Skip to navigation – Site map

HomeIssues8:1Transnational density and transna...

Transnational density and transnational intensity: conceptual insights from repatriation and international evacuation policies

Michelle Morais de Sá e Silva, Edgardo Diaz Vega, Jadyn Davis, Morgan Chen, Typhaine Joffe and Eileah Hale

Abstract

Following extreme climate events and the onset of armed conflict, countries have adopted a diverse mix of policies regarding the evacuation and repatriation of their nationals. What conceptual insights does this mix of policies offer to policy scholarship on the transnational policy process? Are all policies equally transnational? This article presents the first comprehensive review of repatriation and international evacuation policies of 45 countries, addressing issues of policy features and international norms. Building on this extensive empirical dataset, it introduces the concepts of transnational density and of transnational intensity, borrowing from the terminology used in concepts by Bauer and Knill (2012) and allowing for the exploration of variation in the transnational policy process.

Top of page

Author's notes

Funding: This research project has been made possible by the Wick Cary Chair in International and Area Studies at the College of International Studies, University of Oklahoma.

Conflict of interest statement:
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Full text

Introduction

1The public policy process has been defined as the “interactions that occur over time between public policies and the surrounding agents, events, contexts and outcomes” (Weible, 2018, p. 2). Scholars addressing policy transfer and diffusion have come to argue that these surrounding agents, events, contexts, and outcomes exist beyond and in connection with the national realm. For these scholars, the public policy process should be understood as being transnational in nature (Morais de Sa e Silva & Porto de Oliveira, 2023).

2Despite being in its infancy of theoretical development, the transnational approach to the policy process builds upon decades of work by a large community of scholars working on policy diffusion (Berry & Berry, 1990; Porto de Oliveira, 2017), policy transfer (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000), policy circulation (Baker & Walker, 2019), policy mobility and mutation (Peck, 2011), policy borrowing and lending (Steiner-Khamsi, 2004) and global policy (Stone, 2019. Such an approach does not conflate the transnational with the international. The international system, as studied in international relations, is a platform and structure for relationships among sovereign states, non-state actors, international organizations, and multinational companies. The transnational space, instead, is proposed as a fluid space that joins both the national and the international in recognition that public policies are impacted by dynamics that ebb and flow, at multiple times and in different directions, between the national and the international.

3In this framework, this article draws on a 45-country survey research to explore what the reality of repatriation and international evacuation policies tells us about the transnational policy process. Following the onset of the war in Gaza, in October 2023, countries like Brazil and Thailand deployed financial and diplomatic efforts to get their citizens safely out of the Gaza strip. That involved high-level political negotiations with Israeli officials, as well as investing funds in providing free transportation and accommodation for those en route to their national home, including nationals of neighboring countries. Other countries, such as the United States, followed their policy of providing repatriation avenues but charging for return travel expenses. Finally, and across this apparent spectrum, countries such as Canada did not make significant changes to the current policy of not taking responsibility for citizens abroad, except on a case-by-case basis. What insights does this mix of policies offer to the transnational approach to the policy process? Are all policy processes equally transnational?

4To address these questions, this research project involved primary data collection aiming at: 1) taking stock of the state of the art of various countries' repatriation and international evacuation policies and practices (see section 4); 2) exploring implications for the literature on the transnational policy process to further refine its concepts and frameworks (see section 5). This article’s empirical focus is specifically on repatriation on evacuation policies, a part of the broader migration policy subsystem, which also includes policies on refugees, economic migrants, climate migrants, as well as nationals leaving the country and then possibly returning for various reasons, including deportation. This article does not address the other policies within the broader migration subsystem.

5As a result of a methodologically inductive process of data coding and analysis, two concepts emerged: transnational density and transnational intensity, taking inspiration from the concepts of policy density and intensity by Bauer and Knill (2012). Transnational density is defined in this article as the degree to which a policy subsystem involves policy problems that bear transnational causes or implications. In contrast, transnational intensity is defined as the degree to which transnational norms guide, direct, or even dictate domestic policies in each policy subsystem. The proposed concepts indicate that the transnational nature of the policy process is complex and therefore requires a refined understanding of policy problems and the international norms applicable to a particular policy subsystem. Our main argument is that the transnational nature of the policy process varies according to the transnationality of these two elements.

6Why does it matter? It matters because empirical observation of some policy subsystems may misguide the observer and lead to an underestimation of the transnational space in which public policies exist. Some public policies may have been enacted to address policy problems that are not spilling over national borders. In other cases, public policies may exist in a transnational space where international law and norms do not heavily influence policymaking. These cases do not negate the existence of the transnational policy process; rather, they highlight nuances that we must better explain.

7Equally important, the article presents a comprehensive review of the repatriation and international evacuation policies of 45 countries. Hence, beyond its conceptual development intent, it provides valuable inputs to experts, government officials, and staff members of international organizations dedicated to migration work.

8The scope and limitations of our work are clear. This article does not launch or test the transnational approach to the policy process. This has been done elsewhere in the literature. This approach is adopted as the analytical framework for this article. Additionally, empirical findings should be strictly read within the confines of policies of repatriation and international evacuation. The migration policy subsystem is diverse both in terms of the policy problems it comprises and the international norms and regimes that have been established. In other words, empirical findings presented in this article may not transfer over to cases involving refugee policies, for instance.

9The article is structured as follows. It begins with a review of the transnational policy process literature and the understudied field of repatriation and evacuation policies. After detailing the research methodology, it presents a comparative analysis of policies across 45 countries. The findings then enable the introduction of the conceptual framework, which builds on the concepts of transnational density and transnational intensity, before concluding with a summary of its contributions.

The transnational policy process

10As early as the 1990s, scholars argued for a specialized subfield in public policy, which they called ‘global policy studies’ (Nagel, 1998). Nagel’s early work paired important fields of domestic policymaking in developing countries with needed international policy coordination among them. Even though his early work still leaned on the domestic versus international divide, it did pioneer a vision for global policy studies. Around the same time, Reinicke and Copeland (1998) used the idea of global public policy to direct attention to policymaking at the global level. They believed this approach would enable ‘governance without government’. This generation of scholars pioneered the study of influences on policymaking from outside the sovereign state at a time of heightened attention to globalization.

11Since then, scholars across various fields have analyzed the effects of globalization on public policies. Field-specific concepts were developed, such as the “educational borrowing and lending” framework in comparative education (Steiner-Khamsi, 2004). In social policy, a vast field of studies emerged around the idea of global social policy. As in education, social policy scholars were contending with the impacts of globalization (Yeates, 2002), arguing that attention was needed to the role and influence of international organizations (Deacon, 1997) and other actors beyond the nation state. More recently, Lendvai and Stubbs (2007) proposed the idea of the transnational dimensions of social policy, which they define as “dimensions of policy which comprise levels beyond the individual nation state” (p. 173). Unlike the transnational approach proposed in this article, Lendvai and Stubbs were rather concerned with the tensions between the policy standards and models crafted at the international level and the local realities of public policy, which reflected policy translations.

12An important part of the literature in policy studies at large has been animated by the observation of traveling policies, whereby public policies are actively transferred across contexts, some of them crossing national borders. From the classic definition of policy transfer (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000) to the concepts of policy circulation (Baker & Walker, 2019), global policy (Stone, 2019), and policy diffusion (Porto de Oliveira et al., 2023), this line of inquiry has drawn generations of policy scholars puzzled with the cross-context and, at times, international lives of public policies. On the one hand, this literature has been driven by the emergence and diffusion of global policy models. On the other hand, neo-institutionalist perspectives predicted that public policies and practices were poised to become standardized because of globalization, in what was called isomorphism (Meyer et al., 1997).

