Global Compact For Migration Research Articles

Far right alternative news media as ‘indignation mobilization mechanisms’: how the far right opposed the Global Compact for Migration

ABSTRACT The paper analyses the role of alternative far-right media in promoting and organizing mobilization against the Global Compact for Migration – the first intergovernmentally negotiated agreement, prepared under the auspices of the United Nations, covering all dimensions of international migration in a holistic and comprehensive manner. Exploring four European alternative far-right media: PI-News in Germany, Il Primato Nazionale in Italy, the UK localization of Breitbart, and the transnational Voice of Europe, we show that these media have gone beyond (dis)informing and have actively mobilized and channeled indignation through petitioning and protest organization. While most research on far-right media practices so far has focused either on social media interactions or exclusively on ‘disinformation’ and ‘fake news’, we analyse web based alternative news media as part of а far-right social movement that has successfully used progressive left-wing protests repertoires and tactics. We argue that alternative far-right news media act as ‘indignation mobilization mechanisms’ that not only fuel the indignation of the public by channeling the messages of far-right politicians but also channel bottom-up indignation through online campaigns, petitions, and offline street protests. This unabashedly biased and mobilization-oriented approach is what distinguishes far-right media from mainstream media and guarantees them a loyal and dedicated supporter base.

Politics of Knowledge Production in the Global Compact for Migration

This essay interrogates the production of knowledge about migration in a prominent UN instrument, the Global Compact for Migration (GCM). To articulate which worlds of mobility it privileges and delegitimises, we explore the GCM’s approach to “safe, orderly and regular” migration, particularly through its formulation of “information provision” for migrants. The politics of knowledge lies in producing both a conception of “safe, orderly and regular”, linked to state frameworks and informed migrants, and its “other” – “unsafe, disorderly and irregular” – which becomes linked to risky migration and seemingly ill-informed and unruly migrants. Whilst the GCM’s concern with creating safe pathways for movement is promising, we are critical of how the notion of “safe, orderly and regular” has been produced, in conjunction with related concepts, as a means of migration management which might jeopardize its stated aspiration. It can serve to reinforce harmful processes and structures of illegalization which rest on entrenched gradations of (il)legitimacy in migration policies, supported by underlying epistemological frameworks. We consider two starting points for reimagining migration knowledges: firstly, a human rights approach, which remains limited in a number of respects, and, secondly, the fracturing of modern/colonial epistemologies.

Non-binding and therefore irrelevant? The Global Compact for Migration

One of the most debated and criticized characteristics of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) is its legally non-binding form. This article analyzes the GCM’s legal form, mechanisms of effectiveness, and legitimacy and finds that while the legal form of the GCM is important, the available mechanisms of effectiveness and legitimacy are equally or, perhaps, more important factors to determine the compact’s relevance and future impact. Although non-binding, the GCM does possess the relevance, capacities, and legitimacy to become a normative force in the field of international migration governance. Compliance with its outlined commitments will, however, be strongly dependent on the political will of the participating states. Perhaps its key function will be to fill the existing gaps in hard law in global migration governance by fostering cooperation and consolidating international obligations, standards, and stakeholders of a crosscutting topic into one instrument.

Cities as Emergent International Actors in the Field of Migration

Abstract Cities are fast becoming actors on issues of transnational import. This is also true in the field of migration governance where their scope of responsibility has traditionally been perceived as entirely domestic in nature. As mayors act and advocate transnationally on migration, they are supported by a growing web of intercity networks spanning knowledge sharing, to lobbying, to operational work. In parallel, cities’ agency is rising as they begin to acquire access and influence in interstate deliberations and decision-making fora. Their active presence impacts policy instruments like the UN Global Compact for Migration and Global Compact on Refugees, and policy frameworks like the Global Forum on Migration and Development. In turn, as cities provide more information on challenges faced locally, we may expect more pragmatic approaches to migration. This article outlines this expansion of cities’ agency and what it could mean for international migration governance.

