Hak Asasi Manusia Yunani - Sejarah

Hak Asasi Manusia Yunani - Sejarah

Selama tahun ini aliran pendatang dan pencari suaka ke negara itu dari Timur Tengah, Afrika, dan Asia terus berlanjut, walaupun jumlahnya jauh lebih rendah daripada dua tahun sebelumnya. Pernyataan EU-Turki Mac 2016, digabungkan dengan penutupan sempadan utara, menjadikan negara itu sebagai negara tuan rumah bagi penduduk migran dan pelarian. Sehingga 31 Oktober, angka UNHCR menunjukkan 46,462 pendatang dan pencari suaka tinggal di seluruh negara.

Pemulihan Semula: Pemerintah memberikan beberapa perlindungan terhadap pengusiran atau pengembalian pelarian ke negara-negara di mana kehidupan atau kebebasan mereka akan terancam kerana bangsa, agama, kewarganegaraan, keanggotaan mereka dalam kelompok sosial tertentu, atau pendapat politik.

Pada 24 Mei, sekumpulan lapan warga Turki tiba melalui perbatasan darat dengan Turki (persimpangan Sungai Evros) dan menyatakan hasrat untuk memohon suaka. Mereka termasuk tiga anak di bawah umur dan wartawan Murat Capan, yang telah dijatuhkan hukuman penjara 22.5 tahun oleh mahkamah Turki kerana didakwa cuba menjatuhkan pemerintahan negara itu. Menurut NGO Hellenic League for Human Rights, mereka kemudian ditempatkan di sebuah van yang dilaporkan memindahkan mereka ke sekumpulan lima lelaki bersenjata dengan topeng, yang secara senyap-senyap membawa mereka kembali ke Turki di seberang sungai. Pihak berkuasa Turki menahan Capan, dan dia dihantar ke penjara di Turki.

Pada 23 Jun, media melaporkan bahawa NGO Network for the Social Support of Refugees and Migrants mengecam pegawai polis dan lelaki bertudung di Didymoticho, di utara Yunani, kerana mengembalikan 10 warga Syria secara paksa ke Turki, walaupun pada kenyataannya mereka telah menyatakan keinginan untuk memohon suaka di Greece. Seorang anggota kumpulan melaporkan bahawa polis telah menangkap mereka semua dan membawa mereka ke sebuah pusat tahanan bersama 200 yang lain, termasuk keluarga dengan anak-anak. Saksi yang sama mendakwa bahawa beberapa jam kemudian, 10 orang Syria diperintahkan untuk memasuki sebuah van yang membawa mereka ke sungai, di mana lelaki bersenjata dengan pakaian seragam memaksa mereka untuk menggunakan kapal pesiar yang akhirnya mengembalikan mereka ke Turki.

Hellenic League for Human Rights, UNHCR, Persekutuan Antarabangsa untuk Hak Asasi Manusia (FIDH), dan Pesuruhjaya Majlis Eropah untuk Hak Asasi Manusia Nils Muiznieks meminta siasatan menyeluruh mengenai insiden pengisian semula. Pada 30 Julai, menteri untuk dasar migrasi menafikan bahawa pihak berkuasa pemerintah melakukan pengembalian yang tidak sah.

Akses ke Asylum: Undang-undang memperuntukkan pemberian suaka atau status pengungsi, dan pemerintah telah menetapkan sistem untuk memberikan perlindungan kepada pelarian melalui layanan suaka otonom di bawah otoritas Kementerian Migrasi Dasar. Undang-undang mensyaratkan bahawa pemohon memiliki akses kepada jurubahasa yang diperakui dan memungkinkan pemohon untuk mengajukan banding terhadap keputusan negatif dan tetap berada di negara ini sementara rayuannya diperiksa.

Pihak berkuasa bekerjasama dengan NGO, organisasi antarabangsa, dan Pejabat Sokongan Eropah untuk memberitahu pendatang tanpa dokumen yang menunggu pendaftaran dalam sistem suaka, serta tahanan warga asing bukan EU, mengenai hak dan prosedur suaka mereka dan program pemulangan sukarela yang dibantu oleh IOM. UNHCR juga membantu kerajaan memberi taklimat dan pengedaran risalah pelbagai bahasa dan pakej maklumat mengenai prosedur suaka dan suaka.

Pada 26 Januari Mahkamah Agung memutuskan untuk mengekstradisi lapan pegawai Tentera Udara Turki yang mengemukakan permohonan suaka di negara itu. Mereka dituduh merancang rampasan kuasa terhadap pemerintah Turki. Menurut laporan media, pengadilan memutuskan bahawa lapan pegawai tersebut tidak mungkin menghadapi perbicaraan yang adil jika kembali ke Turki dan memutuskan bahawa mereka boleh diseksa. Turki kemudian mengemukakan permintaan ekstradisi kedua ke Yunani, yang juga ditolak pada bulan Mei atas dasar yang sama dengan keputusan pertama. Sehingga 30 November, kes suaka masih dalam pertimbangan oleh jawatankuasa rayuan.

Aktivis hak asasi manusia dan NGO yang bekerjasama dengan pemohon suaka melaporkan menunggu lama keputusan rayuan suaka kerana berlakunya tunggakan dalam proses rayuan. Hampir sepanjang tahun ini, hakim banding menunggu keputusan dari Dewan Negara mengenai apakah Turki dianggap sebagai negara ketiga yang selamat untuk pemohon yang ditolak, terutama warga Syria, yang akan kembali. Pada 22 September, aktivis media dan hak asasi manusia melaporkan bahawa pleno Majlis Negara menolak rayuan oleh dua pencari suaka Syria yang mendakwa bahawa Turki bukan negara yang selamat kembali. Majlis menyatakan bahawa Turki telah meratifikasi Konvensyen Geneva dan menyetujui rancangan tindakan bersama dengan Kesatuan Eropah untuk menyokong warga Syria yang memerlukan perlindungan antarabangsa. Majlis itu juga menyatakan bahawa dua orang Syria yang mengemukakan rayuan itu mempunyai saudara-mara di Turki. Majlis menolak tuntutan pemohon bahawa nyawa dan kebebasan mereka akan berisiko di Turki dan bahawa Yunani akan melanggar Konvensyen Hak Asasi Manusia Eropah dengan mengembalikannya ke Turki. Beberapa pakar menyatakan bahawa keputusan ini akan mempengaruhi banyak kes serupa yang lain.

Pemohon suaka dari negara selain Syria mengadu bahawa permohonan suaka mereka ditangguhkan sementara rakyat Syria diutamakan. Banyak pencari suaka juga mengadu kesukaran menjadualkan janji temu dan kemudian berhubung dengan sistem Perkhidmatan Asylum melalui Skype. Organisasi antarabangsa, NGO, dan aktivis hak asasi manusia mengulangi keprihatinan tahun sebelumnya mengenai masalah yang berkaitan dengan sistem suaka, termasuk kekurangan staf dan kemudahan yang mencukupi; kesukaran untuk mendaftarkan tuntutan; soalan mengenai sifat dan kesinambungan pemeriksaan tuntutan dan rayuan awal; perkhidmatan kesejahteraan, integrasi, kaunseling, perundangan, dan interpretasi yang tidak mencukupi; diskriminasi; dan penahanan di bawah keadaan yang sering tidak mencukupi dan sesak di dalam Pusat Penerimaan dan Pengenalan (RIC).

Negara Asal / Transit yang Selamat: Negara ini mematuhi Peraturan Dublin III, yang menurutnya pihak berwenang dapat mengembalikan pencari suaka ke negara anggota EU yang masuk pertama untuk mengadili tuntutan suaka.

Pada bulan Mac 2016 EU dan Turki mengeluarkan pernyataan bersama mengenai migrasi. Menurut perjanjian itu, setiap penyeberangan pendatang tanpa izin dari Turki ke pulau-pulau Yunani akan dibatasi ke RIC hingga 25 hari, selama waktu itu individu tersebut berpeluang untuk memohon suaka di Yunani. Individu yang memilih untuk tidak memohon suaka atau yang permohonannya dianggap tidak berasas atau tidak boleh diterima akan dikembalikan ke Turki berdasarkan syarat-syarat perjanjian.

