L 8 - Migration and Refugees Flashcards
Reflect on the link between human rights & refugee/migration policy.
Human rights are the cornerstone of refugee and migration policies, ensuring the protection of individuals from persecution, discrimination, and harm.
The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol establish the legal framework for the rights of refugees and the obligations of states to provide asylum. International human rights law guarantees that all migrants, regardless of legal status, are entitled to fundamental rights such as freedom from torture, access to healthcare, and education.
These principles underpin asylum processes, ensuring fair treatment and prohibiting refoulement (the return of individuals to countries where they face danger).
Reflect on the (central) role and contestation of the UN
UNHCR as the UN’s refugee agency, created in 1950 upon the initiative of US and Western countries, main historical focus on Europe
Now: global agency - Humanitarian assistance
- Incl. to IDPs - Normative task: promoting international refugee law
Maybe the states should have been given more responsibility?
Always conflict between national sovereignty and global governance
Reflect on the applied governance modes
Question what should be governed internationally and what globally
Policy shift from ‘refugee protection’ to ‘border protection’
- The right to enter is necessary to seek asylum but not guaranteed (NORMATIVE GAP!)
- Non-entrée policies:Measures to make It hard for people to make use of their right to Asylum, e.g. EU has border deals with Lybia so that they do not enter the EU, Australia sends them to Nauru, UK-Rwanda deal
- The Declaration of Human rights forbids that, but is non-binding
Be knowledgeable of the 1951 Convention and its Protocol.
- 1951 Refugee Convention: only individual persecution for specific reasons (e.g. no war refugees as they face persecution as a collective)
- 1967 Protocol: temporal and geographical universalisation (These limits initially restricted the Convention to persons who became refugees due to events occurring in Europe before 1 January 1951)
- Rights of refugees, incl. non-refoulement & social rights
- Non-refoulement is the principle that you can’t expel a person that seeks refuge to a country where they face persecution or any kind of harm
- This is binding international customary law by now!
- Social rights: accepted refugees are supposed to have the same rights as citizens
Be knowledgeable of the composition of the regime complexes for migrants and refugees.
refugee - rights (HR orgs) protection (UNHCR) = 1951 Refugee convention & 1967 Protocol + regional mechanisms (EU, AU, etc)
migrants - labour and rights (ILO, GCM)
Be knowledgeable of the important differences between UNHCR and IOM.
The IOM was created outside the UN (by the US & they didn’t want any communist states in it) and first dealt with labor emigration (e.g. bringing workers from Europe to LatAm, Colonial &racist continuities)
In 2016 in the lead-up to the UN New York Summit for Refugees and Migrants, IOM became a ‘related organization to the UN’(not responding to the UN-decision making bodies)
Differences
UNHCR: Human-rights centered approach
IOM: ‘Managing Migration’ perspective (normative organization, does not criticize when the governments they are commissioned by violate HR, even managed Australian detention centers in Nauru
Both wanted to stay independent, to not be influenced.
What is the status (or lack thereof) of the environmental/climate migrants/refugees?
Not recognized as refugees, not within
- Sudden-onset natural disasters (floods, hurricanes, acute droughts, harvest failures, …)
- Slow-onset natural disasters (water shortage, reduced crop yields, …)
- Conflict
IDP (Internally displaced persons) protected by UNHCR, but still outside the system > will become a bigger problem
UNHCR explicitly admits that it did not want to open legal/normative discussions on refugee status/protection
= politically less controversial
= but reaffirming the core corpus of international and regional legal instruments to protect refugees
Global Compact for Migration (2018)
Commitments for host, transit and origin countries…Stating some rights for migrants (e.g. access to social security, detention as last resort) differs migrants from refugees, non-binding, network shall support it: the UN-network of migration (led by IOM), soft law
- First global agreement for the global migration regime
- In the context of quite little relevant international
law/normative framework
- Legally non-binding = explicitly put in the text
- Overall positive tone on effects & potential of migration, but attention to risks and challenges
- Aims at regular migration, against smuggling, human trafficking
Global Compact for Refugees (2018)
- Prepared by UNHCR in consultation with member states and civil society
- Embedded in International Human Rights Law
- Not legally binding (explicitly mentioned)
“Intends to provide a basis for predictable and equitable burden- and responsibility-sharing”
‘Responsibility-sharing’ indicates efforts of countries to push for not only seeing refugee movement as a ‘burden’
4 objectives:
(i) ease pressures on host countries;
(ii) enhance refugee self-reliance;
(iii) expand access to third countries;
(iv) support conditions in countries of origin for return in safety and dignity.
Ease pressure on host countries (resettlement of refugees, financial support)
> Note that the 1951/1967 Refugee Convention does not stipulate anything about responsibility sharing = normative gap!
Why would we need a ‘global compact on migration’?