The UN Global Compacts on Migration and Refugees

Abstract As process-oriented, inclusive, legally nonbinding frameworks deemed to promote cooperation in the pursuit of agreed objectives, the Global Compacts for Migration and Refugees adopted in December 2018 introduce modes of experimentalist governance in fields where states have hitherto opposed (new) multilateral commitments. This article retraces the introduction of experimentalist elements in the compacts’ architecture and critically discusses their potential and limits in such contested policy fields. It concludes that given the depth of normative and distributive conflicts, the compacts are unlikely to generate substantive innovation, as experimentalist theory would suggest. They may, however, help to counter the erosion of existing commitments.

The EU, migration and contestation: the UN Global Compact for migration, from consensus to dissensus

ABSTRACT The 2015 migration crisis has shaken the EU system to the point that no agreement on the matter was possible. In this line, it was decided to bring to the international level the need to agree on a migration norm: the UN Global Compact for Migration. This article analyses the EU and Member States dynamics of dissent vis-à-vis substantive and procedural norms. It shows the existence of four structural factors within EU foreign policy that enhances consensus. That is the existence of a common position on the matter, the expert culture constraining the behaviour of parties, the EU community of practices and the role of the chair. The presence of these factors explain why the EU contained Hungary’s objections to the Compact, but its absence also explains the domino effect triggered by the Austrian withdrawal. At the end, EU norms such as effective multilateralism and sincere cooperation were contested.

Fleeing from the Global Compact for Migration: A missed opportunity for Italy

This article examines the reasons that in December 2018 led both the Italian Parliament and Government to refrain from the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, which first Italy promoted as a way to revitalize the European Union’s solidarity and coordination, while lessening the uneven burden of migratory inflows into the country. Although it has been argued that ‘the opposition to the Compact has propagandistic objectives, that cannot be negotiated away’ (Gatti, 2018, p. 1) this article aims to demonstrate the wide socio-economic and political benefits that the Global Compact will bring to Italy if adopted, as well as the gains that an instrument of international migration governance will bring to national migration policy. This contribution also highlights the opportunities that the Global Compact offers for a truly common European approach to migration.

Using detention to talk about the elephant in the room: the Global Compact for Migration and the significance of its neglect of the UN Migrant Workers Convention

AbstractThe paper discusses the (unsteady) evolution of multilateral processes on migration since the 1980s, with a focus on immigration detention as a growing response to migratory movements. It identifies distinct periods leading up to the Global Compact for Migration (GCM). The paper exposes double standards in the treatment of migration at the UN and beyond, connected with states’ view of migration as a toxic topic. While the GCM put the issue of migration back on the global agenda, the paper argues against the claim that the GCM is the first-ever inter-governmentally negotiated agreement covering all dimensions of international migration. This description better fits the 1990 Migrant Workers Convention. Furthermore, the paper illustrates how the GCM poses a threat to human rights protection in the area of migration: given its focus on co-operation and a state-led non-binding approach, it may overshadow existing international norms and widely endorsed standards monitored by UN bodies.

A new dawn for the human rights of international migrants? Protection of migrants’ rights in light of the UN's SDGs and Global Compact for Migration

AbstractThis paper undertakes a sceptical analysis of the significance for the protection of migrants’ rights represented by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2030 and the UN Global Compact for Migration (GCM). Despite the positive view taken by many of these frameworks, I argue that, taken together, the SDGs and the GCM represent an acknowledgement of the failure of the international system of human rights protection to deal effectively with the protection of migrants’ rights. With particular reference to the UN Migrant Workers Convention, I argue that adoption of the GCM underscores a decisive shift from the realm of binding international law to soft law for the purposes of dealing with migrants’ rights. While acknowledging some of the signal benefits of this new regime, I highlight some of the many signs suggesting that these twin international developments do not guarantee progress on the road to the protection of migrants’ rights.

ARE Wives of Migrants in Rural Bangladesh Really “Left behind”? A Nuanced Analysis of How Spousal Migration Affects Women’s Healthcare Utilization

Research ObjectiveLabor migration has a profound effect on the family at all levels, but evidence documenting the impact of migration on women "left behind" is still lacking. We analyze the effects of migration on healthcare utilization and outcomes of women "left behind," and consider the moderating effects of household structure on gender‐related barriers to healthcare utilization.Study DesignWe examine outcomes across 5 domains: healthcare utilization, mental health, self‐reported health, BMI, and gender equality. The primary independent variable is a categorical measure of the husband’s migration status, and the secondary predictor is the family context within which the women live, defined as their relationship to the household head. We conduct bivariate and regression analyses using linear, logistic, and multinomial models controlling for age, education, and geographic location.Population StudiedSince 1966, the International Center for Diarrheal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), has implemented a Health and Demographic Surveillance System in the rural Matlab area of Bangladesh, collecting data monthly on nearly the entire population of around 200 000. In 1996, the widely utilized Matlab Health and Socioeconomic Survey (MHSS1) was conducted on a representative sample of 7% of households, followed by MHSS2 in 2012‐2014, which had unusually successful migrant tracking, capturing 92‐94% of surviving members of all key age‐sex cohorts. Our sample is drawn from MHSS2 and includes 6983 currently married women between the ages of 15 and 45.Principal FindingsMore than twice as many women who had a cohabitating spouse could not access health care when they needed it (20.8%), compared to women with international migrant spouses (10.2%, P < .001). International spousal migration remained a significant predictor of women's ability to access healthcare primarily through a reduction in financial barriers (P < .001), when controlling for age, education, relationship to household head, self‐reported health, depression, and geographic location. The barriers to healthcare access varied for women depending on the migration status of their spouse. Financial barriers decreased by 66% for wives of international migrants (P < .001), but barriers related to mobility, autonomy, and family approval increased for this same group of women.Gains in access to health care are also explained by improvements women’s mobility and economic empowerment associated with husband’s domestic and international migration (P < .001). However, these positive migration effects do not translate into significant differences in self‐reported health, BMI, or depression; and migration‐related improvements in economic empowerment and mobility are fully moderated for women who live with their parents or in‐laws.ConclusionsThe potential benefits of migration for women's healthcare utilization may be diluted by family structures that perpetuate unequal gender dynamics.Implications for Policy or PracticeDue to the dynamic and evolving nature of migration, a comprehensive approach is essential to understand the health impacts on women and their families and inform policies in both sending and receiving countries. These efforts also help to answer growing calls for attention to gender, including those in the newly adopted UN Global Compact for Migration, and take an important step toward understanding, not just where communities stand in relation to global targets, but through what mechanisms progress on women's access to healthcare is being made or hindered.Primary Funding SourceAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

How to govern mixed migration in Europe: transnational expert networks and knowledge creation in international organizations

AbstractMixed migration is an international regime in the making. The migration and refugee crisis put the topic high on the global agenda and multilateral initiatives like the Global Compacts for Migration and Refugees have started to address it. However, it is a contested policy issue and agreement on legally binding instruments is difficult to achieve. While formal global mixed migration governance is thus only emerging, in this article I argue that international organizations shape how mixed migration is governed through informal means. Mixed migration experts in intergovernmental organizations, regional agencies and non‐governmental organizations form networks that cut across organizational levels and boundaries to create practical knowledge and to train fieldworkers. Based on interviews and the analysis of training material, this article shows that they have considerable influence over policy implementation because they control the content of training tools and devise scripts for best practices that guide how mixed migration is governed on the ground.

The Reform of Chinese Migration Law and the Protection of Migrants’ Rights

With the adoption of the 2012 Exit-Entry Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China implementing legislation and institutional changes, the Chinese migration law regime underwent fundamental reformation. Streamlined application procedures that are available online and clarified competences have increased efficiency whereas the classification scheme of different categories of foreign nationals has enhanced transparency. This chapter outlines the development of Chinese legislation governing foreign nationals and the changes of the overall legal framework. Further, we will analyse the level of protection of rights of foreign nationals in the area of labour law and legal remedies against measures taken on the basis of the Exit-Entry Administration Law. We argue that recent reforms have been more symbolic than functional and that the protection of rights of migrants has not been significantly improved by recent reforms. The Chinese legislator has taken into account foreign immigration law, in particular legal regulations of typical immigration countries such as Australia or Canada. However, such legal transfer appears to be rather superficial, as the effects of new legal regulation do not deviate substantially from the effects of the previous legal framework. With regard to international law, China has not ratified the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and does not model the protection of labour rights of foreign nationals on the equal treatment principle as it is embodied in the Convention. However, China voted for the Global Compact for Migration after being actively involved in its drafting process and further committing itself in this context to improve national migration legislation.

