The external aspect of the European Union (EU) involves many features such as international trade, and official agreements such as Association Agreements. And in both cases, they are linked to norms and values, and sometimes they include specific discussions related to human rights issues and migration. But there is room also for unilateral policies decided by the European Union that directly affect citizens from other countries, as EU external migration policies demonstrate. Both, these agreements negotiated with third parties or group of countries, and the unliteral policies, are built on norms and values agreed by the main actors, and they can produce (un)intended consequences that affect the human rights of citizens in those third countries. In some cases, it could be argued that there are conflicting norms applied at the same time. Migration policies are also affected by the international context, and national perceptions on human rights. And in recent years it could be argued that they have become more restrictive in some countries in the Global North, without addressing how this shift has impacted other values that they link to their discourse.

This panel engages with conflicting norms related to Human Rights and Environmental policies. It also discusses conflicting norms and difficulties in applying migration policies by both Mercosur and the European Union. And finally, it also brings a discussion related to conflicting norms and migration in the sector of Higher Education.

Apart from this North/South division perspective, migration policies agreed between countries are also taking place in the Global South, with more or less success, as in the case of Mercosur. And they are taking place also within a context of migration increasingly becoming a very present issue in Latin America due to several recent events. Consequenlty, this panel will also bring some lessons learnt from this area by looking at Brazil and Argentina in particular.

Due to a changing international order and increasing normative divergences between countries from the Global North and the Global South, debates about human rights norms are becoming complex and plural. An example of such north-south complexity is the EU’s relations with Brazil. Both actors' endeavor to cooperate in human rights within multilateral settings but are often at odds with each other in bilateral and inter-regional spaces, such as in the negotiations of the EU–Mercosur Association Agreement. Within the last few years, the relationship has come to a political standstill, often reflecting conflicting norms in sensitive policy areas, notably in the intersection of human rights, trade and environment. Simultaneously, both parties often highlight their shared norms relatively to other global actors. Given this background, this paper aims to shed light, both empirically and theoretically, on how and under what conditions conflicting norms matter in the practice of European external action and, in particular, in its relationship with Brazil; a Global South rising power. This question helps us understand the EU's external action towards Global South countries, and possibly the long-lasting dynamics of North-South normative relations. While norms can be placed front and center in the relationship, they can also be cast aside in the pursuit of geostrategic and geoeconomic interests in the quest for one’s own autonomy. Drawing upon an extensive literature review of European and Brazilian foreign policies and International Relations, to be complemented by semi-structured interviews with diplomats and civil society actors, the paper aims to offer a theoretical framework which takes into account how norm complexity is structurally manifested in a north-south relationship, and how it is particularly relevant in historically sensitive areas of foreign policy, namely in human rights protection of minorities, such as indigenous peoples, and the environmental governance of the Amazon rainforest.

The US, the EU and Chile constitute good examples of ‘promised land’ for the Latin American diaspora (North and South), especially from crisis countries with profound crises. The cases of study follow the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (A/RES/73/195), which is the first intergovernmental agreement, drawn up under the auspices of the United Nations, that covers all dimensions of international migration in a holistically and comprehensively.

According to current legislation, the US and Chile (2021) share the same model of migration governance: the ‘securitisation’, based on the perspective of migration as part of security policies (Mármora, 2010). That implies regular, safe and organised migration processes promoting harmony among inhabitants (El País, 07/11/2023). Both models of migration governance use a deterrence strategy focused on border military control and the strengthening of internal management, which is considered a policy of exerting hard power. In contrast, the EU is intensifying efforts to establish an effective, humanitarian and safe European migration policy. Nevertheless, post-migration processes imply integration and emerging new forms of exclusion and nationalisms (Meera Gaonkar et al., 2021). The EU and the Member States are intensifying their efforts to establish an effective, humane and safe European migration policy.

With the new Advanced Framework Agreement (AMA) that modernises the current Association Agreement, Chile and the EU strengthen the political dialogue in various matters such as health, environment, climate change, ocean governance, energy, taxation, education and culture, workers, employment and social affairs, science and technology, and transport. However, migration represents a small issue within the AMA. Even though post-migratory waves focus on entrepreneurial activities and some cultural actions, this project examines ‘postmigration societies’ (Foroutan, 2019) based on Higher Education Institutions and migrant students, reflecting on the political background of soft power.

The paper assesses if the dynamics of the mobilization of Frontex to the external EU borders of member states (MS) can be correlated with the representation of the right and radical right (RRR) in national political systems. Politicization and securitization of the migrant have been increasing in the EU, triggering enchained trends of securitization of migration and asylum management (Lénonard and Kaunert, 2020). The reinforcement of Frontex is an example of that. In parallel, electoral representation of the radical right has been rising and pressing the moderate right agendas. Nativism, expressed through a securitized rhetoric towards the migrant, is one of their main programmatic issues (Mudde, 2020). With this background, we hypothesize that the dynamics of the intervention of Frontex in MS can be correlated with the level of representativeness of (radical) right parties in national political systems and not only with the effective pressure of migration influxes in national external EU borders. The mobilization of Frontex for the external borders is defined as a dependent variable of two independent variables: (i) the migration pressure a MS faces (ii) and the level of representation of the RRR in the national political systems. The empirical analysis is quantitative, based on data collected to achieve three different indicators: (i) dynamics of national mobilization of Frontex, (ii) national representation of right and RRP, (iii) numbers of migration influxes for member states. The analysis covers the period 2008-2022, and assesses country longitudinal variations and cross-country comparisons. MS to analyze are to be defined.

When regional migration policies ‘hit the ground’, who is in charge of executing these policies and making decisions? What is the role of street level bureaucrats in the implementation of regional policies in the absence of enforcement mechanisms? This paper will analyse the implementation of Mercosur policies for free residence in Argentina and Brazil, two large receiving countries and two multilevel political settings. It will examine the evolution of the implementation practices at the national and subnational levels in these two countries since the entry into force of the Residence Agreement of Mercosur (RAM) in 2009 until 2022. Based on 39 semi-structured interviews with key policy implementers at the national and subnational levels, official documents and legislation, this paper will explore the interactions between regional, national and local governance actors. It will shed light on the various roles of a wide range of actors with a particular focus on street-level bureaucrats and the allocation of power at the implementation stage. By doing this, it will show the forms in which implementing actors interpret, adapt and execute regional policies in Mercosur, where implementation studies are in their infancy. This paper will expand knowledge on the functioning of regionalism in the global South and on the various forms of public service delivery in contexts of limited state capacity in a policy area particularly sensitive for states’ sovereignty i.e., migration.