You are on page 1of 19

Terms and conditions (1)

for the provision to Cambridge authors of PDF or LaTeX or other


electronic files of their books

At proof stage
PDFs or other electronic versions are made available to Cambridge authors at
proof stage in order to facilitate the proofing process and for no other purpose.
Once PDF proofs have been checked and corrections made, the PDFs should be
deleted from the author's computer.

The published book or chapter


Cambridge does not routinely provide to authors PDFs or LaTeX or other e-files
of the published version of their book/chapter. In exceptional cases the Press
may supply such files, but this will be on the terms and conditions below.

• The e-file of the book is made available for the author’s private use only, or for
teaching/research purposes by the author within his own institution.

• The e-file may not be posted on a public website.

• The e-file may not be passed in an electronic form to another party.

• The e-file may not be altered and ‘passed off’ as the original work.

• The e-file of the book may not be sold, nor may any charge be made for
use of the e-file or of any output from it.

• The e-file may not be altered for any reason without the permission of
Cambridge University Press.

It is possible that posting of part of a book on an author’s own or institutional


website might be permissible under certain additional terms and conditions. If an
author wishes to discuss this, they should contact the appropriate Press
Permission Controller: Marc Anderson manderson@cambridge.org for authors in
North America; Kate Buskes kbuskes@cambridge.org for authors in Australia
and New Zealand; and Linda Nicol lnicol@cambridge.org for authors in the rest
of the world.

Cambridge University Press


2010
F O U N DAT I O N S O F

International
Migration Law
EDITED BY

Brian Opeskin
Richard Perruchoud
Jillyanne Redpath-Cross
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town,
Singapore, São Paulo, Delhi, Mexico City
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK

Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York

www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107017719

© Cambridge University Press 2012

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception


and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without the written
permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2012

Printed and bound in the United Kingdom by the MPG Books Group

A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data


Foundations of international migration law / Edited by Brian Opeskin . . . [et al.].
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-107-01771-9
1. Emigration and immigration law. 2. Refugees – Legal status, laws, etc.
3. Freedom of movement (International law) I. Opeskin, Brian R.
K3275.F68 2012
342.080 2–dc23
2012015493

ISBN 978-1-107-01771-9 Hardback


ISBN 978-1-107-60836-8 Paperback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or


accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to
in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such
websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
1 Conceptualising international
migration law
BR I A N OP E S K I N, R I C H A R D P ER RUC HO UD A ND JI L LYA N N E R EDPAT H - C RO S S

1 .1 . THE EVOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION LAW

Migration has been an integral part of human activity for as long as people have
inhabited the earth. Whether moving as individuals, families or tribes, migration is
an age-old response to the physical need for food, shelter and security, and the
psychological need for adventure and exploration. However, while migration has
marked all periods of human history, the phenomenon of ‘international migration’
had to await the reordering of the geopolitical landscape as a collection of terri-
torial States in which governments had authority over settled populations residing
within defined geographic boundaries.1
The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) was a critical turning point in establishing that
new landscape, but for the next two centuries individuals still enjoyed substantial
freedom in traversing the boundaries of the State. This reflected an attitude of
hospitality to strangers that was inherited from ancient cultures and expressed
through cosmopolitanism. This attitude can be seen in the scholarly works of the
great writers of international law of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, who,
with few exceptions, took a liberal attitude to the movement of people across
borders for trade, commerce and other purposes.2 If law in this early period paid
scant attention to regulating migration, it was partly for the practical reason that
the number of people involved was modest because modes of transport were
confined to land crossings by foot or horse, and sea crossings by wind-powered
sailing vessels. There were some notable exceptions to this laissez-faire approach,
but the circumstances in which law was invoked to regulate international migra-
tion were few.

1 Friedrich Kratochwil, ‘Of Systems, Boundaries, and Territoriality: An Inquiry into the Formation of the State System’
(1986) 39(1) World Politics 27.
2 James Nafziger, ‘The General Admission of Aliens under International Law’ (1983) 77 American Journal of
International Law 804.

1
2 Conceptualising international migration law

Change came with the Industrial Revolution, which generated great interest in
the New World and provided new means for getting there. There was substantial
migration to the New World from Europe and Asia,3 but it was the latter, partic-
ularly, that drew the attention of national laws. Fuelled by racist concerns about
hordes of Asian immigrants, many States began to erect legal barriers to entry
through legislative enactments, supported by sympathetic national courts.
Famously, in 1891, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the right of
the legislature to exclude foreigners if they were considered dangerous to the peace
of the country. Selectively invoking one of the great writers of international law,
Emmerich de Vattel, the Court proclaimed:

It is an accepted maxim of international law, that every sovereign nation has the power, as
inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners
within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may
see fit to prescribe.4