Dengan bantuan NGO, beberapa pemohon yang permohonannya ditolak mencantumkan kesahihan keputusan ini di hadapan Dewan Negara, dengan alasan bahawa Turki bukanlah negara ketiga yang selamat untuk dikembalikan. Keputusan 22 September menolak hujah dan tuntutan mereka.

Kebebasan Bergerak: Migran tanpa dokumen yang tiba di pulau Yunani setelah bulan Mac 2016 dikenakan prosedur penerimaan dan pendaftaran sempadan khas, di fasilitas tertutup hingga 25 hari. Selepas tempoh 25 hari ini, para pendatang tanpa izin yang tinggal di kemudahan tersebut biasanya dibenarkan masuk dan keluar. Migran tanpa dokumen dilarang melakukan perjalanan ke daratan kecuali mereka mengemukakan permohonan suaka yang dianggap diterima oleh pihak berkuasa suaka. Setelah permohonan suaka diajukan, didapati diterima, dan dalam proses, pendatang boleh berpindah ke pusat penginapan di daratan. Tidak ada sekatan pergerakan masuk atau keluar dari pusat penginapan. Suruhanjaya Nasional untuk Hak Asasi Manusia, dan NGO, termasuk Human Rights Watch (HRW), Doktor Tanpa Sempadan, dan Majlis Pengungsi Yunani, menyatakan kebimbangan, dengan keberatan penahanan pendatang masuk dan pencari suaka di bawah pernyataan EU-Turki. Pada 24 Oktober, 19 organisasi hak asasi manusia lokal dan internasional mengirim surat bersama kepada Perdana Menteri Tsipras yang meminta agar menghentikan "kebijakan penahanan" menjaga pencari suaka di pulau-pulau dan memburuknya keadaan di lima RIC yang beroperasi di utara Kepulauan Aegean.

Anak di bawah umur yang tidak ditemani juga ditempatkan di bawah "perlindungan perlindungan" kerana kekurangan ruang di tempat perlindungan khusus. Dalam pernyataan akhbar 31 Julai, ombudsman melaporkan bahawa dari awal bulan Jun hingga 31 Julai, 77 anak di bawah umur yang ditemani ditempatkan di bawah jagaan pelindung di Thessaloniki, dengan hanya 13 daripadanya akhirnya diproses ke kemudahan yang sesuai untuk keperluan mereka. Pertanyaan mengenai ombudsman, yang dilakukan di tempat tahanan dan penerimaan pada 17-19 Julai, menunjukkan bahawa sebilangan besar anak-anak di bawah umur yang tinggal di balai polis berada di bawah jagaan pelindung selama berminggu-minggu, tanpa adanya tempat perlindungan yang memadai untuk semua.

Pekerjaan: Pelarian yang diakui dan pemegang dokumen pencari suaka berhak bekerja, walaupun hak ini tidak diumumkan secara luas atau ditegakkan secara konsisten.

Akses ke Perkhidmatan Asas: Secara hukum, layanan seperti tempat tinggal, perawatan kesehatan, pendidikan, dan prosedur kehakiman diberikan kepada pencari suaka yang memiliki izin tinggal yang sah; namun, kesenjangan kakitangan dan laman migran yang terlalu ramai mengehadkan akses pencari suaka tertentu ke perkhidmatan ini. Bantuan undang-undang terhad dan biasanya ditawarkan melalui peguam sukarela dan persatuan bar, NGO, dan organisasi antarabangsa.

Terdapat peningkatan keadaan perumahan di kemudahan penerimaan di daratan. RIC di pulau-pulau menghadapi masalah, kebanyakannya disebabkan oleh kekurangan ruang, yang mengakibatkan kesesakan dan penggunaan khemah perkhemahan untuk menambah rumah pasang siap yang lebih besar, berhawa dingin, dan lebih kuat. Keadaan hidup lebih sukar pada musim sejuk dan musim panas. Pada bulan Januari tiga kematian pencari suaka dicatat di RIC di Moria, Lesvos, yang didakwa berkaitan dengan pemanasan yang tidak mencukupi. Menurut laporan HRW pada 18 Januari, penginapan bagi individu kurang upaya di kebanyakan laman web tidak mencukupi. Sambungan ke sistem kumbahan dan kuasa elektrik kadangkala tidak ada atau bermasalah.

Pencari suaka dihuni di kem penerimaan dan kemudahan yang beroperasi di bawah pengurusan atau pengawasan negeri, atau ditadbir oleh UNHCR, IOM, atau NGO. Individu pencari suaka yang rentan dan calon penempatan semula juga layak untuk berlindung di pangsapuri melalui skema perumahan yang dilaksanakan oleh UNHCR, bekerjasama dengan beberapa perbandaran dan NGO tempatan. Pada 31 Oktober, UNHCR melaporkan bahawa lebih daripada 36,000 pencari suaka telah ditempatkan di pangsapuri, hotel, dan kemudahan lain di seluruh negara sejak pelancaran Skim Penginapan dan Perkhidmatan UNHCR pada tahun 2016. Pelarian yang diakui umumnya tidak layak untuk mengikuti program ini; namun, mulai 1 Ogos, menteri kebijakan migrasi mengumumkan program untuk membenarkan 1.014 pelarian yang baru dikenali yang menyertai program perumahan UNHCR untuk meminta peluasan enam bulan dalam program ini. Menurut undang-undang, pelarian layak untuk perumahan umum, tetapi semua program perumahan ditangguhkan kerana langkah-langkah berjimat cermat pemerintah.

Kementerian Dasar Migrasi dengan Perkhidmatan Penerimaan dan Pengenalannya, dibantu oleh Kementerian Pertahanan dan / atau beberapa perbandaran, menguruskan sejumlah kemudahan, di mana para pendatang baru ditahan tanpa izin untuk meninggalkan pusat tersebut sehingga 25 hari. Kakitangan pengurusan pentadbiran dan kemudahan yang bekerja di pusat-pusat ini biasanya terdiri dari beberapa pegawai negeri tetap, sering terlepas dari perkhidmatan tetap mereka, kakitangan kontrak lapan bulan di bawah skim pekerjaan yang dikendalikan oleh kerajaan, serta kakitangan kontrak NGO dan organisasi antarabangsa. Media melaporkan kes, terutama di pulau-pulau, di mana kakitangan yang ditugaskan tidak mencukupi atau terlatih dengan tidak betul.

Semua penduduk di negara ini berhak mendapat rawatan perubatan kecemasan tanpa mengira status undang-undang. Sukarelawan perubatan, doktor perubatan yang dikontrak oleh NGO, dan Pusat Kawalan dan Pencegahan Penyakit Hellenic, serta doktor perubatan tentera, menyediakan rawatan kesihatan asas di kem, dengan keadaan kecemasan atau kes yang lebih kompleks yang dirujuk ke hospital tempatan. Sejumlah NGO menyatakan penjagaan psikologi tidak mencukupi untuk pencari suaka dan pelarian, terutama di pulau-pulau. Sebilangan individu yang menderita penyakit kronik terus menghadapi masalah yang berkaitan dengan mendapatkan ubat yang betul. Terdapat laporan rawatan kesihatan yang tidak mencukupi untuk wanita hamil. Hospital sering dibebani dan kekurangan tenaga kerja, mewujudkan jurang dalam penyediaan perkhidmatan untuk pencari suaka dan penduduk tempatan.

Setelah kedatangan mereka, pendatang dan pelarian didaftarkan oleh polis dan Perkhidmatan Penerimaan dan Pengenalan. Pihak berkuasa merekodkan data peribadi pencari suaka, mengambil cap jari, dan mengesahkan identitinya. Organisasi dan NGO antarabangsa memberikan maklumat asas mengenai proses suaka, membantu pemulangan sukarela dan perlindungan antarabangsa, dan melakukan pemeriksaan perubatan untuk mengenal pasti individu yang rentan. Doktor tanpa Batas mengkritik pihak berkuasa kerana gagal mengenal pasti pencari suaka dengan kelemahan yang tidak dapat dilihat, seperti mangsa penyeksaan. Doktor Tanpa Sempadan dan NGO lain juga mengkritik jurang dalam penilaian kerentanan, yang mereka duga memburukkan lagi masalah kesihatan dan kesihatan mental dan kehilangan beberapa individu yang layak untuk dipindahkan ke daratan peluang mereka untuk meninggalkan keadaan hidup yang sesak di RIC. Pengasingan kumpulan rentan tidak selalu dapat dilaksanakan di beberapa laman web. Pemerhati yang berwibawa melaporkan beberapa insiden ganas yang melibatkan pencari suaka, termasuk pergaduhan, tikaman, dan keganasan berdasarkan jantina (lihat bahagian 2.d., Penyalahgunaan Migran, Pelarian, dan Orang Tanpa Wangsa).

