Blog post written by Ulrike Brandl (University of Salzburg) and forms part of a series of blog posts analysing the final draft (objective by objective) of the UN’s Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.
Article 2, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights:
1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.
…
3. Developing countries, with due regard to human rights and their national economy, may determine to what extent they would guarantee the economic rights recognized in the present Covenant to non-nationals.
Introduction
The overall purpose of Objective 16 is to foster inclusive and cohesive societies. The objective enumerates nine actions, which intend to empower migrants but also address receiving societies.
The objective seeks to improve the welfare of all members of society. In order to reach this target, disparities and conflicts should be minimised and polarisation avoided. Migrants should be empowered to become active members of the receiving society and enhance its prosperity. Contributions of migrants should be made more visible to increase public awareness about the positive impact of migration.
All members of societies should have confidence in policies and institutions relating to migrants. Both, migrants and receiving communities should exercise their obligations towards each other.
In the following commentary I focus on the actions enumerated in Objective 16 and the responsibility of States to guarantee economic, social and cultural rights to all persons under their jurisdiction. I will also highlight the evolution of Objective 16 and refer to several changes in the text during the drafting process. I continue with a discussion of the future of the objective and refer to challenges that might impact its realisation.
Full inclusion and social cohesion strongly depend on the effective guarantee of economic, social and cultural rights to all members of societies including migrants. Economic, social and cultural rights as second generation human rights are fundamental elements of international human rights obligations. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) is both part of the International Bill of Human Rights and at the core of the universal human rights system. Regional human rights conventions on social and economic rights also enhance rights of all members of society. In general, these rights have to be guaranteed to nationals and non-nationals. Article 2 paragraph 3 ICSCER only allows the following restriction: developing countries may determine to what extent they would guarantee the economic rights recognised in the Covenant to non-nationals with due regard to human rights and their national economy. Most articles guaranteeing rights start with the wording “States Parties to the present Covenant recognise the right of everyone …” and do not allow restrictions with regard to non-nationals.
The denial or the unjustified restriction of social and economic rights to migrants violates their human rights and has a negative impact on their ability to contribute to the prosperity of the receiving society. A further consequence is that migrants do not receive adequate protection against abuse. This potential danger is especially to be found in the areas of exploitation of migrant workers and their families and with regard to access to health care and access to education.
Guaranteeing economic, social and cultural rights makes migrants full members of societies, leads to their inclusion and avoids their becoming invisible. It avoids the “othering” of migrants in general and specifically of vulnerable groups of migrants including migrant children.
The denial of rights might also lead to an increase in the vulnerability of migrants. Not every migrant is per se vulnerable, but many are as they are outside their country of origin, they need to adapt to the new living conditions and to follow the integration requirements as demanded by the host state. This vulnerability can be aggravated by personal circumstances such as childhood, health status or other reasons.
Objective 16 speaks about inclusive and cohesive societies and also uses the term integration, but does not refer to the more neutral term social cohesion, instead using ‘social inclusion’. It is not detectable from the drafting history of the text versions whether the use of other terms was discussed.
Evolution of Objective 16
Paragraph 32 of the Global Compact for Migration (GCM) is more ambitious and contains more actions with concrete aims than Annex II of General Assembly Resolution (New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, (A/RES/71/1). Annex II with the title “Towards a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration” already enumerated several targets with regard to integration, such as o) Promotion, as appropriate, of the inclusion of migrants in host societies, access to basic services for migrants and gender-responsive services; (p) Consideration of policies to regularise the status of migrants.
The actions enumerated under the Chapeau of paragraph 32 contain considerable improvements with regard to the clarity of the actions and the terminology. Objective 16 of the Final Draft of the GCM pushes the New York Declaration forward.
Some actions enumerated in Objective 16 remained fairly constant throughout the drafting process, while others were amended considerably. The number of specific action points was reduced from eleven to nine. The Zero draft, the Zero Draft plus and Rev. 1 enumerated eleven actions (points a) to k)). In Rev. 2 the number of actions was reduced to nine (points a) to i)). Rev. 2 also brought a considerable change in the sequence and content of the actions.
In the Zero Draft eleven actions were considered as instrumental for reaching the objective. The first action promoted participation of States in the Migrant Integration Policy Index. This action aimed to make good practices and also make challenges visible. Participation in the Index should lead to greater transparency. The Final Draft however does not refer to this action. In Rev. 2 participation by states in the Migrant Integration Policy Index was eliminated. This might be based on the weakness of indexing integration properly as integration is hard to measure. The elimination however also reduces transparency.
