Results 101-120 of 270.
Bookmark and Share    
Peer Reviewed
See detailBorder Crossings: Border Studies in der Großregion lehren
Funk, Ines; Fellner, Astrid; Dörrennächer, H. Peter et al

Scientific Conference (2018)

Detailed reference viewed: 52 (3 UL)
See detailIntegration und Migration im ländlichen Raum
Nienaber, Birte UL

Conference given outside the academic context (2017)

Detailed reference viewed: 57 (1 UL)
Full Text
See detailL’IDENTIFICATION DES VICTIMES DE LA TRAITE DES ÊTRES HUMAINS LORS DES PROCÉDURES DE PROTECTION INTERNATIONALE ET DE RETOUR FORCÉ
Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Nienaber, Birte UL

Report (2017)

La note de synthèse présente les principaux résultats de l’étude réalisée en 2013 et actualisée en 2017 par le point de contact luxembourgeois du European Migration Network sur «L’identification des ... [more ▼]

La note de synthèse présente les principaux résultats de l’étude réalisée en 2013 et actualisée en 2017 par le point de contact luxembourgeois du European Migration Network sur «L’identification des victimes de la traite des êtres humains lors des procédures de protection internationale et de retour forcé». [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 118 (15 UL)
Full Text
See detailMigration internationale au Luxembourg - SOPEMI Report 2017
Tüske, Annamaria UL; Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Nienaber, Birte UL

Report (2017)

Suite au pic constaté en 2015, le nombre de demandes de protection internationale a légèrement diminué en 2016, passant de 2 447 en 2015 à 2 035 en 2016 (soit une baisse de 16,8 %). Malgré le ... [more ▼]

Suite au pic constaté en 2015, le nombre de demandes de protection internationale a légèrement diminué en 2016, passant de 2 447 en 2015 à 2 035 en 2016 (soit une baisse de 16,8 %). Malgré le ralentissement de la tendance, ces chiffres restent supérieurs aux niveaux de 2013-2014. Les ressortissants syriens sont toujours la première nationalité de demandeurs de protection internationale (14,3 %), les ressortissants irakiens chutent à la 4ème place (7,9 %), après les ressortissants albanais (11,2 %) et kosovars (10,2 %). Le Luxembourg continue d’occuper la 4ème place parmi les Etats membres en termes d’accueil de demandeurs de protection internationale par rapport à sa population nationale. Le taux de reconnaissance de protection internationale est passé de 228 (200 statuts de réfugiés et 28 protections subsidiaires) en 2015 à 790 (764 statuts de réfugiés et 26 protections subsidiaires) en 2016. Ces chiffres représentent une augmentation de 246,5 % des décisions positives par rapport à 2015. Le Luxembourg continue de démontrer sa solidarité à l’égard de la relocalisation et de la réinstallation des demandeurs de protection internationale. En 2015, le Luxembourg s’est engagé à relocaliser 557 personnes sur son territoire dans le cadre de la décision du Conseil européen de relocaliser 160 000 demandeurs de protection internationale depuis la Grèce et l’Italie. Dans ce contexte, 197 réfugiés ont été relocalisés fin 2016. Entre janvier 2017 et août 2017, le Luxembourg a relocalisé 186 personnes. Sur le plan de la réinstallation, 52 réfugiés ont été réinstallés depuis la Turquie en 2016, suite à l’engagement du Luxembourg de réinstaller 194 réfugiés en provenance de Turquie dans le cadre de l’accord UE-Turquie du mois de mars 2016. 115 personnes ont été réinstallées entre le 1er janvier 2017 et le 18 août 2017. De nouvelles lois sont entrées en vigueur en 2016/2017 qui concernent la situation migratoire du Luxembourg. Des évolutions politiques d’envergure ont porté sur la mise en œuvre de changements apportés à la législation et aux procédures d’asile, à l’éducation et à la réforme linguistique ainsi que sur des mesures d’intégration révisées en réponse à l’évolution des profils de migration au Luxembourg. L’accent mis sur la migration économique a permis de promouvoir la diversification économique et le repositionnement du centre financier. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 208 (21 UL)
See detailWieder-Errichtung von Grenzkontrollen in Europa? Einige Gedanken zur Großregion
Nienaber, Birte UL; Evrard, Estelle UL; Sommarribas, Adolfo UL

Conference given outside the academic context (2017)

Detailed reference viewed: 68 (4 UL)
See detailKontaktraum für die einen, Filter für die anderen
Nienaber, Birte UL