Notwithstanding the invocation of Vattel to support the stance taken under


national law, the development of international migration law in this period remained
rudimentary. Its potential was nevertheless recognised by some scholars. As early as
1927, Louis Varlez delivered a course of lectures at the newly established Hague
Academy of International Law on international migration law, which he defined as
the body of international norms applicable to migration.5 Varlez summarised all
elements of international law applicable to emigration and immigration at the
bilateral, regional and multilateral levels, and highlighted areas that remained within
the national jurisdiction of States. He suggested that migrants were more ‘interna-
tional’ than ‘national’ in character and that they should be protected as such under
international law, free from intervention by their own State.6 Presciently, he con-
cluded that ‘we are witnessing extremely lively and fertile legislative activity that
makes it possible, better perhaps than for any other phenomenon, to follow the ever
evolving life of the law’.7 This conclusion is still valid today.
The corpus of international migration law developed in a slow and piecemeal
fashion in the interwar period. Studies on international migration law were limited
in scope to areas of specific concern. One topic of considerable interest was
nationality, leading to the Convention on Certain Questions relating to the
Conflict of Nationality Law (1930) and the Protocol relating to Military
Obligations in Certain Cases of Double Nationality (1935).8 The distinction between
nationals and foreigners was, and remains, central to the international law gov-
erning migration. States had a strong interest in clear rules on nationality, which

3 Wilbur Zelinsky, ‘The Hypothesis of the Mobility Transition’ (1971) 61(2) Geographical Review 219.
4 Nishimura Ekiu v. United States 142 US 651 (1891), 659.
5 Louis Varlez, ‘Les migrations internationales et leur réglementation’ (1927) 20(V) Recueil des cours 165.
6 Ibid. 333–4. 7 Ibid. 343 (Editors’ translation).
8 Convention on Certain Questions relating to the Conflict of Nationality Law, opened for signature 13 April 1930, 179
LNTS 89 (entered into force 1 July 1937); Protocol relating to Military Obligations in Certain Cases of Double
Nationality, opened for signature 12 April 1935, 178 UNTS 227 (entered into force 25 May 1937).
3 The evolution of international migration law

affected, for instance, their duty to admit members of their own community upon
entry or return.
Another topic of concern was the plight of millions of European refugees who
had been dislocated by the First World War or had fled the Russian Revolution of
1917.9 Many had no nationality, or no means of proving nationality, and thus no
capacity to access basic rights in the States in which they found themselves. The
League of Nations sought to address the problem by establishing High
Commissioners to provide substitute documentation (Nansen passports) and over-
see their resettlement. Conventions concluded under the auspices of the League of
Nations, such as those of 1933 and 1938,10 became the forerunners of the legal
regime for refugee protection necessitated by the Second World War.
A third topic of international interest in this period was the elimination of
exploitation through forced labour, human trafficking and slave trading. These
concerns were not confined to cross-border movement, but the international
dimensions of these practices made them ripe for global action. The first steps to
abolish slave trading had in fact come through national law much earlier, com-
mencing with the United Kingdom in 1807,11 and continuing through national
abolitionist movements throughout the nineteenth century.12 On the international
plane, in 1924 the League of Nations established the Temporary Slavery
Commission to review slavery in all its forms, which led to the Slavery
Convention (1926).13 Within a few years, the International Labour Organization
(‘ILO’) had concluded a convention to tackle exploitation of forced labour, which
has now been ratified by nearly all States.14
The depravities of the Second World War, with its orchestration of human misery
on an unparalleled scale, ushered in a new order of laws and institutions, which had
a dramatic impact on the evolution of international migration law. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1948) (‘Universal Declaration’), while not a binding
legal instrument, proclaimed itself as a ‘common standard of achievement for all
peoples and all nations’ and became the kernel around which customary interna-
tional law would later crystallise.15 Several provisions of the Universal Declaration
addressed the phenomenon of international migration, which was burgeoning in
the post-war period – the entitlement to rights and freedoms without distinction
based on national or social origin or other status (art. 1); the prohibition of the slave

9 James Hathaway, ‘The Evolution of Refugee Status in International Law: 1920–1950’ (1984) 33(2) International and
Comparative Law Quarterly 348.
10 Convention relating to the International Status of Refugees, opened for signature 28 October 1933, 159 LNTS 3663
(entered into force 13 June 1935); Convention concerning the Status of Refugees coming from Germany, opened for
signature 10 February 1938, 192 LNTS 4461 (entered into force 25 October 1938).
11 Abolition of the Slave Trade Act 1807 (UK) (47 Geo III Sess. 1 c. 36), abolishing slave trading, followed by the
Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (UK) (3 & 4 Will. IV c. 73), abolishing slavery.
12 Mike Kaye, ‘1807–2007: Over 200 Years of Campaigning against Slavery’ (Anti-Slavery International, 2005).
13 Slavery Convention, opened for signature 25 September 1926, 60 LNTS 254 (entered into force 9 March 1927).
14 Convention concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour (ILO Convention No 29), opened for signature 10 June 1930,
39 UNTS 55 (entered into force 1 May 1932). In mid 2012 there were 175 States parties.
15 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res 217A (III), UN Doc A/810 (10 December 1948).
4 Conceptualising international migration law

