World Migration Report 2024: Chapter 8
Key tensions in policy discussions on global migration governance
The Global Compact for Migration and the IMRF Progress Declaration reflect both advancement and a compromise between States. Pre-existing migration governance indicators introduced improvements towards measuring global migration governance in a more systematic way:50 even without an agreed reporting framework, 15 countries referred to information collected through the IOM Migration Governance Indicators (MGI) initiative in their Global Compact for Migration reviews.51 Nevertheless, global migration governance is often characterized by agreements breaking down, exclusions and exemptions for particular situations and States, international conventions and norms not being applied, and roles being suspended.52 Tensions still exist between States and other actors on priorities and steps to be taken towards advancing global governance.53 The fluidity of concepts and policy categories that do not necessarily reflect the reality and needs of migrants pose a challenge when generating solutions. The difficulty of agreeing, at the global level, on concrete measures to implement the Global Compact for Migration in a gender-responsive way – despite the availability of best practices and guidance material54 – is also a reflection of different priorities among Member States.
From a civil society perspective, in an effort to reduce barriers to civil society engagement in IMRF processes, the Action Committee IMRF assessment paper identified eleven commitments and action points that call for more receptive and more inclusive measures to be taken by Member States, international organizations, and other stakeholders.55
Another tension relates to the ways that countries of destination, origin and transit are separated and treated differently in policy discussions.56 In fact, all regions of the world include States that are simultaneously countries of destination, origin and transit for migrants, and have to deal with the challenges and opportunities associated with all directions of migration flow.
Achieving a compromise or revisiting some of the current policy categories of migrant populations is difficult given the current geopolitics. This is especially so with regard to the protection of persons on the move or internally displaced persons (see text box below). Rather than revisiting or updating existing regimes such as the international protection regime, States are seeking ways to create new approaches to govern emerging challenges. This is the case in the area of climate-related displacement, large movements of persons due to displacement or even conflict‑related displacements.57
Some of the tensions emerging at the regional and national level disrupt cooperation at the global level. Regional responses or the priorities of hegemons (that is, politically and economically dominant countries within regions) often spill over to the global scene and, in effect, determine the direction of the global governance of migration or the emphasis placed on cooperation between States on migration. Regional responses have been central to States’ reactions to displacement and large movements, but innovation observed in specific regions has not been reflected in global action. For example, in response to the Venezuelan crisis, countries in South America and the Caribbean adopted measures to protect the rights of migrants and refugees, including measures aimed at regularizing their stay and access to the labour market. However, efforts to include regularization of stay or access to labour markets in global agreements have not been successful. Thus, cooperation at the regional level is fuelled by crisis management and common interests to resolve regional challenges, but there is still reluctance at the global level when it comes to including such approaches in global agreements.
Annual global figures published by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) show that approximately two thirds of the world´s displaced people are internally displaced persons (IDPs). Despite calls for the inclusion of IDPs in both compacts,58 the Global Compact for Migration does not include a reference to IDPs, and the Global Compact on Refugees only makes minor references to the issue of internal displacement, making IDPs “a troubling gap”. 59 In this context, the Office of the Special Adviser on Solutions to Internal Displacement was established in 2022 to mobilize action on protracted displacement, and to bring about a change in how the United Nations system and other actors engage on this issue (see text box below).
Steps towards the protection of internally displaced persons
There were 59.1 million internally displaced people – 53.2 million because of conflict and violence, and 5.9 million as a result of disasters – throughout the world at the end of 2021, across 141 countries and territories.a IDPs include persons who are forced to move or leave their homes to avoid the effects of armed conflict or violence, violations of human rights, or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border.b IDPs are often stuck in situations of “protracted displacement”.
The United Nations has taken several measures towards addressing the plight and situation of IDPs. Recognizing the growing number of persons displaced within national borders and the need for urgent action, in 1992 the Secretary-General appointed a representative on IDPs to evaluate existing legal protections and the institutional mechanism for IDPs. Continuous discussions on the situation of IDPs led to a set of guiding principles on internal displacement in 1998, and their subsequent adoption into national and regional legal instrument
Tensions around addressing internal displacement partly arise from governments underestimating the consequences of inaction. Even when the importance of action is recognized and political will on the part of States exists, capacity gaps and operational constraints frequently stymie progress. In addition, State responsibility to their displaced citizens is often sidelined as a result of competing domestic priorities, and also because of the limited accountability and transparency of State actors that fail to respond to, or even in some cases cause, internal displacement.c As a result, there are as yet no concrete solutions to the problem of providing protection and assistance to IDPs.d
The 2016 New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants mentioned “the need for reflection on effective strategies to ensure adequate protection and assistance for internally displaced persons and to prevent and reduce such displacement.” But this was not further developed in either the Global Compact for Migration or the Global Compact on Refugees, apart from a discussion of displacement as part of the commitment of States to minimize the drivers compelling people to move (objective 2 of the Global Compact for Migration). In the Global Compact on Refugees, displacement is only referenced with regard to implementing the comprehensive refugee response framework.
Encouraging signs of increasing political focus at the global level towards the plight of IDPs include the establishment of a United Nations Secretary General’s High-level Panel on Internal Displacement in 2019, to find concrete solutions to internal displacement, and the subsequent launch of the Secretary‑General’s Action Agenda on Internal Displacement. The panel’s report identified 10 innovative and concrete recommendations aimed at preventing, responding to, and achieving solutions to internal displacement. The recommendations underscore the need to share responsibility across States and among all actors, including the private sector and civil society organizations, in underpinning solutions to end displacement.e Acknowledging the complexities of displacement requires that international actors move beyond a humanitarian model towards an approach based on a humanitarian–peace–development nexus that strengthens public systems and services as a whole, targeting displaced persons and their destination communities. In addition, the recommendations emphasize the need for displaced persons to be part of the dialogue and engaged in jointly designing solutions to ending displacement. The need for international solidarity at the global level is essential to addressing the challenges faced by displaced persons.
In 2022, following up on the report of the United Nations Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Internal Displacement, the United Nations Secretary-General launched an Action Agenda on internal displacement with three goals: “to support internally displaced people to find durable solutions to their displacement; to better prevent new displacement crises from emerging; and to ensure those facing displacement receive effective protection and assistance”.f
Labour migration governance is another area of contestation and fragmentation. While most States acknowledge the need for migrant labour given labour shortages, they fall short of taking steps to protect migrant workers or provide necessary pathways to facilitate their recruitment, entry and stay in countries where their skills are needed, particularly in “low skill” sectors. Globally, migrant workers at all skill levels face impediments and challenges because of gaps in or non-existent regulation and lack of cooperation between States; a limited number of bilateral labour agreements between countries include the kinds of worker protections advocated by activists, scholars and non-governmental organizations.60 Migrant workers in the informal sector are subject to exploitation by employers and recruiters; this is especially true for women and girls, who face multiple and intersecting layers of discrimination. Several objectives of the Global Compact for Migration (2, 5, 6, 16, 18 and 21) commit States to promoting the global governance of labour mobility, yet insufficient measures by some States still undermine the welfare and human rights of migrant workers.
As international migration continues to play a prominent role in shaping political agendas and geopolitics in States and regions, polarizing political discussions often focus on simplistic, binary options, without considering flexible solutions for all parties including migrants. In response, current approaches to migration governance, including at the global level, need to be reconsidered in order to address these tensions.61