13As Stone (2004) pointed out, the public policy literature needed to overcome methodological nationalism by also acknowledging the multitude of international actors who play a role in the policy process. Important literature has since emerged at the intersection of global governance, transnational administration, and public policy, highlighting the policymaking work that unfolds in the global governance space (Stone & Ladi, 2015; Moloney & Stone, 2019).

14This field of scholarship has been dedicated to looking at processes, actors, space (Porto de Oliveira & Pal, 2018), and time (Morais de Sa e Silva & Porto de Oliveira, 2023), scoping the details of a multiplicity of case studies. Using a refined zoom into policy transfer dynamics, some scholars came to question the impact of globalization on national and local public policies, offering the counterargument of policy mobility within a greater understanding of policy geographies (Peck, 2011).

15Decades later, the literature on policy transfer and diffusion has evolved to include the idea that the policy process may, in fact, have a transnational existence, which Morais de Sa e Silva and Porto de Oliveira (2023, p. 422) termed “the transnational policy process”. Although recognition that the transnational matters is not new in the literature, this approach seeks to move beyond that recognition and to incorporate it to the ‘theories of the policy process’ (Weible, 2023). The approach seeks to end the analytical divide between the domestic and the international by merging the two. Public policies are conceived as inhabiting a transnational environment and being impacted by structures and agents that are fluid across the borders of the sovereign state. In the transnational policy process, public policies are not just the result of domestic political, economic, and social factors. They are also fostered within a framework of international norms, international cooperation, international organizations, as well as traveling actors, ideas, and policy models. However, they are not simply the direct result of the imposition of international standards upon domestic policymaking. The transnational space being a fluid space that merges the domestic and the international, these elements are in coexistence and often in dispute.

16The transnational policy process should be distinguished from the concept of global policy, proposed by Stone (2020) as a response to global problems. While global policy is the answer to global problems, the transnational policy process encompasses all policies, including those that, while still fixated in local or national problems, are crafted in a broader environment that is filled with transnational actors, ideas, and references across space and time. It is that transnational backdrop that scholars of the policy process now seek to theorize.

17Admittedly, policy studies have not been alone and much less in the vanguard of seeking to make sense of transnational processes. Other fields have for long recognized the value of understanding state behavior beyond the traditional lenses of electoral politics or entrenched interests. International Relations (IR) scholars have for decades sought to explain how international regimes and norms impact state behavior (Risse & Sikkink, 1999; Simmons, 2009). They have acknowledged that non-state actors matter as much as sovereign states in the transnational space (Keck & Sikkink, 2014) and have studied the role of international organizations in producing outcomes that could not be explained otherwise (Finnemore, 1993; Barnett & Finnemore, 2004; Reinalda & Verbeek, 2004). Naturally, the IR interest is to be found in the international system and in international society (Bull, 1977), as scholars work to show directionally from the international to the domestic in causal explanations.

18Public policy scholars distinguish themselves from IR by focusing on policies as their independent variable. Interest lays in public policies first and foremost, tracing how policymaking at the domestic level connects to dynamics beyond national borders. These internationally minded policy scholars have struggled to get attention in their own field, as mainstream theories of the policy process have been detached from international analysis. For public policy, the transnational approach overcomes that tension between the domestic and the international, which has animated much dispute between political scientists and international relations scholars.

19This discussion raises an important question: are all public policies equally transnational? Repatriation and international evacuation policies present a critical case. As people are trying to cross borders to escape danger and governments are trying to extract their nationals from the territories of other sovereign states, the transnationality of the policy process seems to be clearly present. However, findings presented in this manuscript reveal a nuanced reality: if on the one hand the policy problem is transnational in nature, revealing transnational density, there is great variation in policy design as a result of thin international norms in a policy process of lower transnational intensity.

20Methodologically, this requires abandoning the single-country case-study methods that used to dominate the field and instead invest in the survey of existing policies at a given time within a specific policy subsystem. While this kind of snapshot research conceals underlying processes, it does give a comparative picture of the shared transnational existence of public policies in a policy subsystem.

Studies of repatriation and evacuation policies

21It is important to note that migration literature has itself grappled with the idea and concept of transnationalism. According to Tedeschi, Vorobeva, and Jauhiainen (2022, p. 604), “connectedness across borders, the formality/informality of frequent cross-border activities and practices, and the high intensity and degree of cross-border exchanges are the main characteristics of a transnationalism ‘from below’”. The authors review a large body of literature that examines the transnational experience of people moving across not only formal borders, but also across cultures, languages, political and economic systems, and experiences of belonging. The idea of transnationalism in the migration literature directly speaks and connects with the transnational approach to the policy process: policies, just like people in movement, are to be understood in the broader transnational space and experience.

22Within migration studies, the specialized literature on repatriation and international evacuation is unfortunately scarce and sparse, with no existing literature review, which we hope to accomplish in this article. There is first and foremost limited consensus on the precise definitions of repatriation and international evacuation in scholarly literature. Mawby and Martin (2016) are among the few to offer formal definitions. They define “repatriation” as the process of “bring[ing] or send[ing] a person to his or her country of origin” and “return” broadly as any instance of a person going back to their country of origin (p. 9). “Evacuation” occurs when people are removed from a dangerous area, whether that involves return to the country of origin or movement to a safer third location (pp. 1, 9). Zeveleva (2014) also broadly defines repatriation as any instance of an individual returning to their place of origin. Liao (2023) agrees with the broad definition but emphasizes the role of actors in repatriation, calling it “a process of facilitated return that involves a multiplicity of actors, institutional structures, and policies.” Batistella (2018) uses the term “return of crisis” to refer to instances of return catalyzed by a crisis, a term which is uncommon in other literature. Tindall and Hart (2011) also use a less common term, “consular emergency,” referring to an instance “in which a considerable number of nationals are affected by a disaster while abroad” (p. 137). “Consular assistance,” in this vocabulary, refers to state action to assist nationals abroad in leaving a dangerous situation (Tindall, 2012, p. 103). The majority of authors, however, provide no explicit definition of repatriation, evacuation, return, or any other term.

23Literature specifically focused on evacuation is more limited, and it is highly focused on case studies of specific countries or specific crises. A few crises and countries are overrepresented. Liao (2023), Batistella (2018), and Vilog and Ballesteros (2015) all focus on the Philippines’ process of repatriating its nationals in cases of crisis, given that the Philippines sends a significant number of migrant workers abroad. Schwarz and McConnell (2009) describe how Australia evacuated its nationals from Lebanon when tensions broke out with Israel in 2006, and Kulling and Sigurdsson (2008) provide a similar analysis for Sweden. Zampagni et al. (2017) describe the return of migrants from five African countries after the outbreak of civil unrest in Libya in 2011, while Siddiqui and Bhuiyan (2013) and Zerba (2014) document Bangladesh’s evacuation and China’s evacuation, respectively. Natural disasters are also common case studies: Leelawat et al. (2017) describe how Thailand evacuated its nationals from Kumamoto Province, Japan after the earthquake in 2016, and Pajarinen et al. (2004) describe Finland’s evacuations of its nationals from Southeast Asia after tsunamis in 2004. By far the most common case study is COVID-19, with reports of evacuations due to the pandemic coming from a range of countries in a range of journals (Rajan & Arokkiaraj, 2022; McDermid et al., 2022; Sencan & Kuzi, 2020; Shaikh Abdul Karim et al., 2020 Kawuki et al., 2021; Rajan & Pattath, 2022; Leelawat et al., 2021).

24Only a few studies take a comparative approach, and virtually all the comparative studies identified in this review focus on COVID-19. Leelawat et al. (2021) compare how various Asian countries evacuated their nationals from Wuhan, China in the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Kawuki et al. (2021) also describe some of the challenges faced by multiple countries which attempted to evacuate its citizens from COVID-affected areas, such as the logistics of travel arrangements and mandatory quarantines. Sencan and Kuzi (2020) similarly point out that many countries faced challenges in arranging quarantine facilities and preventing further spread of the virus. McDermid et al. (2022) argue that many countries provided insufficient support and information to its citizens who were abroad at the start of the pandemic. While these studies are useful for the understanding of commonalities among various countries’ COVID-19 evacuation processes, they do not provide insight into those countries’ formal evacuation policies – given that many COVID-19 evacuations were ad hoc arrangements – and comparative research in general remains limited.