trade (art. 4); equality before the law without discrimination (art. 7); the right to
leave any country and to return to one’s own country (art. 13); the right to seek
asylum from persecution in other countries (art. 14); the right to a nationality and
not to be arbitrarily deprived of one’s nationality (art. 15); the right to protection of
the family (art. 16); and more generally the right of everyone (including migrants)
to social security, work, a reasonable standard of living and education (arts. 22–26).
The primary goal of the Universal Declaration was educative – to ‘strive by
teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms’16 – yet
the massive social dislocations of the Second World War generated problems that
required immediate legal solutions. In the post-war years, under the auspices of the
United Nations, the international community concluded a raft of treaties address-
ing migration-related problems, including the plight of refugees (at first in Europe,
but later more generally),17 the situation of persons who had no nationality and
were therefore stateless,18 and measures to reduce statelessness.19
A range of international human rights instruments also emerged, addressing
rights and freedoms to be enjoyed by ‘everyone’, including migrants. These
included two international covenants that gave legal effect to the hortatory state-
ments of the Universal Declaration.20 Specific human rights treaties followed,
directing attention to the problems encountered by particular classes of vulnerable
persons (e.g., women, children, migrants) or arising from particular repugnant
practices (e.g., racial discrimination, torture). Many of these specialised instru-
ments reformulated norms that had evolved elsewhere – for example, the
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) proclaims the right of every child to
registration at birth, a name and a nationality (art. 7),21 restating principles
articulated in the Universal Declaration. Significantly, the United Nations
General Assembly adopted the International Convention on the Protection of the
Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (1990), which sets out
a comprehensive framework for protecting migrant workers across all migratory
stages – from pre-departure, to transit, settlement and return.22 However, this
convention has not been widely ratified, especially by migrant-receiving States.

16 See also Mary Ann Glendon, A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(Random House, 2001).
17 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 150 (entered into force
22 April 1954); Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for accession 31 January 1967, 606 UNTS 267
(entered into force 4 October 1967).
18 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, opened for signature 28 September 1954, 360 UNTS 117
(entered into force 6 June 1960).
19 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, opened for signature 30 August 1961, 989 UNTS 175 (entered into
force 13 December 1975).
20 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171
(entered into force 23 March 1976); International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, opened for
signature 16 December 1966, 993 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 January 1976).
21 Convention on the Rights of the Child, opened for signature 20 November 1989, 1577 UNTS 3 (entered into force 2
September 1990).
22 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families,
opened for signature 18 December 1990, 2220 UNTS 3 (entered into force 1 July 2003).
5 The evolution of international migration institutions

1 .2 . THE EVOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION INSTITUTIONS

Despite realisation of the ‘fertile legislative activity’ anticipated by Varlez, new


international law was not adequate in itself to meet the challenges posed by
flourishing international migration. New international institutions were developed
with diverse functions, ranging from operational support for migrants, to monitor-
ing compliance with, and encouraging enforcement of, the new legal instruments.
One of the first – the ILO – was established long before, by the Peace Treaty of
Versailles (1919), and specifically included in its mandate the ‘protection of the
interests of workers when employed in countries other than their own’ because
exploitative labour conditions were thought to constitute a threat to world peace.
The challenges of refugees and displaced persons in the wake of the Second
World War led to the establishment of two new bodies that remain the world’s
principal migration agencies today. The United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (‘UNHCR’) was established by the General Assembly in 1950 to provide
international protection for refugees, with the optimistic goal of completing its
three-year mandate and then disbanding. In practice, its mandate has been pro-
gressively extended to cover not only refugees, but also internally displaced
persons, stateless persons and other groups in analogous circumstances, and
today it operates with a staff of more than 7,685 people working in 125 States.
The International Organization for Migration (‘IOM’) was established in 1951 in
similar circumstances but with a different mandate, namely, to help European
governments identify resettlement countries for 11 million people uprooted by
the war, and other migrants, and arrange their transportation and integration in
new homelands. As with UNHCR, IOM’s scope of activities has broadened signifi-
cantly, making it the leading international agency to advance the understanding of
migration issues, encourage social and economic development through migration,
and uphold the human rights and wellbeing of migrants. It is an intergovernmental
organisation outside the United Nations system, has a membership of 146 States,
and operates with some 7,800 staff working in some 140 States.
The evolution of the international human rights framework has added many
other bodies to the suite of those concerned with the different facets of international
migration, which are described in detail elsewhere in this book. Bodies established
under the various human rights treaties, such as the Human Rights Committee and
the Migrant Workers Committee, play a role in scrutinising state action, considering
individual complaints about alleged breaches of the treaties, and providing inter-
pretive guidance through ‘General Comments’. The Human Rights Council – an
organ of the United Nations General Assembly – has its own processes for strength-
ening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe.
These include universal periodic reviews of State compliance, and a number of
6 Conceptualising international migration law

thematic mandates (i.e., Special Rapporteurs) on migration, trafficking in persons,


contemporary forms of slavery, and racism and xenophobia.

