Law vs. Policy in the Field of Migration Regulation

DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2020-64-7-108-116
V. Malakhov (,
RANEPA, 82, Vernadskogo Prosp., Moscow, 119571, Russian Federation;
A. Motin (,
RANEPA, 82, Vernadskogo Prosp., Moscow, 119571, Russian Federation

Abstract. The paper is focused on the contradiction between legal and political rationales in the field of migration regulation on national and international levels. The fundamental norms laid down in the corpus of law may conflict with the politicians’ views on the viability of various courses of action. This opens the door to serious collisions between agents motivated by divergent rationales. In practice, however, the subject matter is not so much the difference in rationales but rather differences in interpretation of legal arguments by various actors. They resort to these arguments to the extent that one or another of legal provisions helps legitimizing their political position and actions. Discrepancy in attitudes towards migratory issues creates a number of conflicts which can be classified as follows. (a) The collision of priorities (namely, protection of human rights versus concerns on national security); (b) the collision between proclaimed values and pragmatic rationales; (c) the collision between public rhetoric of the right populists and the game rules set up by liberal-conservative consensus of the political mainstream. The first collision is illustrated by the controversy between American judiciary and D. Trump administration around the travel ban imposed on citizens of Muslim countries as well as the conflict between Executives and the Legislative power on Trump’s project to build a wall on Mexican border. The second collision is being played out in the European Union after the refugee crisis (2015): mainstream politicians have to balance between their agenda and pressure from the far-right, so they tend to combine liberal rhetoric with restrictive policies. The example for the third collision is the behaviour of the Italian governing coalition 2018–2019, when Matteo Salvini and his adherents turned out to be less resolute in implementing anti-immigration measures than they promised during election campaign.

Keywords: migration, international law, migration policy, refugees, European Union, USA


1. Castles S., Booth H., Wallace T. Here for Good: Western Europe’s New Ethnic Minorities. London, Pluto Press, 1987. 320 p.

2. Hansen R. Citizenship and Immigration in Post-War Britain: the Institutional Origins of a Multicultural Nation. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000. 316 p.

3. Joppke C., ed. Challenge to the Nation-State: Immigration in Western Europe and the United States. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 1998. 376 p. DOI:10.1093/0198292295.001.0001

4. UN Refugee convention (In Russ.) Available at: (accessed 20.11.2019).

5. Burtina E.Yu., Korosteleva E.Yu., Simonov V.I. Rossiya kak strana ubezhishcha. Doklad ob ispolnenii Rossiiskoi Federatsiei Konventsii o statuse bezhentsev 1951 goda [Russia as an Asylum Country. Report on the implementation of the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees by the Russian Federation]. Komitet “Grazhdanskoe sodeistvie”, Moscow, “Vash Format”, 2015. 344 p. Available at: (accessed 20.11.2019).

6. Castles S., Kosack G. Immigrant Workers and Class Structure in Western Europe. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1973. 514 p.

7. Castles S., Haas H., Miller M. The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World 5th Edition. New York, The Guilford Press, 2013. 401 p.

8. Schierup C.-U., Munk R. et al., eds. Migration, Precarity, and Global Governance: Challenges and Opportunities for Labour. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2015. 320 p. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198728863.001.000

9. Ivakhnyuk I.V. Migratsiya i mezhdunarodnoe pravo: rabochaya tetrad’. [Migration and International Law: Working paper]. RIAC, 2018, no. 45. Available at: (accessed 20.11.2019).

10. Alekseenkova E. Chem plokh global’nyi dogovor o migratsii [What is wrong with the global migration treaty]. RIAC, 10.12.2018. Available at: (accessed 20.11.2019).

11. Verteilung von Fluchtlingen: Hoffnungsfroher Seehofer trifft auf harte Realitat. Focus Online, 08.10.2019. Available at: (accessed 20.11.2019).

12. Seehofer verwirrt mit Kommentar zur Obergrenze. Zeit Online, 20.08.2017. Available at: (accessed 20.11.2019).

13. Liptak A., Shear M.D. Trump’s Travel Ban Is Upheld by Supreme Court. The New York Times, 26.06.2018. Available at: (accessed 20.11.2019).

14. Gonzalez-Barrera A., Krogstad J.M. What we know about illegal immigration from Mexico. Pew Research Center, 28.06.2019. Available at: (accessed 20.11.2019).

15. Lipert R.K., Rehaag S., eds. Sanctuary Practices in International Perspectives: Migration, Citizenship and Social Movements 1st Edition. London, Routledge, 2012. 288 p.

16. Foerster A. Solidarity or Sanctuary? A Global Strategy for Migrant Rights, Humanity & Society, 2019, vol. 43, issue 1, pp. 15-43. DOI:

17. Griffith B., Vaughan J.M. Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States. Center for Immigration Studies, 23.03.2020. Available at: (accessed 20.11.2019).

Registered in System SCIENCE INDEX

For citation:
Malakhov V., Motin A. Law vs. Policy in the Field of Migration Regulation. World Eonomy and International Relations, 2020, vol. 64, No 7, pp. 108-116.

Comments (0)

No comments

Add comment






Current Issue
2022, vol. 66, No. 11
Topical Themes of the Issue:
  • Developing Countries in the New Equation of the Post-Crisis World Order 
  • U.S. Public Diplomacy as a Tool for “Political Warfare” 
  • Central Europe: Possible Scenarios
  • The Collapse of the Global Consumption Model: in Search of Sustainability
  • Future Wars in Light of the Past Experience
Submit an Article

In response to the challenges of our time the Editorial board continues to open new thematic rubrics:

“World Energy Sector after Pandemic”. We plan to publish articles presenting in-depth analysis of influence of Pandemic on the global energy sector and forecasts of further developments in its various branches.