Penyelesaian Tahan Lama: Pemerintah mengambil bahagian dalam skema penempatan semula EU 2015, dan, pada 27 September, Suruhanjaya Eropah melaporkan penempatan semula 20.323 pencari suaka dari Yunani ke negara anggota EU yang lain. Pencari suaka layak untuk penempatan semula di bawah skema ini hanya jika mereka tiba sebelum pelaksanaan Pernyataan EU-Turki pada 20 Mac 2016, dan jika mereka memiliki kewarganegaraan dari negara yang akan mendapat pengiktirafan perlindungan antarabangsa di 75 persen negara anggota. IOM menawarkan pulangan sukarela kepada pencari suaka yang ditolak atau bagi mereka yang menolak tuntutan suaka mereka. Kerajaan melaporkan kira-kira 5,000 pulangan sukarela pada 22 November. Kerajaan bekerjasama dengan organisasi antarabangsa dan NGO untuk memudahkan pendaftaran semua anak-anak pendatang di daratan di sekolah.

Perlindungan Sementara: Sehingga 30 Jun, pemerintah memberikan perlindungan sementara kepada sekitar 305 individu yang mungkin tidak memenuhi syarat sebagai pelarian.


Yunani - Indeks kebebasan awam

Sumber: Freedom House. 1 - tahap kebebasan tertinggi.

Apakah indeks kebebasan awam Greece?

Tarikh Nilai Ubah, %
2018 2.00 0.00%
2017 2.00 0.00%
2016 2.00 0.00%
2015 2.00 0.00%
2014 2.00 0.00%
2013 2.00 0.00%
2012 2.00 0.00%
2011 2.00 0.00%
2010 2.00 0.00%
2009 2.00 0.00%
2008 2.00 0.00%
2007 2.00

Lihat juga

& salin 2011-2021 Knoema. Hak cipta terpelihara.

Pernyataan Privasi kami & Dasar Kuki

Baiklah untuk meneruskan Laman web kami menggunakan kuki untuk meningkatkan pengalaman dalam talian anda. Mereka diletakkan di komputer anda semasa anda melancarkan laman web ini. Anda boleh mengubah tetapan kuki peribadi anda melalui tetapan penyemak imbas internet anda.


Yunani

Dua lelaki pendatang dan empat kanak-kanak di dalam khemah di kem sementara di sebelah kem Moria untuk pelarian dan pendatang di pulau Lesbos, Yunani, 18 September 2018.

© 2018 Giorgos Moutafis / Reuters

Ucapan Utama

Kenneth Roth

Esei

Mengehadkan Pengaruh Beijing Terhadap Akauntabiliti dan Keadilan

Meyakinkan "Kuasa Tengah" untuk Melawan Autokrat Walaupun Dengan Kos yang Tinggi

Masa untuk Menggerakkan Semula Gerakan "Jangan Lagi"

Memerangi Mitos "Ideologi Gender"

Penghakiman dan Tanggungjawab Manusia pada Zaman Teknologi

Membantu Orang Tua Tetap Terhubung, dan di Rumah

Mengubah Syarat Pertunangan dengan Silicon Valley

Walaupun Yunani terus menjadi tuan rumah sejumlah besar pencari suaka, ia gagal melindungi hak mereka. Keseluruhan jumlah kedatangan meningkat berbanding dengan tempoh yang sama pada tahun 2017. Kekurangan dalam penerimaan dan sistem suaka meningkat dengan kesesakan yang teruk, keadaan tidak sihat, tidak sihat, dan kekurangan rawatan khusus yang mencukupi, termasuk rawatan perubatan, kaunseling trauma, dan sokongan psikososial. Kekerasan berdasarkan fizikal dan jantina adalah perkara biasa di kem suaka, dan NGO melaporkan keadaan kesihatan mental yang merosot di kalangan pencari suaka. Sebilangan besar anak-anak yang tidak ditemani terus ditempatkan di kem dengan orang dewasa, dalam tahanan polis perlindungan atau tahanan atau berisiko kehilangan tempat tinggal, dengan pihak berkuasa gagal menyelesaikan kekurangan tempat perlindungan anak atau asuhan.

Dasar Yunani yang disokong oleh EU untuk mengurung pencari suaka yang tiba melalui laut ke kepulauan Aegean terperangkap ribuan dalam keadaan ini.

Sementara pemerintah memindahkan 18.000 pencari suaka dari pulau-pulau ke daratan Yunani setelah kampanye NGO bersama pada bulan November, mereka menolak untuk melaksanakan keputusan pengadilan tinggi yang mengikat untuk mengakhiri kebijakan kurungan untuk kedatangan baru, dan sebaliknya mengadopsi undang-undang baru pada bulan Mei untuk meneruskannya. Di Lesbos, pemeriksaan pihak berkuasa daerah pada bulan September menyimpulkan bahawa kem Moria, yang terbesar seumpamanya, membahayakan kesihatan awam dan alam sekitar, dan meminta pemerintah untuk mengatasi kekurangan akut atau menutup kem tersebut.

Sebilangan pendatang dan pencari suaka yang cuba melintasi sempadan darat dari Turki ke wilayah timur laut Evros dilaporkan dikembalikan ke Turki pada tahun tersebut, kadang-kadang dengan kekerasan. Yunani tidak menangani keperluan penerimaan pencari suaka yang baru tiba di rantau ini, walaupun terdapat peningkatan jumlah kedatangan mulai bulan April. Akibatnya, wanita dan gadis ditempatkan dengan lelaki yang tidak berkaitan di laman web untuk penerimaan atau penahanan pencari suaka dan kekurangan akses kepada perkhidmatan penting.

Kurang dari 15 peratus kanak-kanak yang mencari suaka mendapat akses pendidikan di pulau-pulau, dan hanya satu dari dua di daratan yang mendaftar di sekolah umum.

Kumpulan sayap kanan terus berkempen menentang pencari suaka di pulau-pulau itu, dan ada laporan media mengenai serangan di seluruh negara terhadap orang yang dianggap sebagai pendatang atau Muslim. Statistik polis untuk jenayah kebencian untuk tahun 2017 yang dikeluarkan pada bulan Mac menunjukkan peningkatan yang ketara berbanding tahun sebelumnya.

Jawatankuasa Majlis Pencegahan Penyeksaan Majlis Eropah mengunjungi Greece pada bulan April, dan mengeluarkan laporan awal yang menyatakan kebimbangan mengenai rawatan yang tidak berperikemanusiaan dan merendahkan di pusat psikiatri dan pusat penahanan migran.


Hak Asasi Manusia di Greece

George Andreopoulos, seorang profesor kajian politik di City University of New York (CUNY) dan pengarah pengasas Pusat Hak Asasi Manusia Antarabangsa yang berpusat di John Jay College, akan memberi ceramah di UC Santa Barbara pada hari Jumaat, 23 Oktober.

Kuliah Andreopoulos, "Hak Asasi Manusia di Yunani: Cabaran dan Prospek," akan bermula pada pukul 13:00 di Bilik Persidangan McCune, 6020 Bangunan Kemanusiaan dan Sains Sosial.

Percuma dan terbuka untuk umum, ceramah disampaikan oleh Orfalea Center for Global & amp International Studies kampus. Ini adalah program Pusat Penyelidikan Antara Disiplin mengenai Tadbir Urus Global dan Hak Asasi Manusia di pusat ini.

