Why migrant rights are different than human rights

Money, Jeannette; Lockhart, Sarah P.; Western, Shaina D.

doi:10.4337/9781783476299.00034

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Trafficking Treaty was quickly and widely ratified whereas the Migrant Rights Treaty was not. Indeed, the disparity in ratification is so severe that they came into effect in the same year despite the Migrant Rights Treaty having been 14 One problem with comparing the Migrant Rights Treaty to other human rights agreements is that the treaty has one crucial difference in that it regulates the state's actions vis-a-vis non-citizens, whereas all other human rights agreements focus primarily on the relationship between citizens and the state (Money, Lockhart & Western 2016) created some ten years earlier. To this day, ratification of the Migrant Rights Treaty remains low.…”

Section: Migrant Rights Vs Human Trafficking: Bargaining Power and Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bargaining Power at the Negotiation Table and Beyond

Western

2020

Int. Negot.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International treaties require ratification to go into effect. But while some treaties have high ratification rates, many do not, leading to a system where issues appear to be addressed on paper but are not in practice. This article seeks to address why treaties receive varying levels of support and finds that factors present during the negotiation phase of the agreement affect the ratification phase. Specifically, bargaining power at and away from the negotiation table influences both the substantive nature of the treaty and the extent to which it will be widely ratifiable. This article explores this issue both in a statistical analysis and in two pairs of qualitative case studies. The evidence indicates that negotiation processes cast a long shadow on the fate of international agreements leading to the current treaty system of prolific international law that is not ratified by most states.

show abstract

Section: Migrant Rights Vs Human Trafficking: Bargaining Power and Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bargaining Power at the Negotiation Table and Beyond

Western

2020

Int. Negot.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most of the literature on the CRMW focuses broadly on why ratification has been difficult to achieve (Hune and Niessen 1994) and specifically on why immigrant-receiving states, which advocate for human rights in other spheres, refuse to ratify it (Money et al 2016;Wong 2015;Ruhs 2012;Ruhs 2013;Vucetic 2007). But, given that many migrant-sending states have also refused to ratify this agreement, explanations that focus solely on the costs of ratification for immigrant-receiving states are insufficient.…”

Section: The Limitations Of Existing Explanationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…poor records on immigrant rights themselves. 8 These states focused on their role in sending migrants, rather than reflecting on their own treatment of foreigners (Lonnroth 1991;Böhning 1991;Martin 2014;Money et al 2016). While these states made moral arguments about migrant human rights during the negotiations, their statements focused largely on condemning immigrant-receiving states for their poor policies (Lonnroth 1991).…”

Section: The Limitations Of Existing Explanationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Japan even asserted that elements of the treaty would violate its constitution (Piper 2009). During the negotiations, migrant-receiving states expressed concerns about how the treaty would affect their migration policies and ability to limit migration, particularly because it codified new rights for undocumented migrants (Money et al 2016;Wong 2015). Ruhs (2012) argues that, because the rights of migrant workers play such a key role in shaping the outcomes of international labour migration, they cannot be isolated from admissions policies.…”

Section: The Limitations Of Existing Explanationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Third, we highlight the relationship between the state and the citizen in shaping the decision to ratify. Until now, this factor has either been ignored or underdeveloped, even in studies specifically examining the ratification of the CRMW, which focuses on why states would protect immigrants who are not citizens (Money et al 2016;Wong 2015). Our model flips this logic around and examines when states will want to protect their own citizens, or emigrants.…”

Section: The Logic Of Consequences: the Costs And Benefits Of Treaty mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Does anyone care about migrant rights? An analysis of why countries enter the convention on the rights of migrant workers and their families

Western

Lockhart

Money

2019

The International Journal of Human Rights

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers (CRMW) is a 'core' human rights treaty, it is poorly ratified. Previous studies have elucidated the barriers to ratification; in this article we focus on the factors that generate incentives to ratify. We argue that states that ratify this treaty desire to strengthen their relationships with their own emigrants and their citizens at home who advocate for emigrant protections, not to protect the rights of immigrants residing in their own country. The political incentives to strengthen this relationship depend on the costs and benefits that inward migration and outward migration bring to the state. The benefits of emigration are captured by the size of remittance flows, the net immigration position of the country, and by the ratio of unskilled to skilled emigrants, whereas the costs are reflected in the size of the immigrant stock. When the benefits of migration are substantial and the costs of potentially providing rights are small, states will be more likely to ratify this agreement. These determinants are distinctive from the explanations proffered for other human rights treaties. Our statistical analysis is consistent with the theoretical arguments that we make. Only one 'core' United Nations human rights treaty explicitly focuses on non-nationals: the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (CRMW). 1 The protections provided by the CRMW affirm the rights found in many other human rights agreements (the right to life, freedom from torture, etc.), but importantly this treaty also specifies rights that are particularly relevant for immigrants, such as access to the judicial system (Article 26), due process in deportation proceedings (Article 22), the right of appeal (Article 22), the prohibition of mass deportations (Article 22), and the right to take part in trade unions (Article 26). The agreement also requires equal treatment of nationals and immigrants regarding employment (Article 49) and social benefits (Article 43). Furthermore, it guarantees documented immigrants' choice of employer and occupation, and free movement within the immigrant-receiving state. While states may protect some of these rights through domestic legislation, immigrant rights are commonly limited in comparison to the rights of nationals, especially the right to work (Morris 2003). Importantly, most rights are provided by the CRMW without regard to legal status in the country; ratifying states are thus required to protect the rights of individuals who are present without authorisation whom the state might actively be seeking to remove. 2 Although the CRMW's ratification rate is low compared to most other human rights treaties, it entered into force in 2003, and as of the end of 2018 fifty-four states have ratified it. Given both the salience of migration and migrant rights and renewed efforts within the United Nations to protect migrant rights, despite more than a century of failure, this treaty deserves

show abstract

The relationship between human rights and refugee protection: an empirical analysis

Abdelaaty

2021

The International Journal of Human Rights

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is the relationship between a government's respect for the rights of its own citizens and that government's regard for refugee rights? On one hand, we may expect that a country with high human rights standards will also offer a higher quality of asylum. Domestic laws that protect citizens' rights may be extended to refugees, for example. On the other hand, there are reasons to theorize that a country with high human rights standards may offer a lower quality of asylum. For instance, governments may claim that protecting citizens' wellbeing necessitates the rejection of refugees. To explore these questions, I analyse a global dataset drawn from reports by the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants. I find that the relationship between citizens' rights and refugee rights is modified by economic conditions and the size of the refugee population. Moreover, some domestic rights (like freedom of movement and labor rights) may increase protections for refugees, while others (like rule of law) may decrease them. Refugees have been largely absent from the literature on the politics of human rights. By systematically examining the relationship between human and refugee rights worldwide, this paper fills an important gap in the scholarly and policy literature.

show abstract

Why migrant rights are different than human rights

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Bargaining Power at the Negotiation Table and Beyond

Bargaining Power at the Negotiation Table and Beyond

Does anyone care about migrant rights? An analysis of why countries enter the convention on the rights of migrant workers and their families

The relationship between human rights and refugee protection: an empirical analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About