1 .3 . INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION LAW TODAY

As the foregoing discussion indicates, international migration law has evolved


markedly over the past decades. The literature highlights the substantial increase in
the number of treaties relating to specific aspects of migration at the global,
regional and bilateral levels, illustrating the growing importance of international
law in this field.23 International migration law has thus been transformed into a
body of law whose richness and diversity are probably unmatched. From counter-
trafficking to rescue at sea, from stranded migrants to regional consultative
processes, there is a wealth of new migration norms which call for a restatement
or compilation of the law.
International law contains a fairly detailed set of norms, principles and rules
relating to migration: a recent compendium of international migration law instru-
ments, both hard and soft law but limited to universal instruments, spanned over
nine hundred pages.24 Included were instruments on human rights, labour law,
nationality, statelessness, trafficking, smuggling, international maritime law, state
security, detention, international humanitarian law, refugee law, migration and
development, diplomatic and consular protection, minorities and international
trade law.
This extensive list raises the question of the scope of international migration law.
The editors of the compendium described the subject matter in these terms:

Currently, ‘international migration law’ is an umbrella term for the complex web of legal
relationships among persons, groups and States that together regulate the movements of
individuals. It is a branch of law that has developed over time and, indeed, continues to develop
with the ever-increasing need for international cooperation and regulation involving States,
migrants and international civil society in general.25

The main pillars of international migration law are, first, the human rights and
duties of persons involved in migration, as defined in a variety of international
instruments; and second, the principles and standards deriving from State sover-
eignty, among which are the right to protect borders, confer nationality, safeguard
national security, admit and expel non-nationals and combat smuggling and
trafficking. To this, a third pillar may now be added, namely, the law promoting
cooperation among States to manage the international movement of people.

23 Richard Plender, International Migration Law (Martinus Nijhoff, 2nd edn, 1988) xiv.
24 Richard Perruchoud and Katarína Tömölová (eds.), Compendium of International Migration Law Instruments (TMC
Asser Press, 2007).
25 Ibid. v.
7 A search for order

The evolution of international migration law in the past few decades has been
extraordinary. Looking at the first pillar (human rights), historically migrants
looked to their State of nationality for diplomatic or consular protection; now,
while this type of protection remains important, human rights treaties have insti-
tuted protection mechanisms open to all, including migrants, at the universal and
regional levels. The consequences of this development are not yet fully used by
migrants and their representatives. Some aspects of the second pillar (State sover-
eignty) have been developed as well, particularly in the field of detention and
exclusion, and the need to balance protection of human rights with security. The
third pillar has witnessed important changes requiring States to cooperate more
closely in almost every aspect of migration.

1 .4 . A SEARCH FOR ORDER

International migration law today is at a juncture that prompts reflection, if not


introspection. On the one hand, the tremendous growth in the number and range of
legal norms regulating international migration is undeniable; on the other hand,
those norms do not present themselves in a coherent and integrated form. The
tension has been reflected in colourful metaphors. Lillich once described the rights
of non-nationals in international law as resembling ‘a giant unassembled juridical
jigsaw puzzle’, albeit one in which ‘the number of pieces is uncertain and the grand
design is still emerging’,26 while Aleinikoff has labelled the field as one of ‘sub-
stance without architecture’, forming no coherent regime.27
To state that there is today both more and less international migration law than
might be supposed,28 that international migration law is an unassembled jigsaw, or
that there are areas where international migration law could be better developed,
does not affect its existence. In an irreducibly pluralistic world, international law
develops in different directions, and so-called gaps are mere fields left to the
authority and responsibility of States under national law. For the future, one may
call for a more comprehensive and better-regulated framework for managing
international migration, but existing international law already provides a good
starting point for the development of a well-regulated system. The rubric ‘interna-
tional migration law’ thus serves the function of piecing together various aspects of
international law governing all facets of migration, ensuring internal coherence of

26 Richard Lillich, The Human Rights of Aliens in Contemporary International Law (Manchester University Press,
1984) 122.
27 Alexander Aleinikoff, ‘International Legal Norms on Migration: Substance without Architecture’ in
Ryszard Cholewinski, Richard Perruchoud and Euan Macdonald (eds.), International Migration Law (TMC Asser
Press, 2007) 467, 479.
28 Alexander Aleinikoff, ‘International Legal Norms and Migration: A Report’ in Alexander Aleinikoff and
Vincent Chetail (eds.), Migration and International Legal Norms (TMC Asser Press, 2003) 1, 2.
8 Conceptualising international migration law