Article for general public (2017)

Detailed reference viewed: 77 (4 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailGrenzüberschreitende Berufsausbildung als Prozess grenzüberschreitenden Lernens
Funk, Ines; Nienaber, Birte UL; Dörrenbächer, H. Peter

Scientific Conference (2017, October 03)

Detailed reference viewed: 70 (1 UL)
Full Text
See detailInternational Migration in Luxembourg - SOPEMI Report 2017
Tüske, Annamaria UL; Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Nienaber, Birte UL

Report (2017)

While the proportion of Luxembourgish nationals among the resident working population was above 50.3% in 2015, it dropped below 50% in the first quarter of 2017. Some 44% of the working population were ... [more ▼]

While the proportion of Luxembourgish nationals among the resident working population was above 50.3% in 2015, it dropped below 50% in the first quarter of 2017. Some 44% of the working population were EU28 nationals and 6% non-EU nationals. Luxembourg’s economy is reliant on its employment of cross-border workers. In 2016, French nationals maintained and increased their proportion of over 50% of the cross-border working population, reaching 51.4% in Q1 2017, at the expense of both Belgian (24.4%) and German (24.2%) cross-border workers. They mainly work in sectors such as construction, administrative/support service, accommodation/food service, as well as in the financial/insurance sector or professional, scientific and technical activities. Between 2010 and 2017, the number of foreign salaried workers showed the greatest continuous increase in sectors such as professional, scientific and technical activities, administrative and support services, and financial and insurance services. Regarding specific permits, nationals of China (119 permits), India (70 permits) and Montenegro (40 permits) accounted for 31% of all first issues of residence permits for salaried workers. Indian nationals were the single largest nationality group receiving their first issue of EU Blue Cards, with 90 issued during 2016. This was followed by US nationals (58 permits) and Russian nationals (36 permits). After reaching a peak in 2015, the number of applications for international protection slightly decreased in 2016, from 2447 in 2015 to 2035 in 2016 (decrease of 16.8%). Even if the trend slowed down, it remains higher than the levels of 2013-2015. Syrian nationals remain the first nationality of applicants for international protection (14.3%), Iraqi nationals dropping to 4th place (7.9%) after Albanian nationals (11.2%) and Kosovars (10.2%). Luxembourg remains the Member State hosting the 4th highest number of applicants for international protection applicants in relation to the national population. The international protection recognition rate increased from 228 (200 refugee status and 28 subsidiary protection) in 2015 to 790 (764 refugee status and 26 subsidiary protection) in 2016. This represents an increase of 246.5% of positive decisions year-on-year. Luxembourg continues to demonstrate its solidarity in respect of the relocation and resettlement of international protection applicants. In 2015, Luxembourg pledged to relocate 557 individuals to Luxembourg in the framework of the EU Council decision to relocate 160,000 international protection applicants from Greece and Italy. Within this framework, 197 refugees had been relocated by the end of 2016. From January 2017 to 18 August 2017, Luxembourg relocated 186 people. With regards to resettlement, 52 refugees were resettled from Turkey in 2016 as a result of Luxembourg’s pledge to resettle 194 refugees from Turkey in the context of the EU-Turkey agreement of March 2016. 115 people were resettled between 1st January 2017 and 18th August 2017. New pieces of legislation were enacted during 2016/2017 to assist with the specific migration situation in Luxembourg. Major policy developments related to the implementation of changes to asylum legislation and procedures, education and language reform, and revised integration measures in response to changing migration profiles within Luxembourg. A focus on economic migration took place to promote economic diversification, start-ups and the repositioning of the financial centre. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 163 (18 UL)
See detailImmigration und Integration
Nienaber, Birte UL; Willems, Helmut UL

Speeches/Talks (2017)

Detailed reference viewed: 73 (10 UL)
See detailMaster in Border Studies - ein Praxisbeispiel
Nienaber, Birte UL

Speeches/Talks (2017)

Detailed reference viewed: 70 (1 UL)
Full Text
See detailThe effectiveness of return in EU Member States: challenges and good practices linked to EU rules and standards
Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Petry, David UL; Nienaber, Birte UL

Report (2017)

The impact of EU rules on Luxembourg’s return policies and practices is substantial. This is not least a result of the transposition of Directive 2008/115/EC on return into national law by the Law of 1 ... [more ▼]