25Additionally, existing evacuation research often centers on the experiences of individuals rather than the policy involved - or lack thereof. In general, researchers focus on the choices made during a crisis by government officials and impacted citizens (Leelawat et al., 2017; Schwarz & McConnell, 2009; Vilog & Ballesteros, 2015; Rajan & Arokkiaraj, 2022; Sencan & Kuzi, 2020; Shaikh Abdul Karim et al., 2022; Pajarinen et al., 2004) or the challenges of transit and reintegration on returnees (Zampagni et al., 2017; Rajan & Arokkiaraj, 2022; Vilog & Ballesteros, 2015; Kawuki et al., 2021). Where the evacuation process or evacuation infrastructure is centered, the focus is generally on the way seemingly ad hoc institutions were designed in response to a crisis, not what a priori policies had been in place or were carried out (Leelawat et al., 2021; Schwarz & McConnell, 2009; Rajan & Arokkiaraj, 2022; Leelawat et al., 2017; Sencan & Kuzi, 2020; Shaikh Abdul Karim et al., 2022; Pajarinen et al., 2004).

26There are a few exceptions to the above finding, although in a rather limited comparative scope. Liu and Gammon (2022), with their comparison between U.S. and Chinese evacuation processes, do address each country’s standing policy. Forni (2012) explains that under Decision 95/553 of the European Union, EU countries collaborate to evacuate each other’s citizens from a crisis. Still, the literature leaves open multiple questions about the details of specific policies in a wider range of countries, as well as areas of convergence and divergence among multiple policies.

27Despite these different studies, there remains a significant gap in the literature on comparative policy analysis. Most existing research focuses on single-country or crisis-specific case studies, leaving a void of systematic comparisons of policies across different countries and contexts. Against this backdrop, this project seeks to add to the literature by taking a comparative perspective on repatriation and international evacuation policies outside of specific crises.

Research and data collection methods

28The first stage of the research design involved collecting primary data on published government policies, official websites, and media articles. The sample includes member states of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which correspond to the largest Western economies, and countries of the Global South with a record of active repatriation and evacuation policies. This resulted in a set of 45 countries: Australia; Austria; Belgium; Brazil; Canada; Chile; China; Colombia; Czech Republic; Costa Rica; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; France; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Iceland; Italy; India; Ireland; Israel; Japan; Latvia; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Mexico; Netherlands; New Zealand; Norway; Philippines; Poland; Portugal; Russia; Slovakia; Slovenia; South Africa; South Korea; Sweden; Spain; Switzerland; Thailand; Turkey; United States; United Kingdom. Even though data collection does not cover all countries, it does include all countries with existing records of repatriation and evacuation policies.

29A database was created with policy documents, academic literature, media articles, and other online sources referring to repatriation and international evacuation efforts. Entries in the database were analyzed by the research team using a codebook. The codebook consisted of a set of initial variables, sub variables, and their corresponding definitions, which guided the data analysis process and the characterization of policies. Additional variables emerged as a result of the data coding process. The codebook assured consistency in data analysis across the research team. Given the absence of consistent terminology in this policy subsystem, the codebook helped the research team analyze data according to shared understandings, interpreting observed data in a consistent way.

30In addition to the survey and analysis of government policies, three expert interviews were conducted to supplement and help clarify data obtained through published government documents. Expert interviews provided important support to guide and inform the analysis of country data. Experts were chosen based on their experience with repatriation and evacuation at the international or domestic levels. Two of them were specialists at international organizations with a mandate on migration — the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization on Migration (IOM). One expert was a government official responsible for migration policies in one of the studied states. Snowball sampling was used to identify experts who could add valuable information and data. The research team used the information gathered from the semi-structured interviews to identify global standards (or the lack thereof), and to learn from the expert's previous experiences with repatriation and evacuation implementation. These interviews only supplement country data and help clarify any discrepancies between policy and practice. Collected data ended in July 2024 and therefore does not include evacuations and repatriations from any other subsequent conflicts and disasters.

Empirical findings: state of the art of repatriation and international evacuation policies and practices

31This section presents the empirical findings of our survey on international evacuation and repatriation policies. Results are divided into a review and categorization of existing policies and the international norms governing the issue. 

One transnational policy problem, little public policy convergence: comparative analysis of repatriation and evacuation policies

32Countries deal with a common policy problem: rescuing nationals stranded in emergencies abroad. When large scale crises emerge, national governments are simultaneously faced with this common transnational policy problem. This shared problem could, in theory, lead to shared or convergent policy, meaning that policies would tend to resemble one another or converge around a policy model through policy transfer or diffusion. However, the conducted survey of policy documents, consular websites, media sources, and academic sources revealed a divergent set of policies and actions across the list of 45 countries. This section details the state of the art of repatriation and international evacuation policies in those countries, reflecting the diverse spectrum of policy responses.

33While countries were initially coded as either having an evacuation and repatriation policy or undertaking ad hoc actions, a distinction was necessary between countries whose repatriation policies outline the concrete actions to be taken in emergencies and countries whose policies state that repatriation may occur. Furthermore, countries with the latter policy can be divided into two categories: those that communicate that evacuation and repatriation are possible, and those that communicate evacuation and repatriation as extreme last resorts. A final category of countries had no identifiable policy documents regarding evacuation and repatriation, and all actions seemed to be ad hoc. Notably, though, each of the 45 countries had undertaken at least one evacuation and repatriation operation according to the data collected in this research.

34The project initially investigated countries’ practices and policies in all types of emergencies – large-scale crises such as natural disasters, and individual crises such as medical problems. However, it was found that some countries differentiate between large-scale and individual crises in their policies and practices. Brazil, for instance, has a detailed policy regarding the repatriation of individuals in vulnerable situations, but the policy notes that actions in large-scale crises may be different. Australia, on the other hand, has a detailed plan of action for large-scale emergencies, but information about evacuation and repatriation during individual crises is limited.

Table 1. Coded categories of repatriation and international evacuation policies and practices

Emergency scale

Group 1. Policy including clear evacuation and repatriation plan

Group 2. Policy stating that evacuation and repatriation may occur in emergencies, with ad hoc actions

Group 3. Policy stating that evacuation and repatriation is an extreme last resort, with ad hoc actions

Group 4. No identifiable evacuation and repatriation policy, with ad hoc actions

Large-scale emergencies (i.e. natural disasters)

Australia, Costa Rica, Slovenia, Thailand

Policy document: Brazil, Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Sweden

Consular website: Austria, France, India, Latvia, Mexico, Philippines

Secondary source: Hungary, Japan, Portugal, Spain

Policy document: Switzerland

Consular website: Belgium, Canada, Finland, Netherlands, United States, United Kingdom

Secondary source: Ireland

Chile, China, Colombia, Czechia, Denmark, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey

Individual emergencies (i.e. medical emergencies)

Brazil, Costa Rica, Germany, Slovenia

Policy document: Chile, Estonia, Lithuania, Luxembourg

Consular website: Austria, Canada, Colombia, France, Italy, India, Mexico, Philippines, Thailand, United States

Secondary source: Hungary, Portugal, Spain

Policy document: Belgium, Switzerland

Consular website: Finland, Netherlands, United Kingdom

Secondary source: Ireland

Australia, China, Czechia, Denmark, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Latvia, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, Turkey

Source: the Authors

35In the following sections, we will analyze each of the four groups separately. The analysis will be guided by the variables highlighted in Table 2.

