A “Supportive and Catalytic” Supervisor? UNHCR’s Role in the Global Compact for Refugees

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niamh Kinchin

ABSTRACT The Global Compact for Refugees describes UNHCR as its ‘supportive and catalytic’ leader. The ability for UNHCR to negotiate and collaborate within a highly political environment is critical to the Refugee Compact’s ongoing success. However, the Refugee Compact is non-binding, which means that there is no call for UNHCR to exercise its supervisory mandate. By removing the impetus for enforcement, which includes submissions to courts and parliaments, and State admonishment, the Refugee Compact diminishes the non-political elements of UNHCR’s work. The consequence of sidelining UNHCR’s supervisory mandate is that State interests are elevated above those of refugees, which risks diluting principles of international law and human rights. Entrenched problems of voluntary funding are ignored, and whilst robust conversations may flourish within this forum, realizable outcomes will be undermined by ‘endless conversations’ and positive optics. UNHCR’s moral authority, which stems from its embodiment of the protector of refugees, will not act as a motivation for State action. A reconsideration of UNHCR’s role is required in order to allow UNHCR to refocus on its supervisory mandate and to ensure the Refugee Compact can strike a balance between being “entirely non-political in nature” and the reality of international cooperation, which is inherently political.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-104
Author(s):  
Shruti Rana

Abstract The Covid-19 pandemic and related shutdowns created seismic shifts in the boundaries between public and private life, with lasting implications for human rights and international law. Arriving just as the international legal order was wobbling in the wake of a populist backlash and other great challenges, the pandemic intensified fault lines of marginalisation and state action, amplifying the forces that had already left the liberal international order in crisis and retreat. This article examines the pandemic’s impacts on the international legal order through a gendered lens. It argues that in the short-term, the pandemic has reinforced public-private divides in international law, reinvigorating previous debates over the role of the state in protecting its people from harm. It argues that in the long-term, these developments threaten to unravel the most recent gains in international law and global governance that have supported and expanded the recognition of human rights to marginalised groups. Left unaddressed, this unraveling will further entrench such divides and contribute to the further retreat of the liberal international order. Examining these fault lines and their implications can help us re-imagine a post-pandemic international legal order that offers more protection for human rights, even as multilateral institutions and cooperation sputter or fail.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-133
Author(s):  
Donald Kerwin

Executive Summary This research was conducted at the request of the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) as part of a two-year special initiative entitled “The Future of Work, Labour After Laudato Sì.” 1 This article explores the future of work, international migration, and the intersection of the two at a time of rapid change, uncertainty, and disruption for migrants, laborers, and their families and communities. It draws on human rights principles, international law, and religious values, particularly from the Catholic tradition, to chart an ethical approach to the governance of these timeless phenomena. What does the future hold? Under one dystopian scenario, the future of work will be characterized by massive job loss due to automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence. Politicians and business leaders will characterize the resulting human displacement as an unavoidable “disruption” and byproduct of change. Euphemisms, however, will poorly mask the loss of livelihood, self-esteem, and a central marker of identity for countless persons, particularly the poor and vulnerable. Technological advances will decimate families, communities, and entire ways of life. For many, stable work will become a thing of the past, and technology an instrument of marginalization and discrimination. Algorithms will be used to “perpetuate gender bias” ( ILO 2019a , 35), pit workers against each other, and squeeze the maximum productivity from them for the minimum compensation. The “inappropriate use” and “weak governance” of algorithms will lead to “biases, errors and malicious acts” ( Albinson, Krishna, and Chu 2018 ). Large swaths of the world’s citizens will become (at best) the unhappy dependents of states and global elites. The future of migration seems equally daunting. Current trends suggest that the number of international migrants will continue to rise due to job displacement, violence, natural disaster, and states that cannot or will not meet their fundamental responsibilities. If the past is prologue, unscrupulous politicians and media sources will also continue to blame migrants for the economic and cultural displacement of their constituents, xenophobia will increase, and migrants will encounter hostility in host communities. Natives will criticize their governments and institutions for failing to protect their interests and needs, and migrant laborers will be caught in the middle. This article does not minimize the urgency of the challenges presented by migration and work. It documents the unacceptable living, working, and migration conditions of immense numbers of the world’s citizens. It offers, however, a more optimistic vision of the future than the dystopian view, a vision characterized by international cooperation and solidarity. It recognizes the potential of technology “to render labour superfluous, ultimately alienating workers and stunting their development,” but also its potential to “free workers from arduous labour; from dirt, drudgery, danger and deprivation” and “to reduce work-related stress and potential injuries” ( ILO 2019 , 43). It recognizes the way in which fear of displacement can lead to exclusionary nationalism and xenophobia, but also the possibility of unity based on the shared values embedded in the cultures of diverse persons. It recognizes the costs of migration, but also its immense contributions to host communities. The article argues for person-centered systems and policies that promote the freedom, rights, and dignity of workers, migrants, and migrant workers, and that strengthen migrant host communities. It begins by examining the challenges facing low-income and vulnerable migrants who struggle for decent work, are the most likely to lose their jobs, and are “the least equipped to seize new job opportunities” ( ILO 2019 , 18). 2 It then presents an ethical, person-centered vision of migration and work, rooted in human rights principles, international law, and Catholic social teaching. The article also draws on principles articulated in the Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM); the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR); and the Holy See’s Twenty Action Points for the Global Compacts. It ends with a series of recommendations that seek to bring this vision to fruition.