"Kami sangat gembira dapat menyambut Profesor Andreopoulos, seorang sarjana terkenal mengenai hak asasi manusia, ke Pusat Orfalea untuk membincangkan hak asasi manusia dengan kami," kata Michael Stohl, seorang profesor komunikasi dan pengarah pusat itu. "Dia memiliki pengetahuan yang mendalam tentang situasi hak asasi manusia di Yunani dan latar belakang penelitian ilmiah untuk menempatkan situasi itu dalam konteks sejarah dan politik."

Pakar dalam bidang hak asasi manusia dan tadbir urus global, Andreopoulos mempelajari sejarah, undang-undang dan hubungan antarabangsa di University of Chicago dan di Cambridge University. Sebelum menyertai fakulti CUNY, dia mengajar di Yale University, di mana dia adalah pengarah bersekutu pengasas Orville Schell Center for International Human Rights.

Projek penyelidikannya saat ini, yang disokong oleh hibah dari Stavros Niarchos Foundation, berjudul "Policing Di Seberang Batas: Peranan Penguatkuasaan Undang-Undang dalam Tadbir Urus Global."

Sepanjang kariernya, Andreopoulos telah mengambil bahagian dalam beberapa misi hak asasi manusia, terakhir di Sierra Leone, untuk mengkaji dan menyiapkan cadangan mengenai mekanisme akauntabiliti di negara itu. Dia pernah berkhidmat sebagai presiden bahagian hak asasi manusia Persatuan Sains Politik Amerika, dan juga ketua jawatankuasa anugerah buku bahagian itu.

Andreopoulos adalah pengarang banyak buku dan artikel, termasuk jilid edisi yang akan datang "Policing Across Borders: Netforcement Lawworks and the Challenges of Crime Control" (Springer), yang tumbuh dari projek penyelidikan empat tahun yang dilakukan bekerjasama dengan Hellenic Center for Security Studies, sebuah organisasi yang ditubuhkan di Yunani oleh Kementerian Ketenteraman Awam dan Perlindungan Warganegara sebagai badan pemikir mengenai masalah keselamatan.

Juga akan datang adalah edisi khas jurnal Criminal Justice Ethics, di mana Andreopoulos adalah pengarang bersama dan penyumbang. Tema masalahnya adalah syarikat tentera dan keselamatan swasta dan usaha untuk mempertanggungjawabkan.


Yunani

Pada bulan Jun, hakim yang bertugas menyiasat serangan terhadap ahli kesatuan sekerja Konstantina Kuneva mengakhiri siasatan, setelah gagal mengenal pasti pelaku. Kebimbangan diluahkan oleh peguamnya mengenai kualiti dan ketelitian penyiasatan sebelum perbicaraan. Pada bulan November, Majlis Kesalahan di Athens memerintahkan untuk meneruskan siasatan kes tersebut.

Keadaan penjara

Laporan diterima mengenai keadaan penahanan yang tidak berperikemanusiaan dan merendahkan di penjara, termasuk kesesakan, kemudahan yang tidak mencukupi dan kekurangan akses ke rawatan perubatan yang mencukupi. Tahanan wanita melaporkan bahawa mereka terus menjalani praktik pemeriksaan dalaman. Pada bulan Disember, pindaan perundangan diadopsi untuk mengatasi kepadatan penjara dan peningkatan kondisi penjara.

Penentang teliti terhadap perkhidmatan ketenteraan

Undang-undang semasa mengenai keberatan hati nurani masih tidak sesuai dengan standard Eropah dan antarabangsa. Penentang yang berhati-hati terus menghadapi diskriminasi dan bahkan pendakwaan.

Pada 31 Mac, penentang hati nurani Lazaros Petromelidis dijatuhkan hukuman penjara 18 bulan & # 39 yang ditangguhkan atas dua tuduhan tidak mengikut perintah oleh Mahkamah Rayuan Tentera Athens. Pada tahun 2008, Mahkamah Pertama telah menjatuhkan hukuman penjara tiga tahun & # 39 atas tuduhan yang sama.

Kebebasan bersuara

Laporan pada bulan Februari oleh Pesuruhjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Majlis Eropah menyatakan kebimbangan mengenai amalan pengadilan Yunani yang terlalu ketat kerana gagal mendaftarkan persatuan minoriti tertentu, dan memerintahkan pembubaran Kesatuan Turki Xanthi. Kebimbangan yang serupa dinyatakan oleh Pakar Bebas PBB mengenai Masalah Minoriti. Walaupun demikian, dan keputusan Mahkamah Hak Asasi Manusia Eropah pada tahun 2008, Mahkamah Agung Yunani membenarkan penolakan Mahkamah Rayuan untuk mendaftarkan persatuan & "Rumah Tamadun Macedonia" pada bulan Jun.

Hak orang lesbian, gay, biseksual dan transgender

Pada bulan Mac, beberapa orang cedera dalam serangan homofobik di sebuah bar di Athens. Dilaporkan bahawa polis dan ambulans tidak bertindak balas terhadap kejadian itu, walaupun terdapat banyak panggilan.

Pemerdagangan manusia

Di tengah keprihatinan bahawa pemerintah tidak mengambil tindakan yang cukup untuk mengidentifikasi korban perdagangan manusia, rancangan panduan yang diusulkan oleh gabungan NGO, termasuk Amnesty International, masih belum diterima. Kekurangan dana negara menyebabkan penutupan beberapa tempat perlindungan bagi mangsa pemerdagangan manusia.


Yunani: Sejarah Penghijrahan

Negara-negara di seluruh dunia mempunyai komuniti yang menyaksikan gelombang migrasi luar yang pernah menjadi ciri Yunani. Namun, sejak 15 tahun yang lalu, Yunani telah menjadi penerima pendatang dan destinasi pendatang tetap. Sebilangan besar pendatang baru berasal dari Eropah Tengah dan Timur, dan walaupun terdapat dua program regularisasi, sebilangan besar mereka masih tinggal di Yunani tanpa kebenaran. Orang-orang dari Asia (terutamanya Iraq, Pakistan, dan India) baru-baru ini dengan cepat meningkatkan bahagian mereka dari jumlah pendatang yang tiba secara haram.

Seperti pada masa lalu, sekumpulan kekuatan yang kompleks mendorong dan menarik migrasi ke dan dari Yunani. Hari ini, pemerintah bersedia untuk melaksanakan rancangan tindakan integrasi yang bertujuan memanfaatkan kekuatan ini untuk keuntungan negara. Proses itu, bagaimanapun, belum dimulai, dan kegelisahan masyarakat dan geseran politik diharapkan dapat mendahului penuaian keuntungan ekonomi, budaya, dan politik yang diharapkan.

Sejarah Yunani: Gelombang Penghijrahan

Dua gelombang penting emigrasi berlaku setelah pembentukan negara Yunani moden pada awal 1830-an, satu dari akhir abad ke-19 hingga awal abad ke-20, dan satu lagi setelah Perang Dunia II.

Gelombang pertama emigrasi didorong oleh krisis ekonomi tahun 1893 yang menyusuli kejatuhan harga currants - produk eksport utama negara - di pasaran antarabangsa. Pada periode 1890-1914, hampir seperenam penduduk Yunani berhijrah, kebanyakannya ke Amerika Syarikat dan Mesir. Penghijrahan ini, dalam arti, didorong oleh pihak berkuasa Yunani, yang melihat pengiriman wang membantu meningkatkan imbangan pembayaran ekonomi Yunani. Kesan abadi terhadap kesadaran nasional Yunani adalah pengembangan gagasan "Hellenisme" dan "Hellenic diaspora" ke "Dunia Baru."

Setelah Perang Dunia II, negara-negara Eropah Selatan, Yunani di antaranya, adalah penyumbang utama penghijrahan ke negara-negara industri Eropah Utara. Namun, krisis minyak pada tahun 1973 dan 1980 menyebabkan ketidaktentuan ekonomi dan kejatuhan permintaan buruh yang tajam, yang seterusnya menyebabkan negara-negara utara memperkenalkan kebijakan imigrasi yang membatasi. Oleh kerana negara-negara ini menjadi kurang ramah kepada bekas jemputan mereka, penghijrahan kembali ke Yunani segera diikuti.

Lebih daripada satu juta orang Yunani berhijrah dalam gelombang kedua ini, yang jatuh terutamanya antara tahun 1950 dan 1974. Sebilangan besar berhijrah ke Eropah Barat, A.S., Kanada, dan Australia. Sebab-sebab ekonomi dan politik sering mendorong pergerakan mereka, keduanya berkaitan dengan akibat perang saudara 1946-1949 dan tempoh pemerintahan junta ketenteraan 1967-1974 yang menyusul. Statistik rasmi menunjukkan bahawa dalam tempoh 1955-1973 Jerman menyerap 603.300 pendatang Yunani, Australia 170.700, A.S. 124.000, dan Kanada 80.200. Majoriti pendatang ini berasal dari luar bandar, dan mereka membekalkan pasaran buruh nasional dan antarabangsa.

Berikutan krisis minyak tahun 1973 dan penerapan kebijakan imigrasi yang ketat oleh negara-negara Eropah, aliran imigrasi ini dikurangkan dengan teruk dan migrasi kembali meningkat. Faktor-faktor lain yang menyumbang kepada perubahan ini termasuk kesukaran integrasi di negara-negara penerima, pemulihan demokrasi di Yunani pada tahun 1974, dan prospek ekonomi baru yang berkembang setelah masuknya negara itu pada tahun 1981 ke dalam Komuniti Ekonomi Eropah (EEC). Antara tahun 1974 dan 1985, hampir separuh daripada pendatang dari masa selepas perang telah kembali ke Yunani.

Tempat Dagangan: Imigresen Menggantikan Emigrasi

Penghijrahan dan penghijrahan kembali yang menurun menyebabkan keseimbangan migrasi positif pada tahun 1970-an. Imigrasi berkembang pada awal 1980-an ketika sebilangan kecil orang Asia, Afrika, dan Poland tiba dan mendapat pekerjaan dalam bidang pembinaan, pertanian, dan perkhidmatan domestik. Walaupun begitu, jumlah imigresen masih terhad. Pada tahun 1986, pendatang yang sah dan tidak sah berjumlah sekitar 90,000. Sepertiga dari mereka berasal dari negara-negara Kesatuan Eropah. Banci 1991 mencatatkan 167,000 "orang asing" dalam jumlah keseluruhan penduduk 10,259,900.

Kejatuhan rejim Eropah Tengah dan Timur pada tahun 1989 mengubah imigrasi ke Yunani menjadi fenomena besar dan tidak terkawal. Akibatnya, walaupun Yunani pada masa itu masih merupakan salah satu negara EU yang kurang maju, pada tahun 1990-an ia menerima peratusan pendatang tertinggi dalam kaitannya dengan tenaga kerjanya.

Banyak faktor yang menjelaskan perubahan Yunani menjadi negara penerima. Ini termasuk lokasi geografi, yang menempatkan Yunani sebagai "gerbang" timur EU, dengan garis pantai yang luas dan mudah melintasi sempadan. Walaupun keadaan di sempadan utara negara telah bertambah baik sejak pembentukan pengawal kawalan sempadan khas pada tahun 1998, akses geografi tetap menjadi faktor utama dalam pola migrasi ke Yunani.

Yang penting juga ialah perubahan ekonomi yang pesat yang menyempitkan jarak ekonomi dan sosial dari negara-negara Eropah Utara berikutan penyatuan Yunani ke EU pada tahun 1981. Sejalan dengan perkembangan ekonomi, taraf hidup yang meningkat dan tahap pendidikan yang lebih tinggi yang dicapai oleh orang muda telah menyebabkan kebanyakan orang Yunani menolak pekerjaan berstatus rendah dan berpendapatan rendah. Sementara itu, baik ukuran informal, ekonomi berbasis keluarga, dan sifat industri bermusim seperti pelancongan, pertanian, dan pembinaan, telah menciptakan permintaan untuk kumpulan pekerja yang fleksibel, bebas dari praktik dan perundangan kesatuan sekerja.

Angka kebangsaan pertama Yunani dihitung mengikuti program regularisasi pada tahun 1997, berdasarkan maklumat yang dikumpulkan dari 371,641 pemohon izin tinggal "kad putih" Yunani. Penganalisis percaya bahawa pemohon berjumlah kira-kira separuh daripada pendatang yang tinggal di negara itu pada masa itu.

Data menunjukkan bahawa, dari mereka yang terdaftar di bawah program ini, lebih dari 70 peratus adalah lelaki tidak mahir dengan pendidikan lebih tinggi daripada sekolah rendah. Mereka tertumpu di wilayah Athens, dan lebih dari dua pertiga mempunyai kewarganegaraan Albania. Migran ini kebanyakan bekerja di sektor pertanian, pembinaan, pelancongan, dan perkhidmatan domestik - sektor yang beroperasi dengan mudah dalam ekonomi informal, atau berkembang di sana.

Data dari program regularisasi kedua, yang dimulai pada tahun 2001, belum tersedia.

Satu-satunya data yang memuaskan mengenai populasi pendatang dikumpulkan oleh Perkhidmatan Statistik Nasional semasa Banci 2001, di mana pendatang didaftarkan sebagai "penduduk asing di Yunani." Walaupun terdapat kekurangan, data banci mengenai pendatang memberikan gambaran penduduk yang paling lengkap dan terkini.

Perlu diingat bahawa "imigran" yang berasal dari etnik Yunani - sama ada pendatang yang kembali atau keturunannya - juga didaftarkan oleh Banci 2001, tetapi data tersebut belum diterbitkan. Sebuah laporan oleh Organisasi Kerjasama Ekonomi dan Pembangunan (OECD) pada tahun 2003 menunjukkan bahawa lebih dari 150,000 pendatang asal Yunani telah tiba di negara ini dari bekas Kesatuan Soviet sejak tahun 1977 sepertiga dari mereka telah dinaturalisasi.

Migran Yunani dalam Konteks

Menurut bancian terbaru, penduduk Yunani meningkat dari 10,259,900 pada tahun 1991 menjadi 10,964,020 pada tahun 2001. Peningkatan ini hampir dapat dikaitkan dengan imigrasi dalam dekad yang lalu. The census showed that the "foreign population" living in Greece in 2001 was 762,191 (47,000 of them EU citizens), making up approximately seven percent of the total population of the total population. Of these migrants, 2,927 were registered as refugees.

It is estimated that the real number of immigrants is higher many analysts believe that migrants make up as much as 10 percent of the population. They cite, among other factors, the fact that the 2001 Census was carried out before the implementation of Act 2910/2001, otherwise referred to as Greece's second regularization program. This legislation dealt with "the admission and residence of foreigners in Greece and the acqusition of Greek nationality through naturalization." Because of their illegal status, a good number of immigrants escaped census registration, while still others entered the country specifically to take advantage of regularization.

Immigration is the cause of population increase and demographic renewal in Greece in the period between the 1991 and 2001 censuses. The average number of children per woman in Greece has fallen to 1.3, against a European average of 1.5, and well below the average of 2.1 required for the reproduction of a population. Of the immigrant population, on the other hand, 16.7 percent are in the 0-14 age bracket, 79.8 percent in the 15-64 age bracket, and only 3.5 percent in the over-65 age bracket. The respective percentages for the national population are 15.2 percent, 67.7 percent, and 17 percent, demonstrating the key role immigrants of child-bearing age play in the population as a whole. Albanians, who are mainly married couples raising families, are the youngest population overall. In contrast, immigrants from the United States, Canada, and Australia have the highest percentages of people in the over-65 age bracket, because they are mainly pensioner returnees of Greek origin.

Males and females make up 54.5 percent and 45.5 percent of the total, respectively. However, gender composition varies widely among the various nationalities. Albanians and Romanians show the most balanced picture, because the percentages of males fluctuate just above the average with 59 percent and 57 percent, respectively. Other nationalities show sharp asymmetries, where either males or females far outnumber the other gender. For example, females make up almost two thirds of the immigrants from the former Soviet Union and Bulgaria, as well as approximately four-fifths of the Filipinos. On the other end, immigrants from Pakistan and India are almost exclusively male.

Fifty-four percent of the immigrants enter the country for work. Family reunification (13 percent) and repatriation (7 percent) are other main reasons they give for their arrival. Albanians show the highest level of participation in family reunification and immigrants from United States, Canada, and Australia in repatriation—a confirmation of the Greek origin of these immigrants. An unspecified "other reason" concerns 21.5 percent of the total, while "asylum" and "refugee" status seekers account for 1.6 percent.

National Origins of Recent Migrants

In the 1990 to 2001 period of mass immigration to Greece, immigrants arrived in two waves. The first was that of the early 1990s, in which Albanians dominated. The second arrived after 1995, and involved much greater participation of immigrants from other Balkan states, the former Soviet Union, Pakistan, and India. The majority of Albanians arrived in the first wave however, the collapse of enormous "pyramid schemes" in Albania's banking sector in 1996 also spurred significant migration.

According to the 2001 Census, the largest group of immigrants draws its origins from the Balkan countries of Albania, Bulgaria, and Romania. People from these countries make up almost two-thirds of the total "foreign population." Migrants from the former Soviet Union (Georgia, Russia, Ukraine, Moldava, etc.) comprise 10 percent of the total the EU countries approximately six percent. A heterogeneous group of people from places such as the United States, Canada, and Australia (mostly first or second-generation Greek emigrants returning home), also account for around six percent. Finally, a residual group from a wide variety of countries makes up 13 percent. None of the individual countries included in this last group exceeds two percent of the total "foreign population."

Of the main countries of origin, Albania accounts for 57.5 percent of the total, with second-place Bulgaria far outdistanced with 4.6 percent. Common borders with both of these countries have facilitated crossing over to Greece, leading to a cyclical form of immigration.

Education and Workforce Participation

Nearly one-half of the migrants have secondary education (including technical-skill schools) and one-third have either completed or acquired primary school education. Almost one-tenth have higher education. A qualitative analysis of the educational levels of the various nationalities shows that, comparatively speaking, Albanians have the lowest level of education and former Soviet citizens the highest. In terms of higher education, females have the largest share of the total, while males appear to predominate in all other educational categories.

Immigrants are almost exclusively (90 percent) engaged in wage work and, to a much lesser extent, are self-employed (6.5 percent). Most of the jobs are non-skilled, manual work well below the immigrants' level of education and qualifications.

According to the 2001 census data, the majority of immigrants (54 percent) enter Greece for work. Bulgarians and Romanians are the nationalities that most often cite employment as the most important reason for immigrating to Greece. Immigrants are mainly employed in construction (24.5 percent), "other services," meaning mostly domestic work (20.5 percent), agriculture (17.5 percent), and "commerce, hotels, and restaurants" (15.7 percent).

Because of the size of their presence in the total immigrant population, Albanians dominate in all sectors. Within the Albanian nationality, however, construction absorbs the highest percentage (32 percent), followed by agriculture (21 percent), and then "other services" (15 percent). In contrast, Bulgarians are mostly occupied in agriculture (33 percent) and "other services" (29 percent).

In the construction sector, immigrants currently provide a quarter of the wage labor, and in agriculture, a fifth of the total labor expended (almost 90 percent of the non-family wage labor). Immigrants play an important structural role in both sectors.

"Other services" —a sector identified with domestic services where female migrant labor predominates—mostly employs immigrants from the former Soviet Union (37 percent) and Bulgaria. At the same time, employment in domestic services allows larger numbers of Greek women to join the labor market.

Immigration Policy Developments

The Greek government has been unprepared to receive the large numbers of immigrants of the last decade, and has hesitated to introduce the necessary legal and institutional changes for the regularization and integration of this population.

The government, however, was forced to adopt a regularization procedure under often contradictory pressures. From one side, in an environment of growing xenophobia, the public demanded the registration of immigrants. From another, human rights and labor organizations sought more humanitarian and less exploitative treatment.

The first regularization program to handle recent illegal migration was introduced as late as 1997 with Presidential Decrees 358/1997 and 359/1997. These aimed at the implementation of Act 1975/1991 on the "entry-exit, residence, employment, expulsion of foreigners and procedure for the recognition of the status of refugee for foreigners."

The twin decrees gave unregistered immigrants the opportunity to acquire a "white card" temporary residence permit. This, in turn, gave them time to submit the complementary documents necessary to acquire a "green card" work and residence permit. To qualify for the "white card" they had to have lived in Greece for at least one year, and submit documents testifying to their good health, a clean court and police record, and proof of having paid national social insurance contributions for a total of 40 working days in 1998. A total of 150 days of social insurance contributions were required for the acquisition of the green card. No registration fees were charged at this stage.

By the end of the first regularization, 371,641 immigrants had been registered for the white card, but only 212,860 received a green card. It is estimated that less than half of the migrants living in the country were registered during this first regularization program.

In 2001, the goverment passed Act 2910/2001 on "the admission and residence of foreigners in Greece and the acquisition of Greek nationality through naturalization." This gave immigrants a second opportunity to legalize their status, provided they could show proof of residence for at least a year before the implementation of the law. Immigrants were given a six-month period to submit all the necessary documents to acquire the work permit, which became the precondition for obtaining a residence permit.

The two regularization methods differed, but the documents required for both were similar. The most important differences were that in 2001 the immigrant had to submit a copy of an official contract with his or her employer for a specific period of time, as well as confirmation that national social insurance contributions had been paid for at least 200 working days (which could also be paid for by the immigrants themselves). In addition, a payment of 147 euros per person over the age of 14 was required. All applicants to the 1997 regularization program whose permits had expired by 2001 were subject to the provisions of the new law.

The 2001 act also set preconditions for future legal migration into the country, giving the Organization of Employment and Labor (OAED) the responsibility to prepare an annual report that would specify labor requirements at the occupational and regional levels in order to define quotas for temporary work permits. These job vacancies would be advertised in the sending countries by Greek embassies, which would also be responsible for receiving the applications for those jobs. To date, however,the government has not begun this procedure.

When the official application deadline for this second regularization program expired in August 2001, it was reported that 351,110 migrants had submitted their documents for the acquisition of a work permit — a precondition for the provision of a residence permit. However, bureaucracy and the lack of the necessary infrastructure created tremendous problems and delays in the processing of the applications. This forced the government to give temporary residence to all applicants until the end of June 2003, recently extended to the end of October 2003. By then, the government expected to have all the applications processed. Once more, however, promises were not fullfilled and thousands of migrants remain "hostages" of a sluggish legal and institutional structure.

The enthusiasm shown by immigrants upon the announcement of the latest act has now vanished. This is as a result of, on the one hand, the weakness of public administration in supporting the implementation of the act and, on the other, the act's "philosophy" of continuous checks and controls that make it difficult to implement. These weaknesses have been identified and raised by many organizations and institutions directly or indirectly involved with the issue. The Greek ombudsman, in a report to the minister of interior, warned as early as 2001 of the implementation problems and asked for amendments that would make it work for the benefit of both immigrants and the Greek public administration.

However, amendments to the act introduced by the government in 2002 did not address the problems connected with the one-year duration of the work and residence permits, the yearly fee for the residence permit for the applicants, and the insurmountable bureaucratic problems. Only recently, the government decided to extend the residence permit to two years starting from January 2004 (Act 3202/2003).

In the meantime, in order to overcome bureaucratic obstacles, many immigrants have had to either hire lawyers to handle their regularization procedure, or lose time and money standing in lines.

To date, the integration of migrants into Greek society appears to have resulted largely from laborious individual/family strategies of the migrants themselves, rather than from the provisions of an institutional framework. This may change as government efforts to systematize integration take hold.

Greece's integration policy was designed and announced by the government in 2002 in its "Action Plan for the Social Integration of Immigrants for the Period 2002-2005." The plan includes measures for the labor market integration and training of immigrants, improved access to the health system, emergency centers for immigrant support, and measures for the improvement of cultural exchanges among the various ethnic communities. However, the implementation of the plan has yet to begin.

Two of the reasons for the non-implementation of the plan appear to include pressure on the state budget to complete the nation's preparations for the Olympic Games, as well as the long, politically sensitive period before the national elections of March 7, 2004.

At this stage, despite the acknowledged importance of migration in Greek economy and society, migration in general and integration in specific do not seem to be high on the government agenda. The expressed anxieties of human rights and migrant organizations about integration and migration policy seem to have done little to shift the debate. Integration may come to the foreground again, however, in connection with social unrest that could follow the foreseen negative prospects of the economy in the post-Olympics period.