Group 1. Clear evacuation and repatriation policies

36Detailed plans of action for large-scale emergencies were identified only in the cases of Australia, Costa Rica, Slovenia, and Thailand. Each Thai embassy has its own plan to be initiated in large-scale emergencies. Australia, Costa Rica, and Slovenia have more general, nation-wide plans. Australia follows the Plan for the Reception of Australian Citizens and Approved Foreign Nationals Evacuated from Overseas (AUSRECEPLAN) when its government chooses to initiate an evacuation. The plan lays out the roles of a range of government departments, as well as the post-arrival support provided to repatriated people. Costa Rica has a nine-phase process detailed in its Guide for the Repatriation of Costa Ricans Abroad. The process begins with the detection of the need for evacuation and repatriation, includes the participation of multiple government ministries, and ends with the documentation that Costa Rican officials must complete. Slovenia follows the “Act on the Relations of the Republic of Slovenia with Slovenes Outside its Borders”, which states that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs can recommend repatriation to the government of Slovenia. At this point, the government initiates repatriation and multiple government ministries participate in the operation.

  • 1 Some countries (i.e. Brazil) provide health services and check-ups right at the port of entry as pa (...)

37There are similarities and differences within these countries’ plans and practices. Each country’s evacuation and repatriation process is led by the branch of its government responsible for foreign affairs, and other government ministries participate in the effort. All four also provide post-arrival support to repatriated people. Slovenia’s policy regarding post-arrival support appears to be the most comprehensive: upon returning to Slovenia, people keep their repatriate status for a certain time, entitling them to healthcare, housing assistance, and other support as needed.1

38The four countries differ in their policies regarding who is eligible for evacuation and repatriation, who carries out the mission, who pays for the mission, and what terminology is used. Both Australia and Slovenia clearly state in their plans that certain non-nationals are eligible for evacuation. Australia evacuates “approved foreign nationals,” and Slovenia evacuates non-citizen family members of Slovenian nationals as well as non-citizen Slovenian minorities. Slovenia also assists with the evacuation and repatriation of citizens of other European Union countries as part of a broader EU policy. Costa Rica and Thailand do not clarify within their plans if any non-nationals are eligible for evacuation, and it appears that Thailand only evacuates its nationals. Slovenia and Costa Rica both use commercial flights in their evacuation missions, whereas Australia and Thailand use a mix of military and commercial flights. The Slovenian and Thai governments pay for all costs associated with evacuation and repatriation, Costa Rica determines the amount that repatriated people must pay depending on their capacity to pay, and Australia generally expects repatriated people to pay for some of the costs. Lastly, Australia and Thailand predominantly use the term “evacuation,” Slovenia typically uses “repatriation,” and Costa Rica uses both terms, along with “humanitarian repatriation.”

Group 2. Evacuation and repatriation may occur in emergencies, with ad hoc actions

39In the middle of the spectrum are countries with a policy to conduct evacuation and repatriation in emergencies abroad, but no published plan of action. This includes Austria, Brazil, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Philippines, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden. The consular websites of Austria, France, India, Latvia, Mexico, and the Philippines all communicate to their nationals that evacuation and repatriation may be possible in cases of emergencies abroad. For Brazil, Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, and Sweden, there are policy documents establishing evacuation as a possibility for nationals in danger abroad. For instance, Hungary maintains consular protection as a constitutional right of all citizens, and Sweden’s Act on Consular Disaster Response states that the state is obligated to provide assistance to Swedish nationals if the government triggers a “consular disaster response.” In each of these countries, the government department for foreign affairs is responsible for evacuating and repatriating nationals. Additionally, nearly all of these countries evacuate certain non-nationals along with their nationals, with a few exceptions. Japan only evacuates its citizens, and it is unclear whether Estonia or Luxembourg evacuates non-nationals.

40Within this group, however, there is again significant divergence. Hungary and Sweden’s acts establishing assistance in case of disaster as a legal obligation of the government stand in stark contrast with Luxembourg, where consulates have no legal obligation to repatriate nationals facing emergencies abroad.

  • 2 Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Spain, Sweden
  • 3 Austria, Brazil, Estonia, France, Germany, India, Japan, Mexico, Philippines, Thailand
  • 4 Austria, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, India, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Spain, Sweden
  • 5 Germany, Hungary, India, Portugal, Spain
  • 6 Austria, Estonia, Hungary, India, Japan, Lithuania, Spain, Thailand
  • 7 Brazil, Philippines
  • 8 France, Germany, Latvia, Mexico, Portugal

41Some countries use primarily military planes for evacuation and operations,2 and others use a mix of military and commercial plans.3 For most countries, it is unclear whether post-arrival support is provided to evacuees, but countries which do assist with the impacts of the emergency or the return operation include Brazil, France, Germany, Mexico, and the Philippines. A majority of these countries require evacuees to reimburse the government for costs incurred in the operation,4 but some of these countries offer exceptions or assistance when needed.5 Only Brazil, and the Philippines appeared to cover the whole cost. Mexico appears to cover part of the cost, and French citizens are able to access insurance plans which cover the cost of evacuation. Lastly, these countries use a mix of terminologies, with some primarily using the term “evacuation,”6 some primarily using “repatriation,”7 and some using both.8 Luxembourg additionally uses “consular assistance,” and Sweden uses “consular disaster response.” Notably, though, “evacuation” is more commonly used than “repatriation.”

Group 3. Evacuation and repatriation is an extreme last resort, with ad hoc actions

42On the opposite end of the spectrum are countries with a policy stating that evacuation and repatriation is an extreme last resort. In general, they expect citizens to rely on local authorities or themselves when in distress. When evacuation and repatriation does occur, actions appear to be ad hoc. These countries include Belgium, Canada, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Most of these countries express this policy on their consular websites: the US, for instance, only assists its nationals in an emergency situation if it is impossible for the individual to arrange their own transportation and if consular officers are present and capable of helping in the consulate. The Netherlands similarly communicates that “the Dutch government does not evacuate Dutch nationals from crisis areas as long as they can organize their departure themselves.” In the case of Switzerland, we were able to identify a policy document stating this position. The Swiss Abroad Act establishes that Switzerland operates under the principle of personal responsibility, and that consular assistance is only provided to Swiss nationals after they have done everything possible to resolve the situation on their own.

  • 9 Finland, Switzerland
  • 10 Ireland
  • 11 Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, the UK, the US

43Each of these countries has conducted evacuation and repatriation policies in the past, however, and there are areas of convergence and divergence within their actions. Like the countries in the previous two categories, the government department responsible for foreign affairs carries out evacuation and repatriation operations. Most countries in this category do evacuate certain non-nationals, but a higher percentage of countries in this category evacuate nationals only, compared to the previous two categories. Canada, Switzerland, and the US all appear to only evacuate their nationals. Some countries use only commercial flights in evacuation operations,9 some use military flights,10 and some use a combination of the two.11 Both the Netherlands and the US have provided post-arrival support to evacuees in the past, and Ireland and the UK appear to not provide post-arrival support. It is unclear if the remaining countries provide post-arrival support. Except in the case of the Netherlands, where it is unclear who pays for the evacuation operation, each of these countries require evacuees to reimburse the government. Switzerland is the only country which clearly offers assistance to those unable to pay. Finally, the terms used by countries in this category are once again mixed, with countries using some combination of the terms “repatriation,” “evacuation,” and “consular assistance.”

Group 4. No identifiable evacuation and repatriation policy, with ad hoc actions

44A final group of countries provide very little information about evacuation and repatriation in large-scale emergencies. We were able to identify few or no mentions of evacuation and repatriation in the policy documents and consular websites of Chile, China, Colombia, Czechia, Denmark, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, and Turkey. Policies which reference consular services in large-scale emergencies generally state that consular officers can assist, but do not make reference to evacuation or repatriation. For instance, Russian and Chinese officials have both expressed the need for strong protection of their nationals abroad, but existing practices and policies regarding evacuation and repatriation are unclear.

