, sovereignty, human rights

EXTRACT: Madalina Busuioc’s 2013 book, European Agencies: Law and Practices of Accountability, is the latest attempt to engage the issue of accountability of European agencies. This book is the result of a long research journey by the author; her academic career began with a PhD dissertation titled “The Accountability of European Agencies: legal provisions and ongoing practices” and since then she has elaborated and fine-tuned her work on the law and, particularly, the practice of accountability relationships of European agencies, becoming an expert in the field.

Since the 1990s, the literature on the accountability of European agencies has gained momentum with the boom of “agencification,” the expansion of the competences of the European Union (EU) and the governance turn of EU policy-making (Curtin 2007). Scholars of EU studies have adopted two alternative positions on agency accountability. On the one hand, democratic deficit theorists have supported the view that European agencies lack accountability, due to four reasons: first, their abrupt and ad hoc appearance; second, their non-majoritarian nature, as agencies operate at “arms length” from directly elected principals; third, their ever-growing (quasi-)decision-making powers; and, finally, their lives “in the shadow of the law” (p. 5). Conversely, other scholars rejected both the democratic deficit theory and the idea of agency accountability deficit, asserting that, in order to be efficient, it is fundamental that the EU system is insulated from both political control and stringent accountability mechanisms. According to Busuioc, the assessment of agency accountability requires a common definition of accountability and the examination not only of the existing legal arrangements, but also of the everyday practices of European agencies’ accountability relations, features that have been generally overlooked in the literature.

European Agencies: Law and Practices of Accountability is groundbreaking in its empirical findings. In the EU context, where accountability seems to be …

Great opportunities for civil society organisations (CSOs) to participate in the everyday work of EU governance have been opened by the Treaty of Lisbon. However, not all civil society organisations are able to fulfil EU funding requirements or to gather enough resources to engage with EU institutions. This creates a division between professionalised CSOs that operate at the EU level and CSOs that operate mostly at the local level. Against such background this chapter aims to answer the following question: is the multi-level European Union creating a multi-level civil society? In order to answer to this question, the present study focuses on the recently born European movement La Carta di Lampedusa, advocating for migrant rights. Interviews, participant observation and document analysis are employed to analyse perceptions and preferences of the members of this movement with regard to EU level advocacy coalitions and the future of their " bottom-up " movement. A new cleavage of ideological nature is identified, indicating a rupture between CSOs working at local and EU levels.

Cosa rende i confini esterni dell’Unione Europea così pericolosi per i migranti che tentano di attraversarli irregolarmente? E’ possibile coniugare il rispetto dei diritti fondamentali dell’uomo, di cui l’Unione Europea è assidua promotrice, con le politiche di controllo dei confini che vengono implementate quotidianamente? Per rispondere a queste domande, questo articolo illustrerà innanzitutto quali sono i confini esterni dell’Unione Europea, quali sono le rotte principali per arrivare in Europa e chi sono le persone che attraversano irregolarmente le frontiere. Inoltre, l’articolo presenterà brevemente le politiche di controllo delle frontiere esterne, evidenziando la divisione delle competenze tra i governi degli stati membri e l’UE, e descriverà il ruolo dell’agenzia europea Frontex. Infine, le operazioni militari Mare Nostrum e Triton, di cui le cronache italiane si sono ampiamente occupate negli ultimi mesi del 2014, saranno esaminate dal punto di vista dell’attenzione ai diritti umani dei migranti irregolari, grazie all’ausilio di report di organizzazioni internazionali come Amnesty International e di documenti ufficiali di Frontex.

In the EU a “new” governance system is emerging, one in which the ‘unelected’, that is to say non-majoritarian bodies, are mushrooming and thus shaping European policy-making. Among the variety of committees and agencies, FRONTEX – the European Agency for Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the EU – is definitely one that has experienced a spectacular increase in competences and in human and financial resources in a very short life-span (7 years) and that has seen its founding Regulation amended twice in the same period, while being understudied by scholars. This involves a growing impact of Frontex activities on the people affected by external border management policies, i.e. migrants crossing irregularly the borders of the Schengen Area. The worries regarding the need to keep this Agency accountable are particularly marked due to the proximity of its field of action with human and protection rights related issues. Aim of this work is, therefore, to analyse Frontex accountability, with an eye on the possible implications of a good mechanism of accountability on democracy.

Frontex – i.e., now the European Coast and Border Guard agency – is peculiar among EU agencies for its operative competences, and growing resources. Moreover, since its inception, Frontex has raised serious concerns on fundamental rights abuses and lack of accountability with regard to the respect of human rights. As a consequence, in 2011, the revised Frontex Regulation introduced a Fundamental Rights Strategy, and two new bodies: the Fundamental Rights Officer and the Consultative Forum on fundamental rights (CF).
Aim of this research is to establish how advocacy groups lobby Frontex from within (i.e., in the CF) and what is the effect of this lobbying activity on the agency. These two issues are addressed in this study, first, by determining the factors and the rationale for advocacy groups’ access, by cataloguing the groups represented in the Consultative Forum according to their resources and policy goods. Secondly, semi-structured interviews have been conducted to establish what strategies are employed by advocacy groups within the Consultative Forum. Lastly, the efforts of these advocacy groups will be matched with the evolution of Frontex’s approach to human rights, and studied through content analysis, in order to assess the outcomes of their lobbying activity on Frontex.