norms rooted in, and borrowed from, branches of law as diverse as human rights,
criminal law, humanitarian law, and so on.
New types of law, or legal regimes, do emerge in response to new needs.
Sometimes this occurs quite rapidly, as happened with the emergence of space
law once space flight became a technological reality with the launch of the world’s
first artificial satellite in 1957.29 More commonly, legal regimes emerge from the
gradual accretion of law and practice over substantial periods of time. Since the
Second World War – the most formative period of international migration law –
international law has witnessed the rise of international economic law, interna-
tional environmental law, international criminal law, the law of the sea, and many
other areas that are now considered to be discrete and specialised domains. To ask
at what point a set of legal norms becomes a special legal regime is much like
asking an oyster when a grain of sand becomes a pearl: not only is there no
defining moment, but the descriptive failure does nothing to diminish what has
been created.
The questions may be asked: can international migration law be properly
regarded as a self-contained legal regime or a special legal regime? The first
question is easier to answer and draws a clear negative response. In a strict sense,
the notion of a self-contained regime defines a system with special rules, quite
distinct from general rules of international law, which includes mechanisms for
countering breaches. Examples are the dispute settlement system under the World
Trade Organization or the operation of diplomatic law, with its reciprocal privileges
and immunities.30 International migration law manifestly does not correspond to
this notion. A broader notion of a self-contained regime was considered by the
Permanent Court of International Justice in the Case of the S. S. Wimbledon, where
the Court held that the regime regulating the passage of vessels through the Kiel
Canal was fully governed by specific treaty provisions, without the need to resort to
other sources of law or general public international law, which may have different
rules.31 International migration law would hardly fit into this enlarged concept
either. In sum, international migration law does not have the characteristics of a
self-contained regime within the meaning identified by international courts in
these cases.
The question whether international migration law constitutes a special legal
regime is more contested. An initial difficulty is that opinions vary as to the
meaning of ‘regime’ in this context, and how it differs from the notion of a ‘branch’
or ‘field’ of international law.32 Some consider the terms interchangeable; others

29 In 1959 the United Nations established the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), which
negotiated five international treaties that now form the core of space law.
30 United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran) (Judgment) [1980] ICJ
Rep 3, [86].
31 Case of the SS Wimbledon (United Kingdom v. Germany) (Judgment) [1923] PCIJ (ser A) No 1, 3, 23–4.
32 Vincent Chetail, ‘Migration, droits de l’homme et souveraineté: le droit international dans tous ses états’ in
Vincent Chetail (ed.), Mondialisation, migration et droits de l’homme: le droit international en question, Volume II
(Bruylant, 2007) 13, 21.
9 A search for order

opt for a restrictive definition that would confine a regime to a well-defined set of
rules governing a field of activity, with its own enforcement mechanisms, generally
based on a treaty. In this regard, there is merit in Koskenniemi’s view that the
solution should be functional rather than doctrinaire:

the widest of special regimes – denominations such as ‘international criminal law’, ‘human-
itarian law’, ‘trade law’, ‘environmental law’ and so on – emerge from the informal activity of
lawyers, diplomats, pressure groups, more through shifts in legal culture and in response to
practical needs of specialization than a conscious act of regime-creation. Such notions mirror
the functional diversification of the international society or, more prosaically, the activities of
particular caucuses seeking to articulate or strengthen preferences and orientations that seem
not to have received sufficient attention under the general law.33

We prefer to avoid the terminological debate and to regard international migra-


tion law as a distinct field of international law that deals with a specific but diverse
subject matter. Its content encompasses all the norms, principles and rules that
regulate international migration and the rights and duties of persons involved in
migration. It is not autonomous in the sense that it sits outside the discipline of
public international law. Rather, it has a reflexive relationship with public interna-
tional law – absorbing the latter’s sources, structures and methodology, and
reflecting back new developments through which the discipline of public interna-
tional law continues its organic growth.
The search for order in international migration law also raises the larger question
of global migration governance. Calls for better governance have often stemmed
from the view that current arrangements reflect a chaotic web of international
laws, institutions and processes, and that these tangled networks produce sub-
optimal outcomes for sending and receiving States, and for migrants themselves.
International laws comprise legally binding instruments (‘hard’ law) and non-
binding declarations and principles (‘soft’ law), and even within the former there
are layers of multilateral, regional and bilateral treaties in force for different States,
on diverse topics, and qualified by different reservations. International institutions
have diverse and sometimes overlapping mandates, different operational capaci-
ties, and span the full gamut of international, intergovernmental, non-
governmental and civil society organisations. International migration processes
have expanded exponentially, revealing major differences in their effectiveness, in
addition to their disparate geographical, temporal and material scope.
The calls for better global migration governance are based on familiar argu-
ments: globalisation has generated new problems that cannot be solved within
national borders, and effective regulation requires an international response. Two
potential solutions have come to dominate discussions about the way forward;
both rely on more formal architecture to give greater coherence to international