Author(s):  
Elspeth Guild ◽  
Raoul Wieland

Between 2016 and 2018 the international community, under the auspices of the United Nations, adopted two new instruments, both entitled Compacts: the Global Compact on Refugees and the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. This chapter examines the consequences of the adoption of the migration compact in international law. The issue has been much disputed, not least by the US authorities which encouraged (unsuccessfully) states not to adopt the instrument because of Global Migration Compact capacity to contribute to the establishment of new international law norms. In our view, the Compact is capable of aiding the interpretation of existing international human rights conventions as regards their application to migrants.


Author(s):  
Mark Toufayan

SummaryDiscussion surrounding the prevention of genocide has focused to a large extent on the appropriate mode(s) of reaction to particularly serious breaches of human rights obligations. In particular, the question arose whether existing UN mechanisms aimed at preserving international peace and security should be regarded as a privileged — or even exclusive — means to enforce compliance by states with their obligations relating to genocide. Drawing extensively on the work of the International Law Commission on the codification of the law of state responsibility, the author argues that the new draft articles, with their emphasis on “serious breaches of obligations arising under peremptory norms of general international law” rather than obligations erga omnes, are ill-suited to provide for the taking of preventive measures by “not-directly affected” states. Paradoxically, the institutionalization of mechanisms for preventing gross human rights abuses has been reduced to a minimum in the new draft, with emphasis being laid on the vague requirement that states “cooperate” to bring “serious breaches” to an end. It is suggested, however, that ascribing a subsidiary role to UN organs and procedures is, despite criticisms made as to their adequacy, necessary to supplement state action. The UN has in fact a distinct legal interest that is clearly affected when breaches of obligations relating to genocide occur. More importantly, by acting on behalf of the “organized international community” in matters of international peace and security, the Security Council has itself assumed today a legally binding subsidiary obligation to prevent genocide. The article concludes that in the absence of ineffective decisional institutions for the prevention of genocide, the choice is not between the subjectivism of a decentralized response and the absence of any consequences for the most serious wrongful acts but rather to strengthen the UN’s institutional capacity to react.


2020 ◽  
pp. 231150242091322
Author(s):  
Donald Kerwin

Executive Summary This research was conducted at the request of the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) as part of a two-year special initiative entitled “The Future of Work, Labour After Laudato Sì.” 1 This article explores the future of work, international migration, and the intersection of the two at a time of rapid change, uncertainty, and disruption for migrants, laborers, and their families and communities. It draws on human rights principles, international law, and religious values, particularly from the Catholic tradition, to chart an ethical approach to the governance of these timeless phenomena. What does the future hold? Under one dystopian scenario, the future of work will be characterized by massive job loss due to automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence. Politicians and business leaders will characterize the resulting human displacement as an unavoidable “disruption” and byproduct of change. Euphemisms, however, will poorly mask the loss of livelihood, self-esteem, and a central marker of identity for countless persons, particularly the poor and vulnerable. Technological advances will decimate families, communities, and entire ways of life. For many, stable work will become a thing of the past, and technology an instrument of marginalization and discrimination. Algorithms will be used to “perpetuate gender bias” ( ILO 2019a , 35), pit workers against each other, and squeeze the maximum productivity from them for the minimum compensation. The “inappropriate use” and “weak governance” of algorithms will lead to “biases, errors and malicious acts” ( Albinson, Krishna, and Chu 2018 ). Large swaths of the world’s citizens will become (at best) the unhappy dependents of states and global elites. The future of migration seems equally daunting. Current trends suggest that the number of international migrants will continue to rise due to job displacement, violence, natural disaster, and states that cannot or will not meet their fundamental responsibilities. If the past is prologue, unscrupulous politicians and media sources will also continue to blame migrants for the economic and cultural displacement of their constituents, xenophobia will increase, and migrants will encounter hostility in host communities. Natives will criticize their governments and institutions for failing to protect their interests and needs, and migrant laborers will be caught in the middle. This article does not minimize the urgency of the challenges presented by migration and work. It documents the unacceptable living, working, and migration conditions of immense numbers of the world’s citizens. It offers, however, a more optimistic vision of the future than the dystopian view, a vision characterized by international cooperation and solidarity. It recognizes the potential of technology “to render labour superfluous, ultimately alienating workers and stunting their development,” but also its potential to “free workers from arduous labour; from dirt, drudgery, danger and deprivation” and “to reduce work-related stress and potential injuries” ( ILO 2019 , 43). It recognizes the way in which fear of displacement can lead to exclusionary nationalism and xenophobia, but also the possibility of unity based on the shared values embedded in the cultures of diverse persons. It recognizes the costs of migration, but also its immense contributions to host communities. The article argues for person-centered systems and policies that promote the freedom, rights, and dignity of workers, migrants, and migrant workers, and that strengthen migrant host communities. It begins by examining the challenges facing low-income and vulnerable migrants who struggle for decent work, are the most likely to lose their jobs, and are “the least equipped to seize new job opportunities” ( ILO 2019 , 18). 2 It then presents an ethical, person-centered vision of migration and work, rooted in human rights principles, international law, and Catholic social teaching. The article also draws on principles articulated in the Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM); the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR); and the Holy See’s Twenty Action Points for the Global Compacts. It ends with a series of recommendations that seek to bring this vision to fruition.