Immigrants have contributed significantly to the improved performance of the Greek economy over the past few years, and they have boosted Greece's successful participation in the EU's economic and monetary union. Their structural role in the workforce of the construction and agricultural sectors has been widely acknowledged. Despite a high level of unemployment, which is estimated at nine percent for the country as a whole, there appears to be no serious competition by native Greeks for the kinds of jobs secured by immigrants. On the contrary, immigrants have played a rather complementary economic role.

However, the current high growth rate of the Greek economy—five percent in the EU in 2003—is expected to slow down after the completion of the facilities for the Olympic Games, which have driven huge amounts of activity in construction and other sectors. In addition, the funds allocated to Greece under the European Union's new support framework are expected to shrink following the EU's enlargement in 2004. These economic pressures, along with the uncertainties evident in the legal and institutional framework for the regularization and integration of immigrants, if not dealt with, are expected to lead to social friction and extensive racism and xenophobia in the next few years.

Cavounidis, J. and Hadjaki, L. (2000), Migrant Applicants for the Card of Temporary Residence: Nationality, Gender, and Placement. Athens: National Institute of Labour (in Greek).

Fakiolas, R. (2003), 'Regularising Undocumented Immigrants in Greece: Procedures and Effects', Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 29 (3): 535-561.

Fakiolas R. and King R. (1996), 'Emigration,Return, Immigration: A Review and Evaluation of Greece's Experience of International Migration', International Journal of Population Geography, Vol. 2, 171-190.

Kasimis C., Papadopoulos A. G., Zacopoulou E. (2003), 'Migrants in Rural Greece', Sociologia Ruralis, Vol 43, Number 2, pp. 167-184.

King, R. (2000), 'Southern Europe in the Changing Global Map of Migration', in King, R., Lazaridis, G. and Tsardanidis, Ch. (eds) Eldorado or Fortress? Migration in Southern Europe. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 1-26.

Lianos, Th. and Papakonstantinou, P. (2003) Modern Migration Toward Greece: Economic Investigation. Athens: KEPE, Studies, No 51 (in Greek).

National Statistical Service of Greece (NSSG) (2003), Population Census 2001. Available online.

OECD (2003), Trends in International Migration: Annual Report, SOPEMI.

Ombudsman's Office (2001), Special Report on the Problems of the Application of the Aliens Law 2910/2001, Athens, National Publishing Agency (in Greek).

Sarris A. and Zografakis S. (1999), 'A Computable General Equilibrium Assessment of the Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Greek Economy', Journal of Population Economics, 12: 155-182.


A Short History of Human Rights

The belief that everyone, by virtue of her or his humanity, is entitled to certain human rights is fairly new. Its roots, however, lie in earlier tradition and documents of many cultures it took the catalyst of World War II to propel human rights onto the global stage and into the global conscience.

Throughout much of history, people acquired rights and responsibilities through their membership in a group – a family, indigenous nation, religion, class, community, or state. Most societies have had traditions similar to the "golden rule" of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Hindu Vedas, the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, the Bible, the Quran (Koran), and the Analects of Confucius are five of the oldest written sources which address questions of people’s duties, rights, and responsibilities. In addition, the Inca and Aztec codes of conduct and justice and an Iroquois Constitution were Native American sources that existed well before the 18th century. In fact, all societies, whether in oral or written tradition, have had systems of propriety and justice as well as ways of tending to the health and welfare of their members.

Precursors of 20th Century Human Rights Documents

Documents asserting individual rights, such the Magna Carta (1215), the English Bill of Rights (1689), the French Declaration on the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789), and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights (1791) are the written precursors to many of today’s human rights documents. Yet many of these documents, when originally translated into policy, excluded women, people of color, and members of certain social, religious, economic, and political groups. Nevertheless, oppressed people throughout the world have drawn on the principles these documents express to support revolutions that assert the right to self-determination.

Contemporary international human rights law and the establishment of the United Nations (UN) have important historical antecedents. Efforts in the 19th century to prohibit the slave trade and to limit the horrors of war are prime examples. In 1919, countries established the International Labor Organization (ILO) to oversee treaties protecting workers with respect to their rights, including their health and safety. Concern over the protection of certain minority groups was raised by the League of Nations at the end of the First World War. However, this organization for international peace and cooperation, created by the victorious European allies, never achieved its goals. The League floundered because the United States refused to join and because the League failed to prevent Japan’s invasion of China and Manchuria (1931) and Italy’s attack on Ethiopia (1935). It finally died with the onset of the Second World War (1939).

The Birth of the United Nations

The idea of human rights emerged stronger after World War II. The extermination by Nazi Germany of over six million Jews, Sinti and Romani (gypsies), homosexuals, and persons with disabilities horrified the world. Trials were held in Nuremberg and Tokyo after World War II, and officials from the defeated countries were punished for committing war crimes, "crimes against peace," and "crimes against humanity."

Governments then committed themselves to establishing the United Nations, with the primary goal of bolstering international peace and preventing conflict. People wanted to ensure that never again would anyone be unjustly denied life, freedom, food, shelter, and nationality. The essence of these emerging human rights principles was captured in President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1941 State of the Union Address when he spoke of a world founded on four essential freedoms: freedom of speech and religion and freedom from want and fear (See Using Human Rights Here & Now). The calls came from across the globe for human rights standards to protect citizens from abuses by their governments, standards against which nations could be held accountable for the treatment of those living within their borders. These voices played a critical role in the San Francisco meeting that drafted the United Nations Charter pada tahun 1945.

Pengisytiharan Hak Asasi Manusia Sejagat

Member states of the United Nations pledged to promote respect for the human rights of all. To advance this goal, the UN established a Commission on Human Rights and charged it with the task of drafting a document spelling out the meaning of the fundamental rights and freedoms proclaimed in the Charter. The Commission, guided by Eleanor Roosevelt’s forceful leadership, captured the world’s attention.

On December 10, 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the 56 members of the United Nations. The vote was unanimous, although eight nations chose to abstain.

The UDHR, commonly referred to as the international Magna Carta, extended the revolution in international law ushered in by the United Nations Charter – namely, that how a government treats its own citizens is now a matter of legitimate international concern, and not simply a domestic issue. It claims that all rights are interdependent dan indivisible. Its Preamble eloquently asserts that:

The influence of the UDHR has been substantial. Its principles have been incorporated into the constitutions of most of the more than 185 nations now in the UN. Although a pengisytiharan is not a legally binding document, the Universal Declaration has achieved the status of customary international law because people regard it "as a common standard of achievement for all people and all nations."

The Human Rights Covenants

With the goal of establishing mechanisms for enforcing the UDHR, the UN Commission on Human Rights proceeded to draft two treaties: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its optional Protokol and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Together with the Universal Declaration, they are commonly referred to as the International Bill of Human Rights. The ICCPR focuses on such issues as the right to life, freedom of speech, religion, and voting. The ICESCR focuses on such issues as food, education, health, and shelter. Kedua-duanya covenants trumpet the extension of rights to all persons and prohibit discrimination.

As of 1997, over 130 nations have ratified these covenants. The United States, however, has ratified only the ICCPR, and even that with many reservations, or formal exceptions, to its full compliance. (See From Concept to Convention: How Human Rights Law Evolves).

Subsequent Human Rights Documents

In addition to the covenants in the International Bill of Human Rights, the United Nations has adopted more than 20 principal treaties further elaborating human rights. These include conventions to prevent and prohibit specific abuses like torture and pembunuhan beramai-ramai and to protect especially vulnerable populations, such as refugees (Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951), women (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979), and children (Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989). As of 1997 the United States has ratified only these conventions:

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

The Convention on the Political Rights of Women

The Slavery Convention of 1926

In Europe, the Americas, and Africa, regional documents for the protection and promotion of human rights extend the International Bill of Human Rights. For example, African states have created their own Charter of Human and People’s Rights (1981), and Muslim states have created the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990). The dramatic changes in Eastern Europe, Africa, and Latin America since 1989 have powerfully demonstrated a surge in demand for respect of human rights. Popular movements in China, Korea, and other Asian nations reveal a similar commitment to these principles.