The impact of EU rules on Luxembourg’s return policies and practices is substantial. This is not least a result of the transposition of Directive 2008/115/EC on return into national law by the Law of 1 July 2011, which was then further developed through amendments in 2014 following the conclusions of the European Commission that Luxembourg was not fully in line with the directive. With regards to the European Commission Recommendation of 7th March 2017 ‘on making returns more effective when implementing the Directive 2008/115/EC’, Luxembourg did not introduce any specific legal or policy change. Most of the referenced provisions already form part of the national legal and/or policy framework. The government’s efforts to conclude and apply readmission agreements with third-countries to better organise returns have continued throughout 2016. The Benelux Member States concluded a readmission agreement and a protocol of implementation with the Republic of Kazakhstan on 2 March 2015, which was approved by Law of 31 August 2016. As a result of the relatively high influx of asylum-seekers in 2015/2016, a backlog in the processing of applications for international protection occurred and could only be properly addressed by the Refugees and Return Department of the Directorate of Immigration through an increase and a reorganisation of its administrative staff. On the other side, the impact of the migration situation 2015/2016 did not significantly affect the functioning of the Detention Centre nor its maximum occupation limits. However, the Detention Centre took over the management of the SHUK (Structure d’hébergement d’urgence Kirchberg) a new semi-open facility established for Dublin cases (single men) with a view of transferring them to the responsible Member State. Although vulnerable groups are generally not detained in Luxembourg, the permitted period of detention of families with children was recently (March 2017) extended from 72 hours to 7 days with a view to enhancing the organisation of their return. The controversial extension through law amendment was largely criticised by civil society organisations and hence debated in parliament. The definition of guarantees to avoid the risk of absconding remains a major challenge in the field of return and (alternatives to) detention. In most cases, the applicant fails to provide evidence enabling the reversal of the legal presumption of the existence of a risk of absconding, allowing the Minister to use a detention measure instead of another less coercive measure. As long as the concerned third-country national is unable to indicate a fixed address of stay (reception facilities are not taken into account), the competent authorities cannot rule out the existence of a risk of absconding. The practical implementation of ‘home custody’ as an alternative to detention is therefore considered problematic, with most potential candidates not having a fixed address in Luxembourg. The substantial amount of the financial guarantee, 5.000€, make it also difficult to practically implement release on bail as an alternative. Although the Law foresees the possibility of combining home custody with electronic surveillance, the electronic tag has not yet been implemented. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 80 (9 UL)
Full Text
See detailLe regroupement familial des ressortissants de pays tiers en UE: pratiques nationales
Jacobs, Sarah UL; Petry, David UL; Sommarribas, Adolfo UL et al

Article for general public (2017)

Cette note de synthèse présente les principaux résultats de l’étude réalisée en 2016 par le Point de contact luxembourgeois du European Migration Network intitulée «Le regroupement familial des ... [more ▼]

Cette note de synthèse présente les principaux résultats de l’étude réalisée en 2016 par le Point de contact luxembourgeois du European Migration Network intitulée «Le regroupement familial des ressortissants de pays tiers: pratiques nationales» ainsi que du rapport de synthèse, élaboré par la Commission européenne à parti r des études nationales de 26 points de contacts nationaux du EMN (AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, NO, PL, SK, SI, SE, UK). L’étude vise à comparer les politiques et pratiques nationales en matière de regroupement familial entre les différents États (membres). Plus précisément l’étude examine les: • critères d’admissibilité des membres de famille; • conditions pour le regroupement familial, ainsi que les mesures d’intégration avant et après l’admission; • aspects procéduraux de la demande de regroupement familial; • droits accordés aux ressortissants de pays ti ers réunis en famille dans l’Union européenne; • conditions de non-renouvellement ou de retrait du titre de séjour «membre de famille». L’étude se réfère à la situation telle qu’elle s’est présentée depuis 2011 et jusqu’à la fin de l’année 2016. Elle ne porte pas sur les ressortissants de pays tiers membres de famille d’un citoyen de l’Union ou d’un pays assimilé, tombant dans le champ d’application de la libre circulation des personnes. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 110 (2 UL)
Full Text
See detailChallenges and practices for establishing applicants’ identity in the migration process
Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Petry, Ralph UL; Nienaber, Birte UL

Report (2017)

In Luxembourg, the procedure for identity verification/establishment in the context of international protection is separated from the decision-making procedure as such. While the authority for granting ... [more ▼]