2000 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-134
Author(s):  

AbstractThe primary purpose of this article is to examine the current situation of North Korean escapees in China and Russia and to search for international legal measures protecting their human rights. Since the mid-1990s, many North Koreans have escaped from either their country or from working places in another country, not to return to North Korea for political and economic reasons. Their defections have been accelerated by the severe food crisis plaguing North Korea. As the number of the escapees has grown, their status has become a critical point of contention among the States concerned. It finally became a major issue with the forcible repatriation of seven North Korean escapees in January 2000. In order to protect the human rights of these seven, and to establish a workable precedent for other defectors, international legal measures should be considered as soon as possible. This question will be examined here in light of the principles of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and other relevant legal measures. Crucial points in answer to this question thus may be found within the provisions of the 1951 Convention. Diplomatic considerations should be also taken on these legal grounds. For a final resolution, the international cooperation of governments and NGOs is urgently required.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. 345-349
Author(s):  
Liav Orgad

Managing global migration is one of the most pressing issues of our time. Traditionally, international law has not generally regulated immigration and citizenship law; it defers to state authority in setting up rules and procedures for entry into the territory and citizenry. The lack of clear regulation—and a commonly accepted methodology on how to evaluate discriminatory borders—creates acute problems in terms of protecting human rights, promoting state interests, and setting up international cooperation. Against this background, this essay offers a legal framework to examine when borders are discriminatory. It includes a three-step process that examines the goals, criteria, and means of immigration and citizenship selection. With almost 300 million international immigrants worldwide living outside their country of origin in 2020, developing such a framework has become an urgent need.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-203
Author(s):  
Pouria Askary ◽  
Farzad Fallah

Abstract From an international law point of view, the covid-19 pandemic could be described as a ‘disaster’ which has led to various calls especially from the UN system for harmonized international cooperation and global solidarity. This article focuses on the meaning of ‘solidarity’ in the context of international human rights, and elaborates on the implications of solidarity on the international law of humanitarian assistance in the current situation of the coronavirus outbreak.


Author(s):  
Pia Oberoi

Response to the ATR Debate Proposition: ‘It is important and necessary to make clear distinctions between (irregular) migrants, refugees and trafficked persons.’ The international community has recently taken steps to agree two intergovernmental compacts, which together are intended to revitalise the global governance of migration and asylum. The Global Compact on Refugees seeks to strengthen international cooperation on the refugee regime, while the Global Compact for Safe, Regular and Orderly Migration aims to establish principles, commitments and understandings among Member States regarding international migration in all its dimensions. The compacts have been brought into existence against a backdrop of widespread and increasingly systematic human rights violations committed against migrants by state officials, traffickers and other criminals, and leading to what has been called ‘one of the greatest human tragedies of our time’. At the same time, the very bifurcation of the compacts into two ‘separate, distinct and independent’ agreements rests on a set of assumptions that could distort rather than illuminate the complex issue of contemporary human mobility.


Author(s):  
Goodwin-Gill Guy S ◽  
McAdam Jane ◽  
Dunlop Emma

This chapter addresses international cooperation, protection, and solutions. ‘Protection’ is useful shorthand to describe the complex of obligations derived from general international law and from international refugee and human rights law. ‘Protection’ is often an end in itself, but it also has a goal beyond that moment, which is a durable solution in which refugees can live in safety and with dignity, not subject to arbitrary expulsion, discrimination, or alienation. ‘Solutions’, in turn, is the overarching objective of the international refugee regime itself, premised upon international cooperation to solve humanitarian problems, which is among the purposes and guiding principles of the United Nations. The chapter considers the rights background which undergirds the situation of the displaced, and then examines the three traditional durable solutions of voluntary repatriation, local integration, and resettlement, as well as labour mobility and other complementary pathways that may secure refugees admission to, and inclusion in, a State.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document