Arthur Isherwood-Mote | Central European University (original) (raw)

Papers by Arthur Isherwood-Mote

Drafts by Arthur Isherwood-Mote

The question over whether raising barriers for migrants from developing countries to enter labour... more The question over whether raising barriers for migrants from developing countries to enter labour markets in developed countries is justifiable has been the cause of much controversy. While intuitively some might feel that high entry barriers are the product of a design that harks to an increasingly selective migration policy, there are arguments that it can specifically incentivise and broadly contribute to greater educational advancements in developing countries. Education in particular is becoming an increasingly critical component for the success of developing countries as the global market becomes increasingly knowledge-intensive. Thus any policies stipulated must first seek to invigorate education in sending countries in a manner that is benefitting to their development.

On March 18th 2016 the Members of the European Union (EU) Council and the then Turkish Prime Mini... more On March 18th 2016 the Members of the European Union (EU) Council and the then Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu concluded an 11-day Migration Summit by agreeing on a series of “action points” to manage the flow of people coming from Turkey to Europe. This is a response to the ongoing migration crisis that has stretched Europe’s institutional capacity to maintain order of people flows (“Migrant crisis: Asylum seekers in EU “doubled in 2015,” 2016) (Kirişci, 2016, 1). Indeed, the scale of migration in 2015 rose to unmanageable levels. More than 500,000 people arrived in the Greek island of Lesbos from Turkey; this figure alone is not far off the total of irregular crossings that occurred in the entire EU from 2009 to 2013 (“Sailing in the dark – 300 with a mission – Visa, terror and the Aegean refugee agreement,” 2016). With this in mind, the EU has in no uncertain terms adopted the objective of reducing these figures through striking this agreement with Turkey (Pascouau, 2016, 1). In this paper I will discuss what this deal and the current crisis means for the future and the approach of EU-Turkey relations, with specific reference to Turkey’s longstanding candidacy for EU membership. As the nature of the game has changed so has the mind-set and approach of the EU towards Turkey, prompting a new chapter in this often tumultuous relationship that promises great initial hardship but ultimately hope of an improved future for both parties.

On March 18th 2016 the Members of the European Union (EU) Council and the then Turkish Prime Mini... more On March 18th 2016 the Members of the European Union (EU) Council and the then Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu concluded an 11-day Migration Summit by agreeing on a series of “action points” to manage the flow of people coming from Turkey to Europe. This is a response to the ongoing migration crisis that has stretched Europe’s institutional capacity to maintain order of people flows (“Migrant crisis: Asylum seekers in EU “doubled in 2015,” 2016) (Kirişci, 2016, 1). Indeed, the scale of migration in 2015 rose to unmanageable levels. More than 500,000 people arrived in the Greek island of Lesbos from Turkey; this figure alone is not far off the total of irregular crossings that occurred in the entire EU from 2009 to 2013 (“Sailing in the dark – 300 with a mission – Visa, terror and the Aegean refugee agreement,” 2016). With this in mind, the EU has in no uncertain terms adopted the objective of reducing these figures through striking this agreement with Turkey (Pascouau, 2016, 1). In this paper I will discuss what this deal and the current crisis means for the future and the approach of EU-Turkey relations, with specific reference to Turkey’s longstanding candidacy for EU membership. As the nature of the game has changed so has the mind-set and approach of the EU towards Turkey, prompting a new chapter in this often tumultuous relationship that promises great initial hardship but ultimately hope of an improved future for both parties.

The question over whether raising barriers for migrants from developing countries to enter labour... more The question over whether raising barriers for migrants from developing countries to enter labour markets in developed countries is justifiable has been the cause of much controversy. While intuitively some might feel that high entry barriers are the product of a design that harks to an increasingly selective migration policy, there are arguments that it can specifically incentivise and broadly contribute to greater educational advancements in developing countries. Education in particular is becoming an increasingly critical component for the success of developing countries as the global market becomes increasingly knowledge-intensive. Thus any policies stipulated must first seek to invigorate education in sending countries in a manner that is benefitting to their development.

On March 18th 2016 the Members of the European Union (EU) Council and the then Turkish Prime Mini... more On March 18th 2016 the Members of the European Union (EU) Council and the then Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu concluded an 11-day Migration Summit by agreeing on a series of “action points” to manage the flow of people coming from Turkey to Europe. This is a response to the ongoing migration crisis that has stretched Europe’s institutional capacity to maintain order of people flows (“Migrant crisis: Asylum seekers in EU “doubled in 2015,” 2016) (Kirişci, 2016, 1). Indeed, the scale of migration in 2015 rose to unmanageable levels. More than 500,000 people arrived in the Greek island of Lesbos from Turkey; this figure alone is not far off the total of irregular crossings that occurred in the entire EU from 2009 to 2013 (“Sailing in the dark – 300 with a mission – Visa, terror and the Aegean refugee agreement,” 2016). With this in mind, the EU has in no uncertain terms adopted the objective of reducing these figures through striking this agreement with Turkey (Pascouau, 2016, 1). In this paper I will discuss what this deal and the current crisis means for the future and the approach of EU-Turkey relations, with specific reference to Turkey’s longstanding candidacy for EU membership. As the nature of the game has changed so has the mind-set and approach of the EU towards Turkey, prompting a new chapter in this often tumultuous relationship that promises great initial hardship but ultimately hope of an improved future for both parties.

On March 18th 2016 the Members of the European Union (EU) Council and the then Turkish Prime Mini... more On March 18th 2016 the Members of the European Union (EU) Council and the then Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu concluded an 11-day Migration Summit by agreeing on a series of “action points” to manage the flow of people coming from Turkey to Europe. This is a response to the ongoing migration crisis that has stretched Europe’s institutional capacity to maintain order of people flows (“Migrant crisis: Asylum seekers in EU “doubled in 2015,” 2016) (Kirişci, 2016, 1). Indeed, the scale of migration in 2015 rose to unmanageable levels. More than 500,000 people arrived in the Greek island of Lesbos from Turkey; this figure alone is not far off the total of irregular crossings that occurred in the entire EU from 2009 to 2013 (“Sailing in the dark – 300 with a mission – Visa, terror and the Aegean refugee agreement,” 2016). With this in mind, the EU has in no uncertain terms adopted the objective of reducing these figures through striking this agreement with Turkey (Pascouau, 2016, 1). In this paper I will discuss what this deal and the current crisis means for the future and the approach of EU-Turkey relations, with specific reference to Turkey’s longstanding candidacy for EU membership. As the nature of the game has changed so has the mind-set and approach of the EU towards Turkey, prompting a new chapter in this often tumultuous relationship that promises great initial hardship but ultimately hope of an improved future for both parties.