Year 2019, Volume 4 , Issue 2, Pages 5 - 14 2019-12-02

Return Migration to Republic of Croatia
Hırvatistan Cumhuriyeti’ne Geri Dönüş Göçü

Nesrin KENAR [1] , Mertcan YOLDAŞ [2]


Return Migration to post-conflict countries is often seen as a measure of success and political progress in a recovering state. Particularly, the repatriation of refugees back to Croatia following The Dayton Peace Agreement was both a means of contributing towards the peace process and a solution to the refugee burden faced by Western European countries. This study seeks to analyse the impact of national and international policy-making on the patterns of refugee return in Croatia and examine the problems of making imposed returns sustainable in the long term. In accordance with this purpose the following questions were tried to be answered: “What are the factors affecting the return migration as positive and negative in Croatia? How do the international community and national government manage the return migration? What is the impact of the Dayton Peace Agreement on the process of the return migration in Croatia?” In this context, this study addresses which factors influence the return migration and what the role of assistance is in sustainable return. Ultimately when datas was interpreted, the study reveals that the return migration is a too hard and exhausting process, therefore that the problems emerged by the return migration can be solved by all actors acting together.

Çatışma geçirmiş ülkelere yapılan Dönüş Göçü, genellikle iyileşmekte olan bir ülkede politik ilerlemenin ve başarının bir ölçütü olarak görülmektedir. Özellikle Dayton Barış Antlaşması’ndan sonra mültecilerin Hırvatistan’a geri gönderilmesi, hem barış sürecine katkıda bulunmanın bir aracıydı hem de Batı Avrupa ülkelerinin karşı karşıya olduğu mülteci yüküne bir çözümdü. Bu çalışma, ulusal ve uluslararası politika belirleyicilerinin Hırvatistan’daki mülteci geri dönüşü üzerindeki etkilerini analiz etmeyi ve uzun vadede sürdürülebilir geri dönüşü uygulamaya koymadaki sorunları incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda şu sorular cevaplanmaya çalışılmıştır: “Hırvatistan’da dönüş göçünü olumlu ve olumsuz olarak etkileyen faktörler nelerdir? Uluslararası toplum ve ulusal hükümet dönüş göçünü nasıl yönetmektedir? Dayton Barış Antlaşması’nın Hırvatistan’da dönüş göçü süreci üzerine etkisi nedir?” Bu bağlamda, bu çalışma hangi faktörlerin dönüş göçünü etkilediğini ve dönüş göçünün sürdürülebilirliğinde yardımların rolünün ne olduğunu ele almaktadır. Nihayetinde veriler yorumlandığında, çalışma dönüş göçünün çok zor ve yorucu bir süreç olduğunu, bu yüzden de dönüş göçü ile oluşan problemlerin tüm aktörlerin birlikte hareket etmesiyle çözülebileceğini ortaya koymaktadır. 

  • Al Jazeera (2014). Ülke Profili: Hırvatistan. (Erişim: 03.09.2018), http://www.aljazeera.com.tr/ulke-profili/ulke-profili-hirvatistan
  • Albert, S. (1997). The return of refugees to Bosnia and Herzegovina: Peacebuilding with people. International Peacekeeping, 4(3), 1-23.
  • Black, R., Eastmond, M., & Gent, S. (2006). Sustainable return in the Balkans: beyond property restitution and policy. International Migration, 44(3), 5-13.
  • Dahlman, C., & Tuathail, G. Ó. (2005). The legacy of ethnic cleansing: The international community and the returns process in post-Dayton Bosnia–Herzegovina. Political Geography, 24(5), 569-599.
  • Gregurović, S., & Mlinarić, D. (2012). The Challenges of Migration Policies in Croatia: Migration History, Trends and Prospects. Association of European Migration Institutions Journal, 10, 99-113.
  • Harvey, J. (2006). Return Dynamics in Bosnia1 and Croatia: A Comparative Analysis. International Migration, 44(3), 89-144.
  • Heimerl, D. (2005). The return of refugees and internally displaced persons: From coercion to sustainability?. International Peacekeeping, 12(3), 377-390.
  • Horstein Tomić, C. (2014). Migration Activity from Croatia to Germany and Return Tendencies – An Account of Recent Developments. In: Caroline Elizabeth Hornstein Tomić, Ivan Hrstić, Filip Majetić, Marin Sopta, Ines Sabotic (eds.), Hrvatsko iseljeništvo i domovina-Razvojne perspektive, (ss 273-282). Zagreb: Institut društvenih znanosti Ivo Pilar.
  • Human Rights Watch (2003). Croatia. Broken promises: impediments to refugee return to Croatia. Human Rights Watch Paport, 15(66(D)). (Erişim: 04.08.2018), https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/croatia0903/croatia0903.pdf
  • Huttunen, L. (2010). Sedentary policies and transnational relations: a ‘non-sustainable’case of return to Bosnia. Journal of Refugee Studies, 23(1), 41-61.
  • International Crisis Group (1999). Preventing Minority Return in Bosnia and Herzegovina:
  • the anatomy of hate and fear. Sarajevo: International Crisis Group Report, no. 73, (August 2nd 1999). (Erişim: 04.08.2018), http://www.intl-crisis-group.org/projects/sbalkans/reports/bh50main.htm
  • Knezović, S., & Grošinić, M. (2017). Migration trends in Croatia. Zagreb: Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
  • KNOMAD (2015). Return Migration and Re-Integration into Croatia and Kosovo. Croatian Heritage Foundation, May 11-12, Zagreb.
  • Mesić, M., & Bagić, D. (2010). Serb Returnees in Croatia–the Question of Return Sustainability. International migration, 48(2), 133-160.
  • Mikić, L. (2005). Croatia: Challenges for Sustainable Return of Ethnic Serb Refugees. London: Minority Rights Group International, Micro study.
  • Pavlaković, V. (2009). From conflict to commemoration: Serb-Croat relations and the anniversaries of Operation Storm. In: Darko Gavrilović (ed.), Serb-Croat relations: Political cooperation and national minorities, (ss.73-82). Novi Sad: CHDR.
  • Stefanovic, D., & Loizides, N. (2017). Peaceful returns: Reversing ethnic cleansing after the Bosnian War. International Migration, 55(5), 217-234.
  • Stefansson, A. H. (2006). Homes in the making: property restitution, refugee return, and senses of belonging in a post‐war Bosnian town. International migration, 44(3), 115-139.
  • T.C. İçişleri Bakanlığı Göç İdaresi Genel Müdürlüğü (2009). Göç Terimleri Sözlüğü. (Erişim: 10.08.2018), http://www.goc.gov.tr/icerik6/goc-terimleri-sozlugu_363_382_727_icerik
  • Tuathail, G. Ó., & Dahlman, C. (2004). The effort to reverse ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina: The limits of returns. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 45(6), 439-464.
  • United Nations General Assembly (1995). General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. (Erişim: 04.08.2018), http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/BA_951121_DaytonAgreement.pdf
  • Vidak, N. (1998). The policy of immigration in Croatia. Politička misao, 35(05), 57-75.
  • Vujadinović, S., Šabić, D., Stojković, S., & Milinčić, M. (2011). Years of refugee life in Serbia-challenges for a new beginning: stay or return home?. TRAMES: A Journal of the Humanities & Social Sciences, 15(3), 235-258.
  • World Bank (2018). Croatia. (Erişim: 08.08.2018), https://data.worldbank.org/country/croatia
Primary Language tr
Subjects Social
Published Date Güz
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Orcid: 0000-0002-6350-7744
Author: Nesrin KENAR (Primary Author)
Institution: SAKARYA UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCES
Country: Turkey


Author: Mertcan YOLDAŞ (Primary Author)
Institution: SAKARYA UNIVERSITY, INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
Country: Turkey


Dates

Publication Date : December 2, 2019

APA Kenar, N , Yoldaş, M . (2019). Hırvatistan Cumhuriyeti’ne Geri Dönüş Göçü . JOEEP: Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy , 4 (2) , 5-14 . Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/joeep/issue/50431/561800