From Zero to Hero? An analysis of the human rights protections within the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM)

Abstract

This article examines the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) from three perspectives: First, while the GCM is not legally binding, the human rights obligations of states which underpin the GCM are. The application of international human rights law to everyone, including migrants, has led to frictions in the inter‐governmental negotiation process, with some states declining to sign the GCM. States cannot relieve themselves of the human rights obligations to which they are already, voluntarily, bound by refusing to sign the GCM. Second, the GCM asserts the human rights of migrants, and by implication condemns state practices contrary thereto, but it also yields to political sensitivities. Thus, we encounter a Compact that defends existing human rights standards, but concurrently submits to political will and tolerates conditions of vulnerability. Third, the GCM’s implementation depends upon, as yet undefined, partnerships with non‐State actors and monitoring against human rights standards.

Narrating an ideal migration world? An analysis of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration

“…Part of the confusion stems from the uncertain nature of a 'compact': before the GCM and the GCR, the UN only used the expression once (with the 2000 'Global Compact' about the social responsibilities of private enterprises), and it was unclear whether states abiding by a 'compact' were engaging in binding commitments. In addition, while non-binding, the GCM anchors its recommendations in (binding) international human rights law (paras 1 and 2) and can therefore be interpreted as a political commitment to the hard-law instruments that compose international human rights law (Guild, Basaran, and Allinson 2019). It remains, however, that the GCM follows the dominant pattern in global migration governance, according to which states agree on principles -but without translating them into legal obligations: this contrasts with earlier efforts to adopt (binding) conventions, 5 which have nevertheless not been widely ratified (Pécoud 2009).…”

The Global Compacts on Refugees and for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration: Introduction to the Special Issue

“…Guild et al () also explore the nature of non‐binding agreements. In this case, they emphasize that the GCM holds promise for improving protection, despite its non‐binding nature, because it builds so clearly on existing and well‐ratified international law.…”

“…Gest and Kysel round out this collection of essays by focusing on the methodology for measuring success of the compacts in increasing protection. Agreeing with Guild et al () that, although non‐binding, the GCM’s strength is that it builds on existing human rights law, they seek to highlight significant shortcomings in the GCM. They suggest that the compact does not fully articulate existing law or take the opportunity to expand the rights of migrants, even where there would be consensus to do so.…”

Immigration Detention under the Global Compacts in the Light of Refugee and Human Rights Law Standards

“…Some states, such as Australia, which abstained, cited detention‐related provisions of the GCM as a reason for rejecting the compact (Karp, ). Yet decision not to sign the GCM does not increase these countries’ leeway regarding detention practices, as they remain bound by their international human rights obligations which underpin the principles restated in the compact (Guild et al., ).…”

“…As for the GCM, its monitoring should be human rights centred. The review process could be integrated in the existing monitoring mechanisms, such as Universal Periodic Review (Guild et al., ), and involve the SRHRM (Micinski, ). The compacts can also support UN human rights treaty bodies in monitoring states’ implementation of the relevant treaties .…”