To embed migration policies into human rights, while respecting the sovereignty of states, and to foster international cooperation to promote regular migration, first global normative document on migration
Address shared challenges: Tackle irregular migration, trafficking, and environmental displacement collaboratively.
Maximize migration benefits: Enhance economic contributions, cultural diversity, and remittance flows.
Protect migrants’ rights: Ensure safety, dignity, and compliance with human rights frameworks.
Facilitate safe and orderly migration: Create legal pathways to reduce risks and irregular migration.
Respond to global crises: Coordinate actions for conflicts, natural disasters, and climate-driven migration.
Promote international solidarity: Share responsibilities and avoid overburdening specific countries.
Align with global agendas: Support the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Goal 10.7.
Counter misinformation: Combat xenophobia and promote evidence-based public dialogue.
Guide national policies: Offer a framework for countries to develop tailored migration strategies
Illustrate how the Global Compact for Migration advances/constrains the rights of
migrants/states.
Advances Migrants’ Rights = Promotes human rights and access to services. Supports safe, regular migration to reduce exploitation.Combats xenophobia and ensures labor protections.
Constrains Migrants’ Rights = Non-binding, reliant on state action. Emphasis on return risks protection gaps.
Advances State Rights = Upholds sovereignty and border control. Encourages international cooperation and orderly migration.
Constrains State Rights = Pressures states to align with norms, Resource demands and global scrutiny may pose challenges.
What are the arguments of the opponents on the Global Compact for Migration?
- confines the national migration policy > national sovereignty
- Used by e.g. the Trump administration as a target of general anti-multilateralism
- Principled stance in favour of national sovereignty – UN should not interfere in national migration policies
- Unease about ‘too positive’ look on migration
- Concern that text will have some impact (i.e. through interpretative power on laws/treaties, through development of customary law) on national jurisprudence, undermining national sovereignty = “if it is not meant to have impact, why then it is adopted?”
- Concern that text will generate extra rights with regard to residence status, social protection, family reunification, migrant detention, etc.
- Concern that the text strengthens multiculturalism as opposed to Leitkultur or assimilation
How will the follow-up of the Global Compact for Migration be organized? Why can the
leading role of the IOM be controversial?
Every 4 years: International Migration Review Forum (from 2022)
UN Secretary-General establishes ‘UN Global Network on Migration’ with IOM as secretariat and coordinator
[controversy: IOM is a ‘non-normative’ institution whereas the Global Compact is very normative and grounded in human rights & UN 2030 Agenda] (§45)
Relate global refugee governance to the concept of global public goods
Global public goods are goods or services that:
Benefit everyone globally: They are non-excludable (cannot exclude anyone from benefiting) and non-rivalrous (one person’s use doesn’t reduce availability to others).
Require international cooperation to provide, as no single country can produce them alone.
Global refugee governance aligns with the concept of global public goods because it delivers benefits like stability, security, and human rights protection that extend beyond national borders. However, achieving its full potential as a GPG requires stronger international cooperation, fairer burden-sharing, and improved coordination among global institutions.
How would you summarise the essence of the Global Compact on Refugees?
“Intends to provide a basis for predictable and equitable burden- and responsibility-sharing”
Ease pressure on host countries → burden- and responsibility sharing
Through resettlement of refugees
Through financial support
Why would we need the Global Compact on Refugees on top of the 1951 Convention (and
its expanding 1967 Protocol)?
the 1951/1967 Refugee Convention does not stipulate anything about responsibility sharing
=
Normative gap
Promoting international cooperation, addressing contemporary challenges
Building on Lessons Learned
Practical Gaps in Implementation:
The Convention and Protocol are vital but often inconsistently applied, with states using restrictive interpretations.
GCR’s Role: Provides guidelines and best practices for consistent and effective implementation of refugee protection.
What is typical about the mode of governance applied to the follow-up of the Global
Compact on Refugees? Compare with for example climate.
Main answer: Non-binding, soft-law, relies on voluntary pledges, More like the paris agreement in comparison to the UNFCCC & Kyoto (Catalytic cooperation)
Key Similarities
1. Normative Influence: Both governance modes rely heavily on norms, persuasion, and moral pressure to drive action.
- Global Challenges:
Both address global, transboundary issues requiring international cooperation.
3.Inclusive Participation:
Both frameworks emphasize multi-stakeholder involvement, including civil society and non-state actors.
Key Differences
- Binding Nature: Climate governance incorporates binding legal obligations (e.g., the Kyoto Protocol, parts of the Paris Agreement), while the GCR operates entirely through soft law mechanisms.
- Accountability: Climate governance has clearer mechanisms for tracking progress (e.g., NDCs and reporting under the UNFCCC) compared to the peer-review structure of the GCR
Why was there less controversy on the Global Compact on Refugees compared to the
Global Compact for Migration?
- less intrusive, focus on burden-sharing rather than border control rights
- less politicised
- refugee was more sympathetic whilst migration is more linked to divisive topics