In Luxembourg, the procedure for identity verification/establishment in the context of international protection is separated from the decision-making procedure as such. While the authority for granting international protection status lies with the Ministry in charge of Immigration (Directorate of Immigration), the Judicial Police is in charge of identity verification/establishment. For this means, the applicant will be interviewed with regard to his/her travel itinerary, including questions on border crossing and used means of transports to arrive in Luxembourg. During the last few years, the large majority of international protection applications in Luxembourg have come from persons originating from the Western Balkan countries (in 2016 they represent 35% of the applicants). Concerning these applicants, most of them (85% to 90%) have presented valid identity documents to the authorities in Luxembourg. However, with the migration crisis there is a growing number of international protection applicants coming from the Middle East and North Africa and who cannot produce valid identity documents. National authorities have always been confronted with lacking identity documents, predominantly observable among applicants from African countries. In some cases, identity documents were intentionally destroyed or withheld from the authorities in order to avoid being identified. If credible identity documents are lacking, the identification procedure can become complicated and resource consuming, and the responsible authorities, especially the Police, have a limited set of methods and means available (provided for in the Asylum Law). [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 88 (18 UL)
Full Text
See detailIllegal employment of Third-Country Nationals in the EU
Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Petry, Ralph UL; Nienaber, Birte UL

Report (2017)

Illegal employment by third country nationals is a reality in Luxembourg. However, as well as in the case of grey and informal economy, it is rather hard to grasp or quantify to which extent. Nevertheless ... [more ▼]

Illegal employment by third country nationals is a reality in Luxembourg. However, as well as in the case of grey and informal economy, it is rather hard to grasp or quantify to which extent. Nevertheless, the problem is not as significant as the one of the posted workers which is more relevant and worrisome and needs to be situated in the context of a labour market of the Greater Region. In the past, several labour related regularisation measures have been implemented in Luxembourg in order to provide both employers and employees the possibility to regularise situations of illegal employment. The last labour related regularisation measure was implemented in early 2013 in the context of the transposition of the Employers' Sanctions Directive 2009/52 by law of 21 December 2012. During this regularisation, the Directorate of Immigration received 664 applications. These regularisations give a partial indication of the extent of the phenomenon, even though these numbers do not provide a real picture of the problem because the conditions of this regularisation were very strict and in a very short time frame (less than two months) and a certain number of irregular migrants’ workers were not willing to expose themselves by applying and preferred to remain undetected. This regularisation also provided information on the main sectors were the phenomenon is found in order of importance: HORECA, cleaning, crafts, industry and construction. The Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social and Solidary Economy at the end of the regularisation has insisted in the need to increase the number of controls to employers. The law of 21 December 2012 established administrative as well as criminal sanctions for employers who illegally employ irregularly staying third country nationals, particularly in relation to offenses to the Labour Code in aggravating circumstances. This law amended also article 89 of the Immigration Law abrogating the possibility of making labour related regularisations. The Inspectorate of Labour (‘Inspection de Travail et des Mines’, hereafter called ITM), which is in charge of labour inspections and the control of illegal employment of TCNs in Luxembourg, is currently going through a restructuring phase following the latest audit of this administration from January 2015. Particularly the current insufficient number of staff of the ITM, which is in need of a significant short term increase of staff, represents a main challenge in the field of illegal employment in Luxembourg. It is also in the context of this restructuring phase of the responsible administration that the drafting of this study presented a number of challenges, especially in relation to the operational and statistical part of the template. The information regarding the conditions to be fulfilled by both the employers and the employees in the context of an employment relationship are available on the website of the concerned authorities. Furthermore, they are disseminated by the NGOs working in the field, even though there are no specific campaigns targeted to prevent illegal employment of TCNs. The matter was raised in the context of the ‘social identification badge’, which was introduced in 2013 in order to fight against social dumping in particular in the construction sector. One national stakeholder suggested that the ‘social identification badge’ could be revised and adapted to other economic sectors in order to better monitor and prevent illegal employment. In regards to access to justice and enforcement of rights of illegally employed TCNs, Luxembourg foresees the right for illegally employed TCNs to make a claim against their employer, including in cases in which they have, or have been, returned. This claim falls under the general provisions concerning the right to bring a case before civil courts. The Labour Code establishes that the employer who has employed an irregular staying third-country national must pay to the third-country national the following amounts: 1) salaries and any other emoluments, which a similar employee would have benefited for the same employment; 2) the total amount of outstanding remuneration as well as the cost of the transfer of these amounts to the third-country national to the country to which s/he is returned; 3) the total amount of unpaid social contributions and taxes, including administrative fines, as well as, court and legal fees. In addition, the Labour Code establishes that the third-country national who has been illegally employed before the execution of any return decision has to be systematically and objectively informed by the control agents of his/her rights to recover the outstanding remunerations and back payments, as well as the right to benefit from free of charge legal aid in order to attempt a recovery action against the employer, even if the third-country national has already been returned. Labour unions can support and assist TCNs in legal proceedings related to social and labour law, provided that they have been given a mandate to do so. Eventual costs of administrative and civil proceedings can be taken in charge by the labour unions if the TCN is a member of the respective labour union. The Law does not establish fines against TCN’s who were illegally employed. The TCN may be issued a return decision and lose his/her residence rights; however, the Directorate of immigration processes these situations on a case-by-case basis and inform the persons concerned to terminate the illegal employment situation. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 169 (13 UL)
Full Text
See detailFamily reunification of third-country nationals in the EU: national practices (country report Luxembourg)
Petry, David UL; Jacobs, Sarah UL; Sommarribas, Adolfo UL et al

