<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Marion Panizzon | nccr – on the move</title>
	<atom:link href="https://nccr-blog.flake.work/author/panizzon/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://nccr-blog.flake.work</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2025 18:22:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) – an Effective Instance of Multi-Level Governance or Catalyst for Externalization? (Part 2)</title>
		<link>https://nccr-blog.flake.work/un-global-compact-for-safe-orderly-and-regular-migration-gcm-an-effective-instance-of-multi-level-governance-or-catalyst-for-externalization-part-2/</link>
					<comments>https://nccr-blog.flake.work/un-global-compact-for-safe-orderly-and-regular-migration-gcm-an-effective-instance-of-multi-level-governance-or-catalyst-for-externalization-part-2/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Marion Panizzon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2019 07:00:44 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[admission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[borders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law + case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[policy + research]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blog.nccr-onthemove.ch/?p=3913</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>In the first part of this blog post, we analyzed why the GCM’s vision of ‘interconnecting’ migration-specific to migration-related policies delivers gains, including more room for negotiated outcomes, while at the same time increasing the risk of watering down human rights protection. This second part evaluates the evolution of institutions</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://nccr-blog.flake.work/un-global-compact-for-safe-orderly-and-regular-migration-gcm-an-effective-instance-of-multi-level-governance-or-catalyst-for-externalization-part-2/">UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) – an Effective Instance of Multi-Level Governance or Catalyst for Externalization? (Part 2)</a> first appeared on <a href="https://nccr-blog.flake.work">nccr – on the move</a>.</p>]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://nccr-blog.flake.work/un-global-compact-for-safe-orderly-and-regular-migration-gcm-an-effective-instance-of-multi-level-governance-or-catalyst-for-externalization-part-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) – Towards a Legal Regime Governing International Migration? (Part 1)</title>
		<link>https://nccr-blog.flake.work/un-global-compact-for-safe-orderly-and-regular-migration-gcm-towards-a-legal-regime-governing-international-migration-part-1/</link>
					<comments>https://nccr-blog.flake.work/un-global-compact-for-safe-orderly-and-regular-migration-gcm-towards-a-legal-regime-governing-international-migration-part-1/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Marion Panizzon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2019 09:01:18 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[admission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[borders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law + case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[policy + research]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blog.nccr-onthemove.ch/?p=3872</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Does the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) fulfill the criteria of a legal regime for international migration or is it just another soft law cooperation framework? If the GCM is merely a state-led cooperation framework, then what is its contribution to international migration law (IML)?</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://nccr-blog.flake.work/un-global-compact-for-safe-orderly-and-regular-migration-gcm-towards-a-legal-regime-governing-international-migration-part-1/">UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) – Towards a Legal Regime Governing International Migration? (Part 1)</a> first appeared on <a href="https://nccr-blog.flake.work">nccr – on the move</a>.</p>]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://nccr-blog.flake.work/un-global-compact-for-safe-orderly-and-regular-migration-gcm-towards-a-legal-regime-governing-international-migration-part-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>US—India Visa Fee Controversy before the WTO: A Migration-Mobility Nexus for the WTO?</title>
		<link>https://nccr-blog.flake.work/us-india-visa-fee-controversy-before-the-wto-a-migration-mobility-nexus-for-the-wto/</link>
					<comments>https://nccr-blog.flake.work/us-india-visa-fee-controversy-before-the-wto-a-migration-mobility-nexus-for-the-wto/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Marion Panizzon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2016 08:11:17 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[admission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor market]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law + case law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.nccr-onthemove.ch/?p=1345</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Trumping over the US election campaign is also a visa dispute at the WTO. On trial stands a bill by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services to double application fees for H1-B visa. India brought its complaint before the WTO on March 2016, alleging that the US had breached its legally binding market access commitments. The US-India dispute could set a precedent if it were to confirm the WTO’s judicial competence over visa – traditionally considered a national prerogative.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://nccr-blog.flake.work/us-india-visa-fee-controversy-before-the-wto-a-migration-mobility-nexus-for-the-wto/">US—India Visa Fee Controversy before the WTO: A Migration-Mobility Nexus for the WTO?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://nccr-blog.flake.work">nccr – on the move</a>.</p>]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://nccr-blog.flake.work/us-india-visa-fee-controversy-before-the-wto-a-migration-mobility-nexus-for-the-wto/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