The Necessity for Alternative Legal Pathways: The Best Practice of Humanitarian Corridors Opened by Private Sponsors in Italy

AbstractThe scope of this Article is to understand to what extent a recent and fruitful private initiative sponsoring a safe alternative legal pathway spread from Italy, called “humanitarian corridors,” may in the future become a general and uniform alternative model for all the European Union States. Such a practice—which currently represents an exceptional route for vulnerable migrants to enter the country without harm after a security screening and to be materially supported by the same sponsors in the crucial initial phase of integration—is at present restricted to a relatively small number of beneficiaries, but it could potentially be extended to other States.In order to achieve this goal, it is argued that the present model should be slightly adjusted—especially with regard to the actual reference to Article 25 of the Visa Code as its legal basis. The latter seems difficult to be formally maintained after the much criticized 2017 judgment X and X v. Belgium, in which the Court of Justice of the European Union conferred to Member States a wide margin of discretion when requested to grant humanitarian visas by vulnerable people exposed to serious irreversible harm. Against this background, clear obligations to grant humanitarian visas to vulnerable people at risk already exist. This obligation stems from international law—both general and conventional—and constitutes the adequate legal basis both for States and civil society to act in a “multi-stakeholder alliance” to find solutions to the challenges and opportunities deriving from international migration, as indicated in the Global Compact for Migration.

The Emergence of Global Migration Governance 2.0: The Case of GCM

본 연구의 목적은 2018년 12월 유엔 총회에서 채택된 ‘이주에 관한 글로벌 컴팩트’의 등장을 글로벌 이주 거버넌스의 제도적 변화로 이해하고, 그 성격을 역사적 제도주의의 이론적 틀을 활용하여 분석하는 것이다. 국제이주 문제가 다른 국제관계적 이슈와 연계되면서 그 복합성이 증대되어 글로벌 거버넌스적인 해결방식이 중요해졌음에도 불구하고, 글로벌 이주 거버넌스는 저발전된 상태였다. 본 연구는 ‘이주에 관한 글로벌컴팩트’의 등장에 주목하여 글로벌 이주 거버넌스의 역사적 발전과정을 분석함으로써 ‘이주에 관한 글로벌 컴팩트’의 성격과 전망을 도출하고자 한다. 또한 글로벌 이주 거버넌스의 제도적 변화의 유형을 ‘중첩’으로 파악하고, 기존 제도의 중심성이 지속되는 가운데 유엔 내 제도적 변화와 같은 새로운 요소가 추가된 것에 주목하고자 한다. 마지막으로 본 연구는 ‘이주를 위한 글로벌 컴팩트’는 향후 국제이주와 관련된 다양한 행위자들에게 공통의 규범을 제시하고, 제도화된 토론의 장을 제공할 것으로 전망한다.This paper aims to examine ‘Global Compact for Migration,’ which was adopted by the UN Assembly in December, 2018. It also focuses on institutional change of global migration governance, and its characteristics by utilizing theoretical framework drawn from historical institutionalism. Although the issues of international migration have become more complex due to its linkage with other IR issues, global migration governance is quite underdeveloped. This research pays attention to the emergence of GCM, and analyzes the historical development of global migration governance. From those analyses, this paper tries to assess the characteristics of GCM, and to prospect its future. This paper regards the characteristics of institutional change shown in the case of GCM as ‘layering,’ and it pays attention to what the new elements were added to the previous institutional settings such as the institutional changes within the UN. Finally, this research expects that GCM will provide a variety of actors in the area of international migration with the common norms and an institutionalized space for discussion.

Closing the Gap? Gender and the Global Compacts for Migration and Refugees

AbstractMigrant women's organizations, UN Women, and civil society advocacy networks have mobilized to call for greater gender‐responsiveness in migration governance. The development of the Global Compacts on Migration and Refugees presented an important opportunity to continue enhancing the international framework for protecting the rights of women and men on the move. This article asks: How has gender been understood/invoked during proceedings leading up to their adoption? In what ways is it incorporated in the resulting compacts and their operationalization? What are the gains and missed opportunities for gender‐responsiveness? Drawing on data gathered through participant observation in the global compact on migration preparatory meetings and member state negotiations in Geneva and New York, and policy analysis of the drafts of both compacts, this paper aims to determine the extent to which the compacts, and the plans to operationalize them, serve to widen or close the gender gap.