Significant variation across and within OECD countries reflects the diverse roles that non-state actors can play in the reception and integration of asylum seekers. This variation can be explained by the differences in the organisation of welfare service delivery, the various national schemes supporting employment and the specific legal frameworks allowing for the labour market access of asylum seekers, along with the inclination of local inhabitants to self-organise to face new challenges. Within the wide spectrum of non-state actors that provide assistance to refugees and asylum seekers, this paper focuses specifically on third sector organisations. Through a survey, it assesses the contribution of these organisations during the refugee crisis in Europe, from 2014 to 2016, in delivering reception and integration policies for refugees, protection holders and asylum seekers and in experimenting with innovative approaches. The paper concludes with a number of policy recommendations on the ways governments leverage the innovative capacity of third sector organisations in providing meaningful and effective initiatives to integrate refugees in the society, labour market and economy of host communities.

This paper examines whether immigration can operate as a counter-process of depopulation and economic recession. Based on the comparative analysis of four case studies in Belluno (Italy), Klagenfurt-Villach (Austria), Dalarna (Sweden), and Haßberge (Germany), it analyses the key socio-economic factors explaining the successful integration of migrants, refugees, status holders and asylum seekers and examines under which conditions the arrival of newcomers can turn into a local development opportunity for these territories. The case studies feature four remote territories with the following common characteristics: they have undergone significant socio-economic transformations over the past decade, they face a population decline with an alarming outmigration of youth combined with an increasing ageing population, and central governments have channelled recent immigration and asylum seekers to peripheral areas to counterbalance negative demographic trends. Results show that integration paths undertaken by recipients differ significantly across the four territories. However, all case studies suggest that stable jobs and accommodations render remote and mountain localities attractive for refugees and status holders, who are usually more inclined to move to urban centres. Lastly, results from the case studies highlight the importance of designing individualised integration paths backed by social inclusion initiatives that can incite spontaneous collaborations and work relations with local inhabitants.

In Italia, come in Europa, l’accoglienza di richiedenti asilo e protezione internazionale è un tema estremamente controverso. Dalle barricate di Gorino del 2016 contro l’arrivo di un piccolo gruppo dimigranti forzati, alle proteste dei quartieri periferici di Roma contro la presenza di richiedenti asilo in grandi centri, la gestione dell’accoglienza è un fenomeno tanto complesso quanto cruciale. Cruciale non solo per mantenere la pace sociale, ma anche per garantire i diritti di chi fugge dal proprio paese, come sancito da numerose norme nazionali e internazionali.

In Italia così come in Europa, l’accoglienza e l’integrazione di richiedenti asilo, rifugiati e destinatari di protezione internazionale sono al centro di un acceso dibattito.
La necessità di gestire un numero crescente di richieste di asilo e l’accoglienza di un numero rilevante di persone in attesa di riconoscimento o già destinatari di protezione internazionale, ha portato, in Italia, a due sistemi paralleli di accoglienza finanziati tramite il Ministero dell’interno: il sistema di accoglienza ordinario (ex SPRAR) e il sistema di accoglienza straordinario.
Nel complesso, il panorama dell’accoglienza in Italia è estremamente eterogeneo non solo per la tipologia di accoglienza, ma anche per la qualità e include casi di cattiva accoglienza spesso enfatizzati dai media, accanto a positivi percorsi innovativi di inclusione sociale e lavorativa, per lo più ignorati dai mezzi di comunicazione.
Questo focus, in controtendenza rispetto a questo sensazionalismo scandalistico, analizza alcune iniziative virtuose che hanno saputo sperimentare percorsi di accoglienza e integrazione volti a rendere autonomidestinatari e contemporaneamente a rigenerare le comunità e i territori ospitanti. E, a partire da queste esperienze virtuose, ci si interrogherà sui fattori che sembrano incidere maggiormente sulla qualità dell’accoglienza, quali la relazione che si instaura tra ente gestore e pubblica amministrazione e le caratteristiche dell’ente gestore, come la sua dimensione inclusiva, e la sua inclinazione all’imprenditorialità, le relazioni instaurate con la comunità locale.

L’esperienza della Valle Camonica rappresenta un esempio virtuoso di come un territorio periferico abbia saputo trasformare l’arrivo disorganizzato di un centinaio di richiedenti asilo in una risorsa, grazie al rafforzamento di una rete di accoglienza che ha coinvolto Enti locali e realtà del terzo settore.
In realtà, le premesse iniziali non erano le migliori: nel 2011, 116 richiedenti asilo erano stati accolti da una struttura alberghiera a Montecampione. L’isolamento, la mancata designazione da parte della Regione Lombardia di un ente affidatario per servizi diversi dal vitto e alloggio e la stessa mala gestione dell’accoglienza da parte del della struttura alberghiera incaricata, avrebbero potuto scrivere una delle purtroppo numerose storie di mancata integrazione, conflitti con la popolazione residente, ecc.
Al contrario, in Val Camonica a partire da questa esperienza negativa, si scelse di sperimentare un modello diverso, basato su un sistema di micro-accoglienza diffusa all’interno delle singole comunità della Valle, iniziativa che oggi vede coinvolti gli Enti locali e un gruppo di operatori e volontari (Semprebon, 2016 [1]; Erba P., Pennacchio E. e Turelli S., 2015).

Aim of this research is to establish whether and to what extent CSOs influence Frontex “from within” and what are the outcomes of this interaction in terms of both fundamental rights mainstreaming and agency accountability. These issues are addressed using the literature on CSOs’ participation to EU governance, CSOs’ mainstreaming of fundamental rights, and CSOs’ potential for the accountability/legitimacy of EU agencies. Empirically, this study analyses CSOs’ strategy choice to lobby Frontex from within and questions it in light of the outcomes of this lobbying activity. Even though findings are mixed, due to the absence of CSOs’ clear advocacy goals within the CF, the relationship between CSOs, members of the CF, and Frontex remains unique in terms of mutual learning and potential for the establishment of an effective accountability relationship on fundamental rights matters. Collection of data and analysis have been carried out through expert interviews and by applying an interpretive approach to the study of Frontex official and unofficial documents.