  • 12 Czechia, Israel, Norway, South Africa
  • 13 Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Italy, Poland
  • 14 China, New Zealand, Russia, Slovakia, South Korea, Türkiye

45When evacuation does occur, actions are ad hoc and directed by the foreign affairs department in each respective country. The majority of these countries have evacuated non-nationals in addition to their nationals – many of them because EU countries have an agreement to assist other EU citizens in emergencies. Like the previous categories, we see variation regarding whether countries use commercial flights,12 military flights,13 or both.14 Norway has previously provided post-arrival support to evacuees, whereas New Zealand’s consular website clearly states that it does not provide any sort of financial support for evacuees. For the remaining countries, it was unclear whether any type of post-arrival support is provided. Both Czechia and Greece have paid for evacuation operations in the past, and Italy, Norway, and Slovakia all cover part of the cost or offer financial assistance to evacuees. Chile, China, Colombia, Denmark, New Zealand, and South Africa require evacuees to pay for the mission, and the remaining countries do not provide information regarding reimbursement of costs. Finally, diverse terminologies are once again used by countries in this category. “Evacuation,” “repatriation,” and “consular assistance” are all used, as well as “return” by Iceland and Poland and “assisted return” by Chile.

Table 2. Repatriation and international evacuation policies across five variables

Policy including clear evacuation and repatriation plan in large scale emergencies:

Country

Who is eligible for repatriation?

Who conducts repatriation?

Do repatriated people reimburse the government?

What terms are used?

Is post-arrival support provided?

Australia

Nationals and non-nationals

Commercial and military flights

Partially

Evacuation

Yes

Costa Rica

Unknown

Commercial flights

Partially

Evacuation, (humanitarian) repatriation

Yes

Slovenia

Nationals and non-nationals

Commercial flights

No

Repatriation

Yes

Thailand

Nationals only

Commercial and military flights

No

Evacuation

Yes

Policy stating that evacuation and repatriation may occur in large-scale emergencies, with ad hoc actions

Country

Who is eligible for repatriation?

Who conducts repatriation?

Do repatriated people reimburse the government?

What terms are used?

Is post-arrival support provided?

Austria

Nationals and non-nationals

Commercial and military flights

Yes

Evacuation

Unknown

Brazil

Nationals and non-nationals

Commercial and military flights

No

Repatriation

Yes

Estonia

Unknown

Commercial and military flights

Yes

Evacuation

Unknown

France

Nationals and non-nationals

Commercial and military flights

Insurance pays

Evacuation, repatriation

Yes

Germany

Nationals and non-nationals

Commercial and military flights

Yes (assistance available)

Evacuation, repatriation

Yes

Hungary

Nationals and non-nationals

Military flights

Yes (assistance available)

Evacuation

Unknown

India

Nationals and non-nationals

Commercial and military flights

Yes (assistance available)

Evacuation

Unknown

Japan

Nationals only

Commercial and military flights

Yes

Evacuation

Unknown

Latvia

Nationals and non-nationals

Military flights

Yes

Evacuation, repatriation

Unknown

Lithuania

Nationals and non-nationals

Military flights

Yes

Evacuation

Unknown

Luxembourg

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Evacuation, consular assistance

Unknown

Mexico

Nationals and non-nationals

Commercial and military flights

Partially

Evacuation, repatriation

Yes

Philippines

Nationals and non-nationals

Commercial and military flights

No

Repatriation

Yes

Portugal

Nationals and non-nationals

Military flights

Yes (assistance available)

Evacuation, repatriation

Unknown

Spain

Nationals and non-nationals

Military flights

Yes (assistance available)

Evacuation

Unknown

Sweden

Nationals and non-nationals

Military flights

Yes

Evacuation, consular disaster response

Unknown

Policy stating that evacuation and repatriation in large-scale emergencies is an extreme last resort, with ad hoc actions

Country

Who is eligible for repatriation?

Who conducts repatriation?

Do repatriated people reimburse the government?

What terms are used?

Is post-arrival support provided?

Belgium

Nationals and non-nationals

Commercial and military flights

Yes

Repatriation

Unknown

Canada

Nationals only

Commercial and military flights

Yes

Evacuation

Unknown

Finland

Nationals and non-nationals

Commercial flights

Yes

Evacuation, repatriation

Unknown

Ireland

Nationals and non-nationals

Military flights

Yes

Repatriation, consular assistance

No

Netherlands

Nationals and non-nationals

Commercial and military flights

Unknown

Evacuation, consular assistance

Yes

Switzerland

Nationals only

Commercial flights

Yes (assistance available)

Evacuation

Unknown

UK

Nationals and non-nationals

Commercial and military flights

Yes

Evacuation

No

US

Nationals only

Commercial and military flights

Yes

Evacuation, repatriation

Yes

No identifiable evacuation and repatriation policy, with ad hoc actions

Country

Who is eligible for repatriation?

Who conducts repatriation?

Do repatriated people reimburse the government?

What terms are used?

Is post-arrival support provided?

Chile

Nationals only

Military flights

Yes

Evacuation, repatriation, assisted return

Unknown

China

Nationals and non-nationals

Commercial and military flights

Yes

Evacuation

Unknown

Colombia

Nationals only

Military flights

Yes

Repatriation

Unknown

Czechia

Nationals and non-nationals

Commercial flights

No

Evacuation, repatriation

Unknown

Denmark

Nationals and non-nationals

Military flights

Yes

Repatriation, consular assistance

Unknown

Greece

Nationals and non-nationals

Unknown

No

Repatriation

Unknown

Iceland

Nationals and non-nationals

Unknown

Unknown

Return

Unknown

Israel

Unknown

Commercial flights

Unknown

Repatriation

Unknown

Italy

Nationals and non-nationals

Military flights

Yes (assistance available)

Evacuation

Unknown

New Zealand

Nationals and non-nationals

Commercial and military flights

Yes

Evacuation, repatriation

No

Norway

Unknown

Commercial flights

Partially

Evacuation, repatriation

Yes (in the case of Gaza)

Poland

Nationals and non-nationals

Military flights

Unknown

Evacuation, repatriation, return

Unknown

Russia

Nationals and non-nationals

Commercial and military flights

Unknown

Repatriation

Unknown

Slovakia

Nationals and non-nationals

Commercial and military flights

Yes (assistance available)

Evacuation, repatriation

Unknown

South Africa

Nationals and non-nationals

Commercial flights

Yes

Evacuation

Unknown

South Korea

Nationals and non-nationals

Commercial and military flights

Unknown

Evacuation

Unknown

Türkiye

Nationals only

Commercial and military flights

Unknown

Evacuation

Unknown

Source: the Authors

46Looking across the four groups of countries reveals as much divergence as we see within each category. The very way countries address evacuation and repatriation is inconsistent: there is no clear consensus around what to call a large-scale operation to remove people from a crisis abroad. The only clear areas of convergence were in the government department responsible for evacuation and repatriation (all countries operate via their foreign affairs department), as well as the definition of who is eligible for evacuation and repatriation (73% have evacuated or have expressed willingness to evacuate non-nationals). Most countries (87%) do require evacuees to pay at least part of the cost of the evacuation, but there is heavy variation within this group regarding how much of the cost evacuees must pay and whether assistance can be provided. Countries were mixed in their use of commercial and military planes to conduct evacuation, in the amount of information regarding the details of evacuations provided on policy documents or consular websites, and in their communicated willingness to conduct evacuation.

47In a policy subsystem where the policy problem is transnational in nature, wide variation in policy features was found, running contrary to examples of policy diffusion and circulation that marked the initial literature on the transnational policy process. The four groups identified across select policy features exemplify such variation in policy. The next section addresses existing international norms on repatriation and evacuation, looking for clues that may help one understand such variation.