33 Martii Koskenniemi, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and
Expansion of International Law, International Law Commission, 58th sess, UN Doc A/CN.4/L.682 (13 April
2006), 84–5.
10 Conceptualising international migration law

migration law. The first calls for a new supranational organisation – a World
Migration Organization – to make effective, generous and humane global migra-
tion policy, free from the narrow political interests that typically motivate individ-
ual States.34 Needless to say, supranational governance in the field of migration is,
and will remain, resisted by States – even ‘soft’ governance limited to well-defined
topics is difficult to put in motion at the global level. As a result, many now
consider discussions on the architecture of supranational migration governance
to be unproductive.
A second solution calls for an overarching instrument on international migra-
tion that would consolidate, in a single place, the substantial volume of extant
principles that are currently dispersed across different instruments and different
branches of international law. Such a treaty would set out a comprehensive frame-
work of rights and duties of States and individuals, and provide supervisory
mechanisms for monitoring and enforcement. It is probably unrealistic to expect
such a treaty to encompass all three pillars of international migration law – human
rights, state sovereignty and international cooperation – since the last, especially, is
too diverse. There is merit, however, in codifying the human rights principles under
the first pillar, notwithstanding the criticism that efforts would be better spent
improving the implementation of existing norms.35 Indeed, scholars have already
begun the task of drafting an ‘International Migrants Bill of Rights’ as a ‘dynamic
blueprint for the protection of the rights of migrants, drawing from all areas of
international law, including treaty law, customary international law, areas of State
practice and best practices’.36

1 .5 . STRUCTURE OF THIS BOOK

The variety of topics that fall within the rubric of international migration law
presents an organisational challenge for a book that seeks to cover the foundations
of the field. Scholarly books typically demand a linear treatment of their subject
matter whereas, in reality, international migration law is a web of interrelated
norms. It follows that many alternative orderings of the material may be justified,
and we experimented with several of them before settling on the present structure.
This book seeks to lay down the foundations of the subject through central
concepts and principles, before examining higher-order problems. Readers who do
not wish to read the chapters sequentially should make liberal use of the tools
provided to find a quick entry point to the material that interests them – the detailed
table of contents, the index, the glossary, the appendices of cases and international

34 See Arthur Helton, ‘Unpleasant Surprises Await’ (2002) 58(6) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 94.
35 Aleinikoff, above n. 27, 478.
36 Georgetown University Law Center, ‘International Migrants Bill of Rights’ (2010) 24 Georgetown Immigration Law
Journal 395.
11 Structure of this book

instruments, and the cross-referencing within each chapter to relevant discussion


elsewhere in the book. What follows is a quick guide to the succeeding chapters.
Chapter 2 sets the scene by examining contemporary patterns of international
migration – a matter too often neglected in accounts of the legal framework.
International migration is a complex phenomenon and understanding it is made
harder by the paucity of reliable data and the diversity of definitions used by the
States collecting it. Migration in the twenty-first century is much more complicated
than in previous periods of history, for while globalisation has made borders more
porous to the movement of goods, capital, services and information, the movement
of people across borders has become increasingly regulated. The chapter examines
the resultant patterns of migration from different perspectives – stocks and flows,
global and regional, regular and irregular, temporary and long-term, voluntary and
forced – and speculates about the migration pressures that will come from projected
demographic changes over the next forty years.
Chapter 3 asks the fundamental question, ‘Where does international migration
law come from?’ and discusses the diversity and dynamism of sources of law in this
field. Two sources of ‘hard law’ are treaties and customary international law – the
former arising from binding legal commitments voluntarily undertaken by States
and the latter from widespread State practice, when coupled with a belief that the
practice is obligatory. The legal principles derived from hard sources have been
supplemented by a rich fabric of ‘soft law’, namely the non-binding instruments
(declarations, resolutions and guidelines) adopted by States and international
organisations. In a field where States are often reluctant to constrain their sover-
eign power to regulate the cross-border movement of people, soft law has been a
fertile ground for generating new international norms.
Chapter 4 explores two legal concepts that are fundamental to understanding the
rights of individuals to migrate from one State to another, namely, nationality and
statelessness. Nationality is the legal bond that exists between an individual and a
State, signalling formal membership of that community and entailing obligations
of allegiance by the individual and protection by the State. Nationality can be
acquired by birth or naturalisation, and may be lost by renunciation by the
individual, revocation by the State or extinction of the State. Statelessness arises
when a person is not considered to be a national by any State. Stateless persons –
thought to number around 12 million globally in 2010 – are some of the most
vulnerable and oppressed people in the world, but legal measures to reduce state-
lessness have met with only modest success.
Chapter 5 examines the power of the State to control its external borders as an
attribute of its sovereignty. This key principle underpins the modern framework of
international migration law and finds expression in the State’s power to admit
persons into its territory and to expel non-nationals from its territory. However, the
exercise of these powers is constrained by international law, including human rights
norms. In relation to entry, States are required to admit their own nationals, must not
12 Conceptualising international migration law