Report (2017)

In Luxembourg, family reunification is one of the main reasons for immigration of third-country nationals. In fact, “family member” and “private reasons (family links)” residence permits (first deliveries ... [more ▼]

In Luxembourg, family reunification is one of the main reasons for immigration of third-country nationals. In fact, “family member” and “private reasons (family links)” residence permits (first deliveries and renewals) represented more than a third of all residence permits issued during the last three years. While the right to family reunification was solely provided by international law and regulated by administrative practice until 2008, the transposition of Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification led to a much more precise and detailed legal framework. A notable change in legislation has been proposed with the introduction of bill n° 6992 , namely the harmonisation of the conditions that apply to third-country national employees with those of Blue Card holders and researchers. Thus, family reunification requirements for certain categories of applicants shall be alleviated through the abrogation of the 12-month residence requirement for the sponsor. In order to apply for family reunification in Luxembourg, sponsors have to meet a number of requirements for exercising the right to family reunification, which include the provision of suitable accommodation for the size of their family; meeting health and safety standards; health insurance; as well as stable and regular resources to provide for themselves and their family members. As recommended by Directive 2003/86/EC, Luxembourg sets out more favourable conditions to beneficiaries of international protection for the exercise of their right to family reunification. Thus, they do not have to comply with the above-mentioned requirements in case they apply for family reunification within 3 months of being granted the status. Family members who have come to Luxembourg under family reunification have access to education, orientation, vocational training, lifelong learning and professional retraining once their residence permit has been issued. Family members furthermore have access to the labour market. In case the family member has resided in Luxembourg for less than one year when the application is submitted, it will be submitted to the labour market test. Family members can also, under a number of conditions, benefit from guaranteed minimum income, social aid, long-term residence status as well as citizenship. National stakeholders noted that the requirement of finding appropriate accommodation and proving stable and regular resources is one of the main challenges for sponsors. For family members as well as sponsors, having sufficient financial resources to cover the costs of family reunification can be another challenge to accessing family reunification. Family members of beneficiaries of international protection in particular face the more procedural challenge of providing proof of identity and family links, which can be difficult due to lacking documentation, differing administrative practices in the country of origin and/or the lack of cooperation of institutions. Gaining access to family reunification is also particularly difficult for beneficiaries of international protection who arrived in Luxembourg as unaccompanied minors but reached adulthood during the examination of their file, as they must provide proof of their family member’s dependency upon them. The limited number of diplomatic representations of Luxembourg abroad poses a challenge both to family members who must present themselves there, as well as for the Luxembourgish authorities who require information on certain countries. Perceived as a best practice with regard to family reunification are the information that NGOs and the lawyers in the field of migration and asylum provide to beneficiaries of international protection with regard to procedures of family reunification, thereby contributing to the beneficiary’s ability to enter an application for family reunification within the 3-month period. The practice of accepting the submission of an application of family members of beneficiaries of international protection that contains only a commencement of proof of family links and allowing for the finalisation at a later date is also perceived as a good practice, as it enables them to exercise their right to family reunification while benefitting from more favourable conditions. Furthermore, the issuance of a “laisser-passer” for beneficiaries of international protection who cannot obtain travel documents is perceived as a big step forward by national stakeholders. Lastly, Restoring Family Links, a service provided by the Luxembourgish Red Cross, is also considered a reliable tool with regard to tracing missing family members abroad. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 342 (50 UL)
Full Text
See detailRetour de demandeurs de protection internationale déboutés: défis et bonnes pratiques
Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Dionisio, Linda UL; Marcus, Noemie UL et al