Thin international norms

48This lack of policy resemblance has an elective affinity to the absence of robust international norms on this issue. Despite the growing need for coordinated responses to humanitarian crises, there remains no comprehensive global framework guiding how countries should establish evacuation policies or manage consular emergencies. As Tindall (2012) and Tindall and Hart (2011) emphasize, international law offers little in the way of binding norms in this area.

49While some guidance is available, it remains largely non-binding and directed at international organizations and their staff rather than states. For instance, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) issued its Guidance Note on the Inclusion of Protection Considerations when Planning and Implementing International Humanitarian Evacuations for Migrants Caught in Armed Conflict Settings (IOM, 2016). This document outlines best practices such as securing informed consent for voluntary return, prioritizing vulnerable groups, and ensuring safeguards during transportation. However, it is intended for IOM staff and does not impose obligations on member states.

50Similarly, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has developed Guidance Note 9 on Humanitarian Evacuations, part of its Handbook for the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons (UNHCR, 2010). Like the IOM note, it focuses on protection measures during evacuations but stops short of mandating that evacuations be carried out.

51This lack of binding norms stands in contrast to refugee protections enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, which imposes legal obligations on state parties. In contrast, expectations around repatriation and evacuation remain largely aspirational. Even the 2018 Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration15—which builds on the 2016 New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants—does not establish standards for evacuation or repatriation. Its emphasis lies primarily on the movement of migrants and refugees away from their countries of origin, rather than on their return during crises.

52When compared to the United Nations system, the European Union does provide some guidance to member states, although not the kind of strict rules that would require policy convergence. EU Directive 2015/637 mandates consular assistance to unrepresented EU citizens in third countries. It means that citizens of an EU member state without consular representation in a third country ought to be assisted by EU members with representation in that country. Article 9 (e) specifically mentions that consular protections should be guaranteed to unrepresented EU citizens in situations of “relief and repatriation in case of an emergency”16. This directive ensures that EU citizens receive assistance regardless of the diplomatic presence of their country of origin, helping to share responsibility between member states.

53The kind of assistance they will receive, however, is not established in the directive, meaning that there can still be divergent ad hoc actions by EU member states. Slovenia, for instance, had a robust system for providing post-arrival support to repatriated people. Ireland, on the opposite end of the spectrum, communicates that initiating evacuation is an extreme last resort and does not appear to provide post-arrival support to evacuees. Shortcomings in Directive 2015/637 have led to ongoing efforts to amend it, especially with a view towards better coordination17.

54Even when guidance and coordination are reached to some degree, repatriation and evacuation remains a policy subsystem in which the policy problem is transnational, but states enact policies that have little in common under thin international norms. The section below introduces the concepts of transnational density and transnational intensity to make sense of such variations while recognizing that the policy process is transnational.

Implications for the literature on the transnational policy process: the concepts of transnational density and transnational intensity

55The significant divergence in repatriation and international evacuation policies represents a theoretical puzzle: how can a subsystem be inherently transnational when it comes to the policy problem and yet have countries that share very little in terms of their policy models and practices? Empirical findings from this research allow us to realize that, as an analytical category, the transnational policy process does not equate with a helpless path towards policy standardization or isomorphism, as early neo-institutional perspectives would predict. Instead, along with processes of policy transfer and diffusion in various policy subsystems, there is the possibility that some policies in other subsystems may remain unique or divergent, even in contexts such as the European Union.

56This finding opens an interesting avenue for inductive conceptual elaboration. One can infer that the transnational policy process does not operate uniformly across policy subsystems or across time. To theorize this variation, we adapt the terminology used by Bauer and Knill (2012) in their concepts of policy density and policy intensity. We propose that one can think of the transnational existence of the policy process as having varying densities and intensities.

57These concepts can be adapted and redefined when applied to the transnational policy process. Transnational density can be defined as the degree to which a policy subsystem involves policy problems that bear transnational causes or implications. In contrast, transnational intensity can be understood as the degree to which transnational norms guide, direct, or even dictate domestic policies in each policy subsystem.

58Certain policies address policy problems that are transnational in nature, as they involve cross border dynamics such as repatriation and international evacuation policies. This reflects greater transnational density. In addition, transnational institutions, norms, and agents seek to influence the policy process at the domestic level, which can be conceived as the level of transnational intensity. Even though one could expect transnational density and intensity to go hand-in-hand, a policy subsystem may be transnationally dense but not transnationally intense when, for instance, global norms are not present or observed. Conversely, the policy process may be transnationally intense due to abundant and effective international norms and agents, yet the policy itself may not be transnationally dense if it addresses non-transnational policy problems. This is the case, for instance, with poverty reduction policies, as exemplified by the existence of various initiatives, such as Sustainable Development Goal #1, the Global Alliance Against Hunger, and the work of various international organizations such as the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the World Bank, and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Table 3 presents repatriation and international evacuation policies in a 2x2 matrix resulting from the intersection of these two concepts, which co-exist. In other words, a policy subsystem is not either transnationally dense or intense, it can also be both, such as in the case of refugee policy.

59Further research is needed to test both concepts in other policy subsystems, but one can think of climate policy as an example of both high transnational density and intensity, whereas poverty reduction policies would be of low transnational density but high transnational intensity. Finally, policies that are unique to a given locality or nation and disconnected from the transnational governance space would be representative of both low transnational density and intensity.

Table 3. Transnational density and transnational intensity as dimensions of the transnational policy process

Transnational Policy Process

Low Transnational Intensity

High Transnational Intensity

High Transnational Density

Repatriation and international evacuation policy

Example to be tested: Climate policy

Low Transnational Density

Example to be tested:

Policies that are locally or nationally unique

Example to be tested: Poverty reduction policy

Source: the Authors.

60The concepts of transnational density and transnational intensity allow us to consider that the policy process can have differing transnational features across different policy subsystems. This is analytically important, as evidence of scarce policy commonalities among countries may be wrongfully interpreted as indication that the policy process cannot be transnational by definition. In this research, the identification of four groups of countries with respect to repatriation and evacuation indicates variation in policy. Transnational density and intensity are concepts that help us make sense of such variation while maintaining an understanding of the policy process as transnational.

Concluding remarks and implications for practice

61Earthquakes, tsunamis, and civil wars leave government officials with a short window of time to make decisions and mobilize resources that eventually allow their citizens to escape life-threatening situations abroad. As large-scale crises diversify and accelerate in the wake of climate change and international conflicts, governments have mobilized a diverse set of policies to move their citizens—and citizens of allied countries—out of harm’s way.

62This article presents primary data on 45 countries and their repatriation and international evacuation policies and practices. However, there is little convergence across the main features of these policies, even when countries are clustered around four groups: countries with a policy that includes a clear evacuation and repatriation plan; countries with a policy according to which evacuation and repatriation may occur in emergencies; countries where evacuation and repatriation is an extreme last resort; and countries with no identifiable evacuation and repatriation policy. Therefore, countries are sparsely divided across a spectrum that goes from unequivocal state responsibility for citizens abroad to no assurance that any state support will be provided, with no clear global norm of what actions should be taken.

63Such policy variation indicates the need for further exploring and understanding the transnational policy process. Are all policies equally transnational? This research suggests that they are not, opening room for the development of new concepts that capture differing degrees of transnationality. As a result, this article introduces the concepts of transnational density and transnational intensity, borrowing and adapting the terminology used by Bauer and Knill (2012).

64In the policy subsystem under analysis, there is a paradoxical absence of international norms and a global policy script to guide decision-making efforts towards evacuation and repatriation. Even the UN Global Compact for Migration, the state-of-the-art agreement on global migration, does not address repatriation or the international evacuation of nationals. In a policy subsystem that is transnationally dense due to the cross-border dynamics involved, international norms could help guide state action, especially in situations where international coordination and collective action are needed. As defined in this article, increased transnational intensity could provide some degree of convergence among policies, helping citizens manage expectations in an emergency abroad.