return refugees to a territory where their life or freedom would be threatened, and
must not discriminate on certain grounds (e.g., race) in the admission of non-
nationals. In relation to exit, States must allow any person to leave the country
(subject to limited exceptions), but they can expel non-nationals so long as inter-
national procedural safeguards are met. Today, the authority of States to regulate
entry and exit is not disputed: the exceptions to the discretionary power of States are
well defined, if not always respected in practice.
Chapter 6 turns to the human rights of migrants, which is a leitmotif that
resurfaces throughout the book. International law gave protection to foreigners
long before the dawn of the United Nations era (such as a State’s right to exercise
‘diplomatic protection’ in respect of a national injured abroad by a foreign State),
but it is since the founding of the United Nations that there has been the most
remarkable growth. The norms of equality and non-discrimination are directly
relevant to migrants, but all international human rights norms are significant
because they apply to every human being, and therefore include migrants. The
chapter surveys the major rights and freedoms in their application to migrants,
including the specialised instruments that apply to migrant workers. It is clear that
there is no shortage of beneficent legal principles, but many migrants continue to
suffer discrimination, exploitation and persecution, revealing a significant gap
between rights and reality.
Chapter 7 addresses one type of forced migration – the situation of refugees and
asylum seekers. Born out of the massive dislocations in Europe from two world
wars, the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) (‘Refugee
Convention’)37 establishes a legal framework for providing international protec-
tion to persons who cannot seek the protection of the State of their nationality
because they have a ‘well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race,
religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group’.
The chapter considers the criteria for refugee status and the rights afforded to those
who qualify. The most fundamental right arises from the duty of States not to
return a refugee to the frontier of a territory where his or her life or freedom would
be threatened – the duty of non-refoulement. Despite the strength of the legal
structure, the refugee system is a system under strain. The number of refugees is
large – nearly 10 million globally in 2010. One-quarter of all States have not
ratified the Refugee Convention; implementation is atomised under a State-based
system of compliance; and the burden of offering protection to refugees falls very
disproportionately on the developing world.
Chapter 8 examines the legal protections afforded to women, children and other
marginalised migrant groups, such as those with disabilities. Numerically, these
groups are well represented today in migrant stocks and flows, but historically

37 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 150 (entered into force
22 April 1954).
13 Structure of this book

they have been largely invisible because the paradigmatic migrant was considered
to be an able-bodied, adult male who leaves home to seek his fortune or save his
life. Addressing these marginalised groups within a single chapter should not be
taken to imply, however, that they are similarly and invariably vulnerable or
disempowered. Individuals within each of these groups enjoy rights and freedoms
under general human rights norms, but specialised instruments expand upon those
rights in particular contexts. Thus, there are separate treaties addressing the rights
of children, discrimination against women, and the rights of persons with disabil-
ities, as well as overlapping instruments addressing migrant workers and other
matters. The critical problem facing these groups of migrants is not a normative
vacuum, but a failure of political will to implement existing laws.
Chapter 9 examines the legal regimes that address human trafficking and
smuggling. Although legal regulation of these practices has older roots, current
efforts centre around two protocols that were concluded in 2000 as part of an
international effort to combat transnational organised crime.38 Trafficking and
smuggling sometimes possess common features, but they are conceptually distinct.
Trafficking is a criminal activity that typically involves the recruitment of persons
by deceptive or other means for the purpose of their exploitation – whether for
sexual purposes, sweatshops, agricultural or domestic labour, forced marriage or
organ harvesting. The victim’s participation is non-consensual. Smuggling is a
criminal activity that involves procuring the irregular entry of a person into a State
of which he or she is not a national for material benefit. This may be a consensual
commercial transaction, but in practice the social and economic disadvantage that
encourages people to participate in smuggling is similar to that which makes them
vulnerable to trafficking. The clandestine nature of both practices makes it difficult
to quantify the effectiveness of the protocols, but they provide a helpful legal
framework in the fight against these practices.
Chapter 10 considers a topic that has been largely sidelined in the migration
literature, namely, how the legal regimes that regulate air and sea transport intersect
with the web of norms that comprise international migration law. Difficulties arise
because the regulatory regimes governing civil aviation and maritime transportation
focus on delimiting rights and obligations in respect of commercial activities that
have frequent contact with multiple States. In this environment, the human rights of
the migrants who make those journeys are sometimes obscured. The chapter exam-
ines the mechanisms employed by States to intercept migrants before they reach the
State’s frontier; the co-opting of commercial carriers in screening out irregular
migrants through penalty regimes known as carrier sanctions; interdiction at sea;