Article for general public (2017)

Cette note de synthèse présente les principaux résultats de l’étude réalisée en 2016 par le Point de contact luxembourgeois du Réseau européen des migrations intitulée « Retour de demandeurs de protection ... [more ▼]

Cette note de synthèse présente les principaux résultats de l’étude réalisée en 2016 par le Point de contact luxembourgeois du Réseau européen des migrations intitulée « Retour de demandeurs de protection internationale déboutés: défis et bonnes pratiques ». L’étude se situe dans le contexte de l’accroissement récent des demandes des personnes en recherche de protection et des demandeurs de protection internationale (ci-après dpi) déboutés. Elle s’intéresse plus particulièrement aux raisons qui font que les dpi déboutés ne peuvent ou ne veulent retourner ainsi qu’aux mesures adoptées par les États Membres pour faciliter et encourager les retours. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 83 (4 UL)
Full Text
See detailCross-border residential mobility of people working in Luxembourg: Development and impacts
Nienaber, Birte UL; Pigeron-Piroth, Isabelle UL

in Boesen, Elisabeth; Schnuer, Gregor (Eds.) European Borderlands- Living with barriers and bridges (2017)

More and more work and residential cross-border mobilities are observed in border regions. The Greater Region, consisting of Luxembourg, Lorraine (France), Wallonia (Belgium), Saarland and Rhineland ... [more ▼]

More and more work and residential cross-border mobilities are observed in border regions. The Greater Region, consisting of Luxembourg, Lorraine (France), Wallonia (Belgium), Saarland and Rhineland-Palatinate (Germany), is one of the borderlands that is mostly affected by those cross-border mobilities. Inside this geographic space, around 213,000 people live and work in two different countries. The majority of cross-border workers commute from a neighbouring country to Luxembourg, where they constitute 44% of the salaried population in 2013. Beside work cross-border mobilities also residential cross-border mobilities become more and more important in the Greater Region. Associated with this is e.g. the move of a non-negligible number of former Luxembourgish residents into the Belgian, French or German borderlands. Most of them still maintain their job in Luxembourg meaning they commute from their place of residence to the Grand Duchy on weekdays. This paper aims on examining the development of the phenomenon of residential cross-border mobilities focusing on people who left Luxembourg and moved into the neighbouring countries but still work in the Grand Duchy. The period of time that the analysis takes into consideration is the last twenty years. In the 1990s, the majority of residential cross-border mobilities were oriented towards Luxembourg. But in recent years, the trend has changed into the direction of the neighbouring countries. Therefore, recently some Belgian, French and German villages are impacted by these trends in migration flows. These impacts concern e.g. housing prices, practice of languages, schooling as well as social integration of allochthonous and autochthonous population. It is followed by a discussion focusing on the one hand on the effects arising from these trends for the Greater Region and on the other hand analysing social, economic, and environmental issues municipalities are faced with. Furthermore the paper addresses the problem whether these residential cross-border mobilities could be seen as a strengthening (re-bordering) or a weakening (de-bordering) of the function of borders. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 226 (28 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detail(Education for) Sustainable Development in Geography Education
Sprenger, Sandra; Nienaber, Birte UL

in Journal of Geography in Higher Education (2017)

Nearly 15 years after the Rio Conference and 10 years after the Lucerne Declaration on Geographical Education for Sustainable Development we are interested to what extent the goals of this declaration ... [more ▼]

Nearly 15 years after the Rio Conference and 10 years after the Lucerne Declaration on Geographical Education for Sustainable Development we are interested to what extent the goals of this declaration have been implemented? What role does Geography play in Education for Sustainable Development in higher education? We analyzed the modules of 107 degree programs with Geography as a degree major or as a teacher training subject at 55 German universities, technical colleges and universities of education. We conducted a quantitative text analysis in which we searched the key words “Sustainability”, “Sustainable Development”, “Education for Sustainable Development” and “Nature-Society Studies” in the Module Regulations. Our data indicate great heterogeneity between the degree programs. The key words were predominantly found in majors in “Human Geography”, “Geography” and teacher training programs for “academic high schools”. Aspects of the results considered in the paper include: (a) differences in the orientation of degree programs, (b) varying degree of implementation in the modules, (c) different conceptual understanding of the principles of sustainability, (d) the extent to which concepts of Environmental Education and Education for Sustainable Development are mixed, (e) heterogeneity between mandatory courses and electives. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 160 (3 UL)