65It is difficult to determine whether policy divergence results from the absence of international norms or from states’ unwillingness to commit to an agreed-upon course of action. While this question is beyond the scope of this study, this research project provides a few insights that may contribute to the discussion.

66One hindering element may come from a fear of normalizing repatriation and creating avenues for the forced return of migrant populations. Faced with growing xenophobic sentiments, international experts may fear opening global governance debates around repatriation policies during and outside of crises.

67A second hindering element may be a lack of priority. As crises occur sporadically, the policy problem concerned only rises to the decision-making agenda for brief periods of time. In many of the countries included in this study, decisions and actions have been mostly ad hoc. This is either because policy beneficiaries comprise a small group of people or because affected citizens may not be aware of their possible entitlement to government support while abroad. As a result, ad hoc actions have survived without much political opposition or popular outcry. The inevitable result is, in many cases, confused citizens and haphazard public spending. Currently, anyone traveling abroad when a major emergency occurs can expect to receive varying levels of government support depending on their passport.

68To make sense of this state of affairs, this article expands on the emerging literature about the transnational policy process and proposes conceptual tools that allow us to acknowledge and explore transnational diversity across policy subsystems. The more we recognize that the policy process exists within a transnational space, the better scholars will be able to theorize on its dynamics.

Top of page

Bibliography

Akaliyski, P. (2019). United in diversity? The convergence of cultural values among EU member states and candidates. European Journal of Political Research58(2), 388–411.

Baker, T., & Walker, C. (Eds.). (2019). Public policy circulation: Arenas, agents and actions. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the world: International organizations in global politics. Cornell University Press.

Batistella, G. (2018, March 8). Return migration: A conceptual and policy framework. Center for Migration Studies. https://cmsny.org/publications/2018smsc-smc-return-migration/.

Bauer, M. W., & Knill, C. (2012). Understanding policy dismantling: An analytical framework. In M. W. Bauer, A. Jordan, C. Green-Pedersen, & A. Héritier (Eds.), Dismantling public policy: Preferences, strategies, and effects (pp. 30–51). Oxford University Press.

Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review84(2), 395–415.

Bull, H. (1977). The anarchical society: A study of order in world politics. Columbia University Press.

Deacon, B. (1997). Global social policy: International organizations and the future of welfare. SAGE Publications.

Djelic, M. L., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (Eds.). (2006). Transnational governance: Institutional dynamics of regulation. Cambridge University Press.

Dolowitz, D. P., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy‐making. Governance13(1), 5–23.

Faulkner, C., & Schiffer, S. (2019). Unwelcomed? The effects of statelessness on involuntary refugee repatriation in Bangladesh and Myanmar. The Round Table, 108(2), 145–158.

Finnemore, M. (1993). International organizations as teachers of norms: the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization and science policy. International Organization47(4), 565–597.

Forni, F. (2012). The consular protection of EU citizens during emergencies in third countries. In A. de Guttry, M. Gestri, & G. Venturini (Eds.), International disaster response law (pp. 155–174). Springer.

Gerver, M. (2015). Refugee repatriation and voluntariness. The International Journal of Human Rights, 19(1), 32–52.

IOM. (2016). Internal Guidance Note on the Inclusion of Protection Considerations when Planning and Implementing International Humanitarian Evacuations for Migrants Caught in Armed Conflict Settings. https://www.iom.int/sites/g/files/tmzbdl486/files/our_work/DOE/humanitarian_emergencies/mainstream/IN-238-GN-on-Humanitarian-Evacuations-final.pdf

Kawuki, J., Papabathini, S. S., Obore, N., & Ghimire, U. (2021). Evacuation and repatriation amidst COVID-19 pandemic. SciMedicine Journal, 2, 50–54. http://doi.org/10.28991/SciMedJ-2021-03-SI-7.

Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. A. (2014). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Cornell University Press.

Kulling, P., Sigurdsson, S., & Hamberger, B. (2008). KAMEDO Report No. 92: Evacuation of Swedes from Lebanon--observational studies in connection with the war in Lebanon in summer 2006. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine23(5), 476–480.

Lafleur, J. M., & Vintila, D. (Eds.). (2020). Migration and Social Protection in Europe and Beyond (Volume 2): Comparing consular services and diaspora policies. Springer Nature.

Leelawat, N., Suppasri, A., Latcharote, P., & Imamura, F. (2017). The evacuation of Thai citizens during Japan’s 2016 Kumamoto earthquakes: An ICT perspective. Journal of Disaster Research, 12, 669–677.

Leelawat, N., Tang, J., Krutphong, K., Chaichanasiri, S., Kanno, T., Li, C., Le, L. T. Q., Dung, H. Q., Saengtabtim, K., & Laosunthara, A. (2021). Comparison of the initial overseas evacuation operations due to COVID-19: A focus on Asian countries. Journal of Disaster Research, 16(7), 1137–1146.

Lendvai, N., & Stubbs, P. (2007). Policies as translation: situating transnational social policies. In S. M. Hodgson & Z. Irving (Eds.), Policy Reconsidered: meanings, politics and practices (pp. 173–190). Bristol University Press.

Liao, K. A. S. (2023). Infrastructuring repatriation: The Philippine sending state and the return of migrant workers caught in disruptions. International Migration, 63, e13155, 1–15.

Liu, L., & Gammon, J. (2022). The unique role of the Chinese government in the protection of overseas citizens. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 88(3), 793–808.

Łucka, D. (2021). Widely open closed doors: Contemporary repatriation policy in Poland. Studia Migracyjne – Przegląd Polonijny, 1(179), 9–31.

Mawby, B., & Martin, S. (2016, September). Evacuation and repatriation of migrants in countries experiencing conflict or natural disaster. Migrants in Countries in Crisis Initiative.

McDermid, P., Craig, A., Sheel, M., & Seale, H. (2022). How have governments supported citizens stranded abroad due to COVID-19 travel restrictions? A comparative analysis of the financial and health support in eleven countries. BMC Infectious Diseases, 22(161), 1–13.

Mencutek, Z. S. (2023). The geopolitics of returns: Geopolitical reasoning and space-making in Turkey’s repatriation regime. Geopolitics28(3), 1079–1105.

Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., Thomas, G. M., & Ramirez, F. O. (1997). World society and the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology, 103(1), 144–181.

Moloney, K., & Stone, D. (2019). Beyond the state: Global policy and transnational administration. International Review of Public Policy1(1), 104–118.

Morais de Sá e Silva, M., & Porto de Oliveira, O. (2023). Incorporating Time into Policy Transfer Studies: A Comparative Analysis of the Transnational Policy Process of Conditional Cash Transfers and Participatory Budgeting. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 25(4), 418–438.

Morais de Sa e Silva, M. (2017). Poverty reduction, education, and the global diffusion of conditional cash transfers. Springer International Publishing.

Morais, M. (2005). South-South cooperation, policy transfer and best-practice reasoning: the transfer of the Solidarity in Literacy Program from Brazil to Mozambique. ISS Working Paper Series / General Series (Vol. 406, pp. 1–57). Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Nagel, S. S. (1998). Global Policy Studies. In Policy within and Across Developing Nations (1st ed.). Routledge.

Pajarinen, J., Leppäniemi, A., Castren, M., Silfvast, T., Haapiainen, R., Handolin, L., Reitala, J., Tukiainen, E., & Hirvensalo, E. (2004). The evacuation of Finnish citizens from south-east Asia tourist resorts after the tsunami disaster. International Journal of Disaster Medicine, 2, 82–88.

Peck, J. (2011). Geographies of policy: From transfer-diffusion to mobility-mutation. Progress in Human Geography35(6), 773–797.