The Role of Nongovernmental Organizations

Globally the champions of human rights have most often been citizens, not government officials. In particular, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have played a cardinal role in focusing the international community on human rights issues. For example, NGO activities surrounding the 1995 United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China, drew unprecedented attention to serious violations of the human rights of women. NGOs such as Amnesty International, the Antislavery Society, the International Commission of Jurists, the International Working Group on Indigenous Affairs, Human Rights Watch, Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, and Survivors International monitor the actions of governments and pressure them to act according to human rights principles.

Government officials who understand the human rights framework can also effect far reaching change for freedom. Many United States Presidents such as Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Jimmy Carter have taken strong stands for human rights. In other countries leaders like Nelson Mandela and Vaclev Havel have brought about great changes under the banner of human rights.

Human rights is an idea whose time has come. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a call to freedom and justice for people throughout the world. Every day governments that violate the rights of their citizens are challenged and called to task. Every day human beings worldwide mobilize and confront injustice and inhumanity. Like drops of water falling on a rock, they wear down the forces of oppression and move the world closer to achieving the principles expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Source: Adapted from David Shiman, Teaching Human Rights, (Denver: Center for Teaching International Relations Publications, U of Denver, 1993): 6-7.


Right to education

Prison inmate and university student Vasilis Dimakis went on hunger and thirst strike in April and May, protesting that his transfer to Grevena prison and then to an isolation cell in the female ward of Korydallos prison prevented him from continuing his university education. Vasilis Dimakis ended his strike at the end of May. Following pressure from civil society, he was returned to his original cell in Korydallos prison, where he was able to continue his studies.


Greek Influence on U.S. Democracy

The United States has a complex government system. One important tenet of this system is democracy, in which the ultimate power rests with the people. In the case of the United States, that power is exercised indirectly, through elected representatives. Although the U.S. has been a strong proponent of democracy, it did not invent democracy. The Greeks are often credited with pioneering a democratic government that went on to influence the structure of the United States. Read this article that describes how elements of ancient Greek democracy heavily influenced the figures that designed the United States government.

Social Studies, Civics, U.S. History

This lists the logos of programs or partners of NG Education which have provided or contributed the content on this page. Leveled by

After declaring independence from England in 1776, the founders of the United States possessed a unique opportunity to create a government of their choosing. This was a momentous task, and for guidance they looked to what they deemed the best philosophies and examples of government throughout world history. Along with the Roman model, the democratic model of ancient Greece&rsquos system of self-government greatly influenced how the founding fathers set out to construct the new United States government.

Prior to independence, the east coast of what is today the United States was divided into 13 separate colonies. The founders of the United States decided to keep the country divided into states rather than dissolving the colonial boundaries. They did this so that each region could be governed at a local level, with a national government acting as a dominant authority over all. These 13 colonies would become the first states of the newly established country.

A U.S. state resembles the community structure of an ancient Greek polis, or city-state. A polis was composed of an urban center and the land surrounding it, developments similar to that of the major cities and state capitals in the United States and the rural areas surrounding them. In ancient Greece, some of the main city-states were Athens, Sparta, Corinth, Thebes, and Syracuse. These city-states acted independently for the most part. However, sometimes they engaged in war against each other. They also banded together to defend Greece from foreign invaders.

All Greek city-states had sets of rules by which the people lived in observance and laws they were required to obey. In ancient Greece the idea of rule of law came from the philosopher Aristotle&rsquos belief in natural law. He claimed the existence of a higher justice in nature&mdashcertain essential rights&mdashthat superseded the laws written by humans. Aristotle believed that people should align themselves with this natural law and govern by its ethics.

In the United States today, the rule of law is a principle that ensures that all laws are publicly accessible, equally enforced, and independently judged, and that they adhere to international human rights ethics. The rule of law is important because it allows all individuals and institutions (including the government itself) to be held accountable for their actions. By agreeing to follow the rule of law, the United States can prevent abuses of power by leaders who might act as if they are above the law.

Another important ancient Greek concept that influenced the formation of the United States government was the written constitution. Aristotle, or possibly one of his students, compiled and recorded The Constitution of the Athenians and the laws of many other Greek city-states. Having a written constitution creates a common standard as to how people should behave and what rules they must follow. It also establishes clear processes by which people who break the law are judged and those who are harmed as a result can be compensated or given justice.

Suka The Constitution of the Athenians, the U.S. Constitution is a vital document. It lays out the government&rsquos structure and how the checks and balances of power within it relate to one another. The U.S. Constitution acts as the supreme law of the country and establishes individual citizens&rsquo rights, such as the right to free speech or the right to a trial by a jury of one&rsquos peers. Today, the U.S. Constitution is still regularly referenced in law as the supreme law of the land and is enforced by the U.S. Supreme Court, the country&rsquos highest court.

The original U.S. voting system had some similarities with that of Athens. In Athens, every citizen could speak his mind and vote at a large assembly that met to create laws. Citizens were elected to special councils to serve as organizers, decision-makers, and judges. However, the only people considered citizens in Athens were males over the age of 18. Women, slaves, and conquered peoples could not vote in the assembly or be chosen to serve on councils.

The founders of the United States similarly believed that only certain people should be allowed to vote and elect officials. They chose to structure the United States as a representative democracy. This means that citizens elect officials, such as senators and representatives, who vote on behalf of the citizens they represent in Congress. It also means that instead of each individual citizen voting for president directly, a body called the Electoral College officially casts the votes of each state for president. As in Athens, when the United States was founded only white, landowning men were allowed to vote. Over time, however, all U.S. citizens over the age of 18 who have not been convicted of a felony have gained the right to vote.

The principles behind the ancient Greeks&rsquo democratic system of government are still in use today. The United States and many other countries throughout the modern world have adopted democratic governments to give a voice to their people. Democracy provides citizens the opportunity to elect officials to represent them. It also allows citizens to choose to elect a different person to represent them if they are dissatisfied with their current elected officials. Today, democracy and the rule of law provide people around the world with a means of protecting their human rights and holding each other accountable as equals under the law.


Greece accused of human rights violations

AMNESTY International has accused Greece of flouting European humanitarian law by employing police brutality and torture in its treatment of detainees, particularly asylum-seekers and minorities.

In a report released on Tuesday, the campaign group referred to 66 cases of alleged human rights violations in the member state, which takes on the EU presidency in January 2003.

It is now calling on the EU to act decisively to combat abuses within its borders.

“Amnesty International believes that serious infractions of fundamental rights in one EU member state are not just the responsibility of that country, but should also be the proper concern of the EU as a whole,” Dick Oosting, director of Amnesty’s EU office in Brussels, said in a statement.

The group is urging the current EU president, Denmark, to put in place a system of “real accountability” to tackle human rights abuses before it hands over the reins to Greece at the end of the year.

The report echoes the findings of a similar study published in June by a coalition of European and Mediterranean human rights groups.

Meanwhile, Amnesty has also called on the EU to expose China to harsher criticism of its human rights record.

It feels that the concern expressed by leading EU figures at their meeting with Chinese premier Zhu Rongji in Copenhagen this week are unlikely to persuade his regime to stop its use of strong-arm tactics to quell democratic dissent.

Amnesty claims the Union’s ‘dialogue’ with Beijing is “effectively a monologue, a self-serving exercise in which the EU is being taken for a ride”.

“Voicing concern at summits is just not good enough when your partner refuses to listen,” said Oosting.

“It is time for the EU to strike a different balance, complementing its ‘constructive engagement’ with real pressure, through public scrutiny of China’s human rights record at the United Nations.”

The report argues that the international clamp-down on terrorism which followed last year’s 11 September atrocities has been used as a pretext to oppress the mainly Muslim Uighur community in the province of Zinjiang.

And it berates Beijing for having “by far the highest rate of executions in the world”, the heavy-handed nature of its ‘Strike Hard’ anti-crime campaign, the alleged arbitrary detention of Falun Gong meditation practitioners and the reportedly systematic abuse of North Korean asylum seekers.


Tonton videonya: Hapal UUD 1945 #Pasal 28 tentang HAM # khusus yang malas ngapal