38 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing
the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, opened for signature 15 November 2000,
2237 UNTS 319 (entered into force 25 December 2003); Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea
and Air, Supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, opened for
signature 15 November 2000, 2241 UNTS 507 (entered into force 28 January 2004).
14 Conceptualising international migration law

stowaways; smuggling by sea; and the rescue of persons in distress at sea. Although
the relevant legal instruments are occasionally punctuated by humanitarian con-
cerns, they also underpin the State’s sovereign authority to control its borders by
deterring irregular migration by sea or air.
Chapter 11, and the following chapter, examine the theme of labour migration
from different perspectives. A very large part of international migration is bound up
with the world of work, and the area has spawned a large number of specialised legal
instruments. Since 1919, the ILO has played a key role in drawing up international
minimum labour standards aimed at safeguarding the rights of migrant workers,
including conventions, recommendations, principles and guidelines. The United
Nations has also responded with a core human rights document, the International
Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of
their Families (1990).39 Despite shortcomings in ratification and implementation of
these instruments, an international rule of law framework exists for protecting the
rights of migrant workers. This is much needed, given the increasing integration of
the global economy and the rise of precarious forms of employment.
Chapter 12 continues the theme of labour migration in the specific context of
temporary labour mobility under the regime of international trade law. Although
it is infrequently discussed within the mainstream of international migration law,
the topic is significant because it is the only multilateral legal framework that
seeks to liberalise the international movement of persons. The mechanism for
doing so is the General Agreement on Trade in Services (1994) (‘GATS’), which
promotes different modes of trade in services between member States of the
World Trade Organization. One such mode (Mode 4) is where labour crosses an
international border to provide a service in another State. The potential of GATS
Mode 4 to facilitate labour mobility is significant, but is far from fully realised.
International migration is enabled by GATS only to the extent that member States
make mutual commitments to allow entry of particular classes of persons in
specific sectors of the economy. To date, these commitments have been limited
and favour high-skilled employment, to the disadvantage of developing States.
The prospects of further trade liberalisation under the current round of multi-
lateral negotiations appear to be bleak, but regional trade frameworks provide a
more optimistic outlook.
Chapter 13 marks an important shift from the substantive content of interna-
tional migration law to the global institutions and processes that facilitate the
progressive development of migration norms. A complex array of international
institutions and processes has emerged in recent decades in response to increasing
globalisation, greater awareness of the need for coordinated international efforts
to manage migration, and heightened attention by governments. Of the

39 See above n. 22.


15 Structure of this book

intergovernmental organisations, IOM is the only one whose mandate relates


exclusively to migration, but bodies such as the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development have done much to advocate for greater global gov-
ernance from the perspective of their members. Within the United Nations, there is
a plethora of agencies whose work impacts on international migration at an
operational, policy or strategic level. The work of UNHCR and the ILO has already
been mentioned. The involvement of so many agencies provides opportunities to
focus on different attributes of migration, but at the potential cost of gaps and
overlaps, inefficiencies and conflicting agendas. Beyond the United Nations, a
range of global fora has emerged in recent years and spurred further dialogue
among States, but whether they will result in real institutional change remains an
open question.
Chapter 14 is the counterpart of Chapter 13 and addresses the growing number and
range of regional institutions and processes that deal with international migration. A
large proportion of international migration in fact takes place between States within
confined geographic regions (e.g., Europe, Africa, Asia, Latin America, Oceania),
making regional arrangements especially relevant in finding solutions to shared
challenges. The regional arrangements vary widely, from the highly developed free
movement regime under the Schengen agreement in Europe, to the non-binding fora
that comprise the regional consultative processes, to the wider groupings that
straddle geographical regions and are known as inter-regional fora. Many of these
arrangements are of relatively recent origin and their contribution to fostering
international cooperation on migration remains to be seen.
Chapter 15 closes the book with an examination of emerging legal issues in
international migration. In a field that is fragmented and dynamic, construction
sites abound, but three areas are selected for special attention – internally displaced
persons, environmentally induced migration and stranded migrants. The first of
these is instructive for the way in which guiding principles have become accepted
as the appropriate legal framework for addressing a situation of forced migration that
falls outside the refugee system because the persons affected have not crossed an
international border. Although not formally applicable to international migration, it
can provide lessons for this domain. The second area, environmentally induced
migration, has become a topic of hot debate because of the anticipated impacts of
climate change on human displacement and resettlement. There is broad consensus
that the Refugee Convention does not cover so-called ‘climate refugees’, but com-
mentators are divided on whether it should be amended to give it that coverage, or a
new instrument created to address the protection and assistance needs of these
persons. Another option is to adopt non-binding principles akin to those adopted
for internal displacement. The third area, stranded migrants, covers those caught
between removal from the State in which they are present and their inability to gain
entry to any other State. More research is needed before it can be confidently asserted
16 Conceptualising international migration law

that the category of stranded migrants has sufficient empirical coherence and
validity to justify the development of a new framework of law and policy.
This précis of the subject matter of this book indicates that the foundations of
international migration law have evolved rapidly and drawn inspiration from
diverse areas of international law. As one of the present authors has stated,
‘international migration law is perhaps the branch of law most resembling public
international law – a dynamic law, in constant evolution, with occasionally blurred
boundaries; a law as yet unfinished but necessary for understanding and managing
one of the most pressing problems of our times.’40

40 Richard Perruchoud, ‘Droit international et migration’ (2005) 24(4) Refugee Survey Quarterly 81, 87 (Editors’
translation).

You might also like