「移民」と「難民」の境界 : 作られなかった「移民」レジームの制度的起源

The current international framework for protecting migrants and refugees is often criticised as being fragmentary, with a multiplicity of categories of persons, and of organizations for addressing their problems. Many scholars and practitioners have called for a new international regime and a more unified institutional arrangement, which would provide for the orderly movement of people .The basic weakness of the current regimes derives from the artificial distinction between ‘refugees' and ‘migrants' created after Second World War. The article explores the institutional origins of the system and determines the major causes of the differentiated treatment of refugees and migrants. The paper argues the following: First, the system, which is unsuitable in today's world of high mobility and diversified patterns of international movement, resulted from the battle between the United States and the international institutions (the ILO and UN) and not, as traditionally assumed, from the East-West divide. The conflict was over how to deal with the surplus populations in Europe. The US favoured an institution with specifically designed functions based on inter-governmental negotiations. The ILO-UN plan recommended international co-operation under the leadership of a single international organization. After the conferences in Naples and Brussels in 1951, the US plan was accepted and the Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe (now renamed to the International Organization for Migration) was created. Second, the distinction between migrants and refugees also emerged as a way of helping the restructuring and dissolution of the pre-war refugee protection organisations. Two parameters for the division ? forced movement and violation of civil and political rights ? appeared inadvertently rather than deliberately. They aimed to confine international influence over national migration and refugee policies, especially those of the US. Third, the very basis on which the institutional