The second action targets the exchange of policy experiences, especially best practices on ways to recognise migrants’ identities and also on means to promote the customs and traditions of local communities. This aim is also included in the Final Draft, but with a different wording. This change intends to create a mutual respect for customs, traditions and cultures of both societies. The change is certainly an improvement as it addresses both sides and does not only refer to the respect of migrants’ identities.
The action to develop short, medium and long-term policy goals to foster the integration of migrants remained as a separate action. Inclusion with regard to political participation was mentioned in the Zero Draft, but already deleted in the Zero Draft Plus.
The action to develop holistic pre-departure programmes was formulated in the Zero Draft, but then deleted as a separate action. It seems that states did not see a need to formulate a separate action in preparation for migration as this could have an impact on countries of origin as well. Pre-departure programmes were finally included in Action b) combined with post-arrival programmes. The programmes should all be comprehensive and needs-based and may also include obligations and rights. The reference to holistic programmes was deleted. Basic language training may be required as well as orientation about social norms and customs in the receiving country.
Action f) was included in order to empower migrant women specifically. The Zero Draft referred only to non-discrimination against women with regard to employment, the right to associate and access to services, as measures to guarantee full and equal participation in society. In Rev. 2 the rights of women were strengthened again by the inclusion of measures to promote their leadership. The focus on empowerment of women is certainly an improvement. The special reference to empowerment of women should not lead to the conclusion that only women should be empowered but also other groups. Minors, elderly people, persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups should have the possibility to receive special measures as well.
The action to work towards inclusive labour markets remained, but was reformulated. The zero Draft referred to access to jobs for which migrants are most qualified and to full participation of migrant workers in the in the formal economy. The Final Draft refers to decent work and thus sets a focus on the quality of work, which is certainly an improvement.
Actions f) to i) in the Final Draft refer to integration measures. Changes were made in key points. In action g) the terminology was amended from access to regularisation options to access to procedures towards residence status and enumerating groups of migrants. The latter term is the regular procedure for a residence permit, whereas regularisation is more often used for persons staying illegally but getting a status later on.
The establishment of community centres at the local level has been included in all texts with slight amendments. Action h) refers to the support of multicultural activities and Action i) enumerates targets for integration of children in the school- and education-system in the receiving society.
The Future
Objective 16 has great potential to enhance integration and create social cohesion as the actions target both, migrants and the receiving communities. It enumerates a number of actions designed to promote integration and to bring migrants and members of the receiving society together. The focus on integration into the labour market is of course a key element of orderly and regular migration. The reference to decent work is certainly an improvement which was elaborated in the drafting process.
The objective specifically points to the rights of migrant women but does not explicitly mention children. Vulnerable groups are not covered by specific actions either. Though this lack does not necessarily mean that these groups are not targeted by specific measures, it is a shortcoming and reduces the comprehensiveness of the objective.
Objective 16 does not refer to specific integration measures. As these measures vary according to the objectives of a state’s integration policy “between the poles of assimilation and multiculturalism”, it would be useful to require that states offer integration measures that do not require assimilation but only respect of local customs and rules. The text of Objective 16 regularly refers to the rights of migrants and the situation in receiving communities in order to reach a balance between both aspects.
Integration requirements may result in excluding persons from migration and may e.g. build an impediment for family reunification. Thus strict requirements without allowing exceptions should be reduced to a minimum and allow the assessment of the personal and family situation.
There is no explicit reference to the binding nature of economic, social and cultural rights and to states obligations deriving from treaties. As this is a general feature of the GCM it is of course acceptable.
Objective 16 does not refer to information as this is the target of Objective 3. Pre-departure programmes as mentioned in paragraph b) require that the information in the pre-departure phase is accurate (see Objective 3).
The reference to short, medium and long-term integration is a positive aspect and integration requires a multi-faceted approach. Points f) to e) have a focus on local integration and on measures which have the aim to bring migrants and the local population into contact and improve conversation, business relations and enhance multiculturalism.
The Final Draft does not refer to inclusion with regard to political participation. This may result in an exclusion of migrants from civic and political participation. There would be various forms of participation beyond voting rights which would create a certain form of representation of migrants in the in the decision making process in the receiving states and communities.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author/s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Refugee Law Initiative. We welcome comments and contributions to this blog – please comment below and see here for contribution guidelines.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks