• From the Editor
• Christina Guenther

This issue is dedicated to the students and colleagues on both sides of the Atlantic who have made the Bowling Green State University–Paris Lodron University of Salzburg academic exchange program over the past fifty years so transformative and enriching.

Shortly after the World Health Organization declared that COVID-19 was to be considered a pandemic on March 11, 2020, strict rules were placed on personal movement all around the world. More than 130 nation-states closed their borders and placed heavy restrictions on domestic and international travel, prohibiting entry for almost all noncitizens (Banulescu-Bogdan, Benton, and Fratzke). Even within the Schengen Area of the European Union, which since 1993 has guaranteed free movement of its citizens across the borders of its member nations (today numbering twenty-six), a travel ban went into effect for a number of months. While the travel restrictions within the EU did get loosened during the summer months of 2020, a travel ban for some non-EU members has continued to stay in effect (European Commission).

For this reason, it may seem somewhat counterintuitive to focus on migration at such an historical moment where unprecedented restrictions on travel are in force around the world. After all, the UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, and the International Organization for Migration, too, temporarily suspended all resettlement departures for refugees. We know that on a global level, refugees and migrants have been particularly adversely affected by the travel bans (Banulescu-Bogdan, Benton, and Fratzke). According to the World Migration Report 2020, published by the UN International Organization for Migration, there are at least 272 million international migrants globally (2). Austria continues, too, to register an increase in migrants; the foreign-born population in Austria currently lies at approximately 19 percent of the population and is projected to increase ("Austria Population 2020 (Live)").¹ Therefore, even if the current pandemic has preoccupied public consciousness [End Page xiii] for the moment, "[t]he specters of the past set the stage for the conflicts of the present" (Diez). Migration as experience—past and present—and the policies governing it remain central to the politics of both Austria and Europe and continue to challenge the democratic values and the very foundation of European identity.

The long-term ramifications of border closings in contemporary Europe with regard to refugees, asylum, and immigration policies and their enforcement remain to be assessed. Certainly, pandemics, which are not new to Central Europe or to the world, have had an effect on mobility. Interestingly enough, for instance, as early as in the 1730s, the Habsburg Empire had an effective, if draconian, way of handling plagues transmitted through intercontinental and continental movement and trade (see Balázs and Foley 73). In their study of how the Austrian monarchy controlled the plague in the eighteenth century, Balázs and Foley explore how the monarch Charles VI mandated his Sanitary Court Commission to institute sea-port quarantine stations once the empire had established itself in international trade. Under Maria Theresia during the second half of the eighteenth century, the Venetian method of quarantine was imposed on continental border crossings, and stricter policies to counter global epidemics transmitted via continental and transcontinental trade led to successful epidemiological protection (Balázs and Foley 74). In our time, as the 2020 World Migration Report states, a complex relationship between migration and health continues to exist, and it remains to be seen how the COVID-19 pandemic will impact that relationship, especially in this era where migration increasingly has been weaponized as a political tool and used to undermine democracy and inclusive civic engagement (4, 7).

The 2020 World Migration Report states quite clearly that "technology is an enabler and a game-changer" for migrants and host communities on many levels (8). Certainly, the Internet continues to allow us to move swiftly from one space to another and keeps us interconnected. Books and journals, similarly, continue to travel between places as well and allow us to migrate virtually. In that vein, the articles in this volume, written before the pandemic, allow us to migrate through time and place. They signal the power of narration and art, which transmit especially...

• 来自编辑
• 克里斯蒂娜·昆瑟

本期杂志专门献给大西洋两岸的学生和同事，他们在过去的五十年中使鲍林格林州立大学-萨尔茨堡的巴黎罗德隆大学的学术交流计划变得如此具有变革性和丰富性。

在世界卫生组织（WHO）于2020年3月11日宣布将COVID-19视为大流行病后不久，全球范围内对个人活动制定了严格的规则。超过130个民族国家关闭了边界，并对国内和国际旅行实行了严格限制，禁止几乎所有非公民入境（Banulescu-Bogdan，Benton和Fratzke）。即使在欧盟的申根区（自1993年以来保证其公民自由跨越其成员国边界（今天为26个））之内，旅行禁令也生效了几个月。尽管欧盟内部的旅行限制确实在2020年夏季放松了，但对某些非欧盟成员的旅行禁令仍继续有效（欧洲委员会）。

由于这个原因，在这样一个历史性的时刻关注移民问题似乎有点违反直觉，在这个历史性时刻，全球范围内对旅行实行了前所未有的限制。毕竟，难民专员办事处，联合国难民署和国际移民组织也暂时中止了所有难民的重新定居。我们知道，在全球范围内，旅行禁令（Banulescu-Bogdan，Benton和Fratzke）尤其对难民和移民造成了不利影响。根据《 2020年世界移民报告》由联合国国际移民组织发布的数据显示，全球至少有2.72亿国际移民（2）。奥地利也继续增加移民人数；奥地利的外国出生人口目前约占总人口的19％，并且预计将会增加（“奥地利2020年人口（实时）”）。¹因此，即使当前的流行病暂时已经引起了公众的关注[End xiii]，“过去的幽灵为当前的冲突奠定了基础”（Diez）。作为过去和现在的经验，移徙以及管理移徙的政策仍然是奥地利和欧洲政治的中心，并继续挑战民主价值观和欧洲认同的基础。

当代欧洲边界关闭对难民，庇护和移民政策及其执行的长期影响仍有待评估。当然，流行病对中欧或世界并不陌生，但对流动性产生了影响。有趣的是，例如，早在1730年代，哈布斯堡帝国就已经有效地处理了通过洲际和大陆运动和贸易传播的瘟疫（如果是严酷的话）（见Balázs和Foley 73）。在对18世纪奥地利君主制如何控制瘟疫的研究中，巴拉兹和弗利探索了君主查理六世如何在帝国建立国际贸易后，授权其卫生法院委员会设立海港检疫站。在18世纪下半叶的玛丽亚·特蕾西亚（Maria Theresia）统治下，威尼斯式的隔离方法被强加于大陆边境口岸，而更严格的政策对付通过大陆和跨大陆贸易传播的全球流行病，则成功地实现了流行病学保护（Balázs和Foley 74）。在我们的时代，作为2020年《世界移民报告》指出，移民与健康之间仍然存在着复杂的关系，还有待观察COVID-19大流行如何影响这一关系，特别是在这个时代，移民已越来越多地被用作政治工具，并被用来破坏民主和包容性公民参与（4、7）。

《 2020年世界移民报告》非常明确地指出，“技术是推动者和游戏规则改变者”，适用于许多层次的移民和接纳社区（8）。当然，互联网继续使我们能够从一个空间快速移动到另一个空间，并使我们保持相互联系。同样，书籍和期刊也继续在各地之间旅行，并允许我们进行虚拟迁移。因此，本卷中的文章是在大流行之前写的，使我们可以穿越时间和地点。它们传达了叙事和艺术的力量，这些力量尤其传递着……