Global But Not Regional? The Role of African Regional Migration Regimes in the International Governance Architecture

Regional organisations and migration regimes are increasingly being acknowledged in global migration policies. The global compacts for migration and on refugees adopted in December 2018 recognise the migration-related expertise and important function of regional organisations in the implementation of international guidelines and policies. But the compacts’ wording is vague on the division of labour between global and regional migration regimes, and important questions remain unanswered regarding the added value and ideal role of regional migration regimes in the international system. This is particularly true for regions of the global South, whose institutional arrangements, substantive focus and performance in migration-related norm setting and implementation remain understudied. The authors contribute to filling this knowledge gap by considering two migration policy processes in the context of their overall (regional) migration governance systems and regimes – the ECOWAS Protocol for the Free Movement of Persons and the IGAD Regional Framework for Durable Solutions for Somali Refugees. Based on a qualitative research design, they find that regional migration regimes possess some comparative advantages compared with global ones, which enhance their agency. However, depending on institutional path dependencies, the degree of legalisation and the interests of powerful internal and external actors, levels of agency with regards to different migration types might show significant variation.

The Global Compact for Migration: Lessons for the Unity of EU Representation

Abstract In December 2018, the Global Compact for Migration was first adopted at the Marrakesh intergovernmental conference to be later endorsed as an UN General Assembly Resolution in New York. From an EU perspective, what started out as a common project to manage migration globally, not to say externally, became a fiasco for the unity of EU representation on the international scene. Unlike the negotiations of international agreements which are framed by the procedure set out in Article 218 TFEU, the negotiations of international soft law do not benefit from a clear legal framework. The Court of Justice has given some indications on the procedural and institutional aspects relevant for the negotiations of international soft law instruments in the Council v. Commission (C-660/13) case but many uncertainties remain. The purpose of this article is to draw lessons from the negotiation process of the Global Compact for the unity of EU representation.

The Global Compact for Migration: From the Sustainable Development Goals to a Comprehensive Agreement on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration

The Global Compact for Migration: From the Sustainable Development Goals to a Comprehensive Agreement on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration

The Global Compact for Migration: what could it mean for women and gender relations?

ABSTRACTUnder half of international migrants throughout the world are women. While large movements of people, human rights and humanitarian crises, and migrant deaths are not new, the public attention given to the arrivals of refugees and migrants to the shores of Europe has compelled governments to engage in a multilateral manner. In September 2016, the United Nations General Assembly held its first-ever summit dedicated to large movements of refugees and migrants, reaffirming the importance of existing legal instruments to protect refugees and migrants, and also foreseeing the development of two new Global Compacts: one on refugees, and the other for safe, orderly and regular migration. This article examines the process to elaborate the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration from a gender-responsive perspective. It takes into consideration the advocacy role that the Women in Migration Network and other civil society stakeholders have played in its development, identifies the various opportunities and gaps within the Global Compact, and explores how women’s organisations and development organisations can promote change for women in migration under the new Global Compact.

Coordinated approaches to large-scale movements of people: contributions of the Paris Agreement and the Global Compacts for migration and on refugees

It is not yet clear how climate change will affect the structural constraints and spatial and social complexity that affect population movements in the future. Today, countries of origin, transit, and destination have reached a juncture. The UNFCCC Paris Agreement adds value to decisions these countries face by helping them explore possible scenarios for impacts that include large movements of people that could be associated with a rise in global average temperatures between 1.5 and 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. Climate policy and mainstream migration and refugee policy are developing recommendations by the end of 2018 that, together, will provide new contours for governing human mobility in the twenty-first century. This paper compares work on human mobility under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and how climate change features in the initial drafts of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) and the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR). The international community can choose not to include such future considerations, missing opportunities to avert risks of involuntary movements of people as climate change impacts intensify. Alternatively, the international community can help countries to preempt risks arising from governance gaps and climate impacts, incorporate climate and mobility considerations in planning, and establish contingency arrangements for large-scale movements of people. A measure of efficacy in coordinating responses to large-scale movements of people will be the degree to which both state and non-state actors take up the recommendations of the Task Force on Displacement, how the Global Compact for Migration is negotiated, and the degree to which states utilize the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework as climate and other dynamics unfold in future years.