Porto de Oliveira, O. (2017). International policy diffusion and participatory budgeting: ambassadors of participation, international institutions and transnational networks. Springer.

Porto de Oliveira, O. P., Romano, G. C., Volden, C., & Karch, A. (2023). Policy diffusion and innovation. In C. M. Weible (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 230–261). Routledge.

Porto de Oliveira, O., & Pal, L. (2018). New frontiers and directions in policy transfer, diffusion and circulation research: agents, spaces, resistance, and translations. Revista de Administração Pública52, 199–220.

Rajan, S. I., & Pattath, B. (2022). Distress return migration amid COVID-19: Kerala’s response. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 31(2), 176–189.

Rajan, S. I., & Arokkiaraj, H. (2022). Return migration from the Gulf region to India amidst COVID-19. In A. Triandafyllidou (Ed.), Migration and pandemics: Spaces of solidarity and spaces of exception (pp. 207–225). Springer.

Redpath-Cross, J., & Perruchoud, R. (2011). Glossary on migration. IOM International Organization for Migration.

Reinalda, B., & Verbeek, B. (Eds.). (2004). Decision making within international organizations. Routledge.

Reinicke, W. H., & Copeland, D. (1998). Global public policy: Governing without government? International Journal, 53(3), 597–599.

Reliefweb. (2017). Bangladesh: Rohingya refugees moved from Kutupalong camp to new site. https://reliefweb.int/report/bangladesh/bangladesh-rohingya-refugees-moved-kutupalong-camp-new-site#:~:text=The%20relocation%20included:%20*%20Moving%205%2C000%20refugees,*%20Food%20and%20water%20*%20Medical%20screenings

Risse, T., & Sikkink, K. (1999). The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practices: introduction. In T. Risse-Kappen, T. Ropp & K. Sikkink (Eds.), The power of human rights: International norms and domestic change. Cambridge University Press.

Schwarz, Y., & McConnell, A. (2009). Remote crisis management: Australia’s 2006 rescue of citizens trapped in Lebanon. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 63(2), 233–248.

Sencan, I., & Kuzi, S. (2020). Global threat of COVID 19 and evacuation of the citizens of different countries. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, 50, 534–543.

Siddiqui, T., & Bhuiyan, M. R. A. (2013). Emergency return of Bangladeshi migrants from Libya. NTS Working Paper no. 9, Singapore: RSIS Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies.

Simmons, B. A. (2009). Mobilizing for human rights: international law in domestic politics. Cambridge University Press.

Shaikh Abdul Karim, S., Anis Md Tahir, F., Khair Mohamad, U., Abu Bakar, M., Nizam Mohamad, K., Suleiman, M., Omar Khan, H., & Md Noor, J. (2020). Experience repatriation of citizens from epicentre using commercial flights during COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Emergency Medicine, 13(50), 1–7.

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Ed.). (2004). The global politics of educational borrowing and lending. Teachers College Press.

Steiner-Khamsi, G., & Morais de Sa e Silva, M. (2024). Qualitative Comparative Policy Studies: An Introduction from the Special Section Editors. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice26(5), 541–551.

Stenger, H. (2023). Victim versus villain: Repatriation policies for foreign fighters and the construction of gendered and racialised ‘threat narratives.’ European Journal of International Security, 8, 1–24.

Stone, D. (2019). Making global policy. Cambridge University Press.

Stone, D., & Ladi, S. (2015). Global public policy and transnational administration. Public Administration93(4), 839–855.

Stone, D. (2004). Transfer agents and global networks in the ‘transnationalization’ of policy. Journal of European Public Policy11(3), 545–566.

Tedeschi, M., Vorobeva, E., & Jauhiainen, J. S. (2022). Transnationalism: current debates and new perspectives. GeoJournal87(2), 603-619.

Tindall, K. (2012). Governments’ ability to assist nationals in disasters abroad: What do we know about consular emergency management? Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 20(2), 102–114.

Tindall, K., & ‘t Hart, P. (2011). Evaluating government performance during consular emergencies: Toward an analytical framework. Policy and Society, 30, 137–149.

UNHCR. (2010). Handbook for the protection of internally displaced persons. https://www.unhcr.org/us/media/handbook-protection-internally-displaced-persons-0

Vilog, R. B. T., & Ballesteros, M. D. M. (2015). Overseas Filipino workers in conflict zones: Narratives of Filipino nurses in Libya. Bandung: Journal of the Global South, 2(22), 1–21.

Weible, C. M. (Ed.). (2023). Theories of the policy process. Taylor & Francis.

Weible, C. M. (2018). Introduction: The scope and focus of policy research and theory. In C. Weible & S. Paul (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press.

Yeates, N. (2002). Globalization and Social Policy: From Global Neoliberal Hegemony to Global Political Pluralism. Global Social Policy, 2(1), 69–91.

Zampagni, F., Boubakri, H., Hoinathy, R., Kandilige, L., Manou Nabara, H., Sadek, S., El Sayeh, M., Zongo, M., & Hendow, M. (2017). Libya case study: An unending crisis – Responses of migrants, states and organisations to the 2011 Libya crisis. International Centre for Migration Policy Development.

Zerba, S. H. (2014). China’s Libya evacuation operation: A new diplomatic imperative – overseas citizen protection. Journal of Contemporary China, 23(90), 1093–1112.

Zeveleva, O. (2014). Political aspects of repatriation: Germany, Russia, Kazakhstan. A comparative analysis. Nationalities Papers, 42(5), 808–827.

Top of page

Notes

1 Some countries (i.e. Brazil) provide health services and check-ups right at the port of entry as part of their humanitarian assistance protocol to those being repatriated. This is slightly different from healthcare available to citizens as part of public health systems, which seems to be the case in Slovenia.

2 Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Spain, Sweden

3 Austria, Brazil, Estonia, France, Germany, India, Japan, Mexico, Philippines, Thailand

4 Austria, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, India, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Spain, Sweden

5 Germany, Hungary, India, Portugal, Spain

6 Austria, Estonia, Hungary, India, Japan, Lithuania, Spain, Thailand

7 Brazil, Philippines

8 France, Germany, Latvia, Mexico, Portugal

9 Finland, Switzerland

10 Ireland

11 Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, the UK, the US

12 Czechia, Israel, Norway, South Africa

13 Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Italy, Poland

14 China, New Zealand, Russia, Slovakia, South Korea, Türkiye

15 See https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/sites/default/files/180713_agreed_outcome_global_compact_for_migration.pdf

16 See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudr/2015/637/pdfs/eudr_20150637_adopted_en.pdf

17 For details on the proposed amendments to EU Directive 2015/637, see https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2023)753187

Top of page

References

Electronic reference

Michelle Morais de Sá e Silva, Edgardo Diaz Vega, Jadyn Davis, Morgan Chen, Typhaine Joffe and Eileah Hale, Transnational density and transnational intensity: conceptual insights from repatriation and international evacuation policiesInternational Review of Public Policy [Online], 8:1 | 2026, Online since 01 February 2026, connection on 10 April 2026. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/irpp/5838; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/15t8q

Top of page

About the authors

Michelle Morais de Sá e Silva

University of Oklahoma, USA
michelle.morais@ou.edu

By this author

Edgardo Diaz Vega

University of Hawaii, USA
edgardo.diaz.vega@alumni.ou.edu

Jadyn Davis

Penn State University, USA
Jadynpdavis@gmail.com

Morgan Chen

University of Oklahoma, USA
mchen.ing1@gmail.com

Typhaine Joffe

University of Oklahoma, USA
typhaine.joffe@gmail.com

Eileah Hale

University of Oklahoma, USA
hale.m.eileah@gmail.com

Top of page

Copyright

CC-BY-4.0

The text only may be used under licence CC BY 4.0. All other elements (illustrations, imported files) may be subject to specific use terms.

Top of page
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search