国際人権レジームのナショナルな基礎 -EU諸国の外国人の権利保護への政策転換はいかにして生じたのか-

比較政治と国際政治の間

抄録

The comparative politics and the international (transnational) politics are competitive in interpreting, but each of these two approaches are not successful in interpreting consistently some contemporary issues. The EU member countries' immigration policies and the acceptance of human rights of foreigners are good examples. Concerning this theme, there are already two eminent interpretations. The one is the human rights regime proposed by Yasemn N. Soysal and Saskia Sassen. The other is the nation's “cultural idioms” and types of nation-states proposed by Rogers Brubaker and others.
The political and sociological situations of foreigners in each EU member countries are always changing and this theme becomes extremely hot issue. I categorize these interpretations into three. First is “(slight) modifications of citizenship model.” The encouragement of returning home, simplification of naturalization process are examples. However the dual nationality is always in debate. Second is the “deviation from citizenship model.” This is proposed by Thomas Hammar, whose keywords are “denizen” and “denizenship”. He proposed “triad model” composed by citizens, denizens and aliens instead of “dyad model” composed by citizens and aliens. This is the leading theory for European advanced countries like Sweden and Netherlands to promote the human rights policies. Nevertheless, this position is proposed on precondition of the citizenship model. Moreover its logical justification is rooted in “residence”. But this right of “residence” becomes vulnerable because of globalization (global media and internet etc.). Third is the “alternative of citizenship model, ” proposed by Yasemn N. Soysal, Saskia Sassen and David Jacobson.
They say that the “devaluation of citizenship” is occurring in the advanced countries, and they use the keyword “personhood” au lieu de “nationhood” and “citizenship.” “denizenship” and “personhood” hold in common the post-national situation. Today, this human rights regime becomes dominant, and there are many voluntary associations who maintain and strengthen this regime. However Soysal and others do not succeed in explaining how this human rights regime was accepted or “embedded” in each country.
Brubaker intends to explain the differences of immigration policies of France and Germany by using the concept of nation's “cultural idioms.” However, recently, in Germany, there occurred an enormous amendment of nationality law under the new alliance between the social-democratic party and the “greens.” Concerning the citizenship, France and Germany are not opposite, but very close. In sum, “cultural idioms” are not always the same and they change according to the international relations.
Here we are “third position.” The embedment of human rights regime by each national country is the principal cause of the expansion of human rights regime. In this third position, the national/transnational connection is essential. Therefore, both comparative politics and international (transnational) relation theory are not persuasive. This national/transnational two-step model is suggested by the arguments of Christian Joppke and James F. Hollifield. In the case of the immigration policy issue, family unification right was (is) always central in judging the “embedment” of human rights regime. In this paper, three main cases in Europe (Germany, Great Britain and France) are examined partially according the analysis of Joppke, Hollifield, Patrick Weil, Adrian Favell and so on. The “turning point” is critical in each country. Sometimes these causes are internal and national. Sometimes these are external but “national.” Italy's immigration policy is the best