|
|
|
|
CIAO DATE: 05/02
Georgetown Journal of International Affairs
Volume 1, Number 2, Summer/Fall 2000
Toward a Global Migration Regime
Susan Martin
*
Historically, states have seen immigration policy as a matter of national interest, often adopting unilateral policies aimed at regulating entry and exit. Nations treat the admission of immigrants and control of unauthorized migration as quintessential matters of sovereignty. After all, immigration policy deals with fundamental issues of national identity as well as national security. The protection of one’s borders is key to a state’s self–definition.
While few would question that states have both the authority and the responsibility for making decisions concerning immigration, sovereignty limits the ability of states to address the realities of today’s international migration. Indeed, only through international cooperation, coordination, and ultimately, the harmonization of migration policies will states be able to effectively manage international flows of people. Some steps have been taken in this direction, including the development of new regional mechanisms for coordinating migration policy, but more needs to be done before a global migration regime–necessary for managing international migration–emerges.
At the start of the new millennium, about 150 million people reside outside of their country of birth. Although comprising only about 2.5 percent of the world’s population, these international migrants play important economic, social, and political roles that affect both their home and adopted countries. Migration can change the very nature of societies, and as new groups settle and shift the composition of the resident population, population movements often generate highly emotional responses, sometimes disproportionate to the actual number of migrants present.
International migration is unlikely to yield in the near future. Fuelled by a combination of push factors in source countries and pull factors in receiving countries, economic–based migration is sustained by well–developed networks that link the supply of labor with the demand of businesses for both highly skilled and unskilled workers. At the same time, forced migration will continue as long as conflicts, human rights abuses, and political repression displace people from their home communities.
By definition, international migration affects at least two countries. In fact, few countries are unaffected by international migration. Many countries are sources of international flows, while others are net receivers, and still others are transit countries through which migrants reach receiving countries. Countries such as Mexico experience migration in all three capacities.
The mechanisms and legal frameworks for achieving cooperation among and between receiving, source, and transit countries are in their infancy. In contrast to the international movement of goods and capital, there is no international regime to set rules regarding movements of people. Nor is there a common understanding among states, or experts for that matter, as to the costs and benefits of freer or more restrictive immigration policies.
There is increasing recognition, however, that international migration is a continuing phenomenon which requires greater harmonization of policies and approaches. Bilateral consultation processes–between the United States and Mexico, for example–have become more commonplace. During the past decade, regional mechanisms have been established in the Americas, Europe, East Asia, Africa, and elsewhere, in which receiving, source, and transit countries address issues of mutual concern. Bodies such as the Intergovernmental Consultations on Asylum, Refugee, and Migration Policies in Europe, North America and Australia give receiving countries the opportunity to share experiences and formulate strategies.
Global Trends in International Migration
A number of global trends reinforce the need for consolidation of these regional mechanisms and for gradual development of a global regime that can more effectively manage international migration. The four principal trends which affect international migration trends and global responses include: growing economic integration and globalization, changing geopolitical interests in the post–Cold War era, changing demographic trends and gender roles, and increasing transnationalism as migrants maintain residency in two or more countries at the same time.
Globalization and Migration
Economic globalization is not new. Nor is the role of international migration in stimulating and reacting to global markets. More than 500 years ago, European exploration, conquest, and colonization of continents with rich natural resources were connected integrally with the growth of a new mercantile, capitalist economy. Supported by new technologies that made circumnavigation of the earth possible, migration played a critical role in the expansion of global trade.
Today’s economic globalization, however, gives new meaning to this old phenomenon. The growth in communications and transportation technologies, combined with the willingness of states to enter into binding trade commitments and businesses to establish multinational entities, has permitted an integration of economies that had heretofore operated in separate, differentiated spaces.
Economic trends influence migration patterns in a number of ways. The growth of multinational corporations, for example, has put pressure on governments to facilitate the interstate movements of executives, managers, and other personnel. In manufacturing, it is not unusual for components of a single product to be made in several different countries. Corporate interest in moving its labor force to meet the demands of this type of scheduling often runs into conflict with immigration policies.
Bilateral, regional, and international trade regimes are beginning to have a profound effect on migration. The European Union’s development of a harmonized migration regime to serve as a counterpart to its customs union is just one example. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) includes potentially important migration–related provisions permitting freer movement from signatory countries of professionals, executives, and others who provide international services. Although movements of lesser–skilled workers are not regulated by NAFTA, the issue is likely to be revisited as economic integration grows.
The growth in global trade and investment is important for major source countries of migration as well as the receiving countries. The issues raised in this connection are far more difficult because they are raised often by unauthorized movements of unskilled workers. It has long been held that economic development, spurred by access to global markets and capital, is the best long–term solution to emigration pressures in poor countries. While negotiating NAFTA, President Carlos Salinas of Mexico described his hope that “more jobs will mean higher wages in Mexico, and this in turn will mean fewer migrants to the United States and Canada. We want to export goods, not people.” In more colorful language, Salinas cited his preference for Mexico to export tomatoes instead of tomato pickers.
Academicians exploring the relationship between economic development and emigration also tend to agree that improving the economic opportunities for people in source countries is the best long–term solution to illegal migration. Almost uniformly, however, they caution that emigration pressures are likely to remain and possibly increase before the long–term benefits of economic reforms accrue: “The transformations intrinsic to the development process are at first destabilizing. They initially promote rather than impede migration. Better communications and transportation and other improvements in the quality of life of people working hard to make a living raise expectations and enhance their ability to migrate.” Several researchers posit what economist Philip Martin refers to as an “immigration hump.” As levels of income rise, emigration would at first increase, then peak and decline. The experience of such countries as Italy and Korea in successfully transitioning from emigration to immigration countries gives credence to this theory.
Forced Migration and Sovereignty
The post–Cold War era presents new opportunities as well as new challenges for migration regimes. The effects are most profound with regard to treatment of forced migration. Most current refugee and asylum policies were formulated following World War II with the lessons of the Nazi era in mind and tensions between the East and West growing. To a large degree, refugee policy was seen as an instrument of foreign policy at both international and domestic levels. Admission of refugees for permanent resettlement, asylum for victims of persecution and repression, and international aid to victims of proxy wars (Central America, Ethiopia, Vietnam, for example) were all part of the fight against communism.
The Cold War also made all but impossible some of the solutions to refugee crises, whether defined as attacking root causes or promoting the return of refugees. With the end of the Cold War, new opportunities emerged. Many decades–old civil wars came to an end. Democratization and increased respect for human rights took hold in numerous countries around the globe. As a result, repatriation became a possibility for millions of refugees who had been displaced for years.
One of the most significant changes in recent years has been in the willingness of countries to intervene on behalf of internally displaced persons and others in need of assistance and protection within their home countries. Classic notions of sovereignty, which formerly precluded such intervention, are under reconsideration. International human rights and humanitarian law have growing salience in defining sovereignty to include responsibility for the welfare of the residents of one’s territory.
Intervention may be expected when the actions of a sovereign state threaten the security of another state. What is new is the recognition that actions that prompt mass exodus into a neighboring territory threaten international security. In a number of cases, beginning with Resolution 688 that authorized the establishment of safe havens in northern Iraq, the UN Security Council has determined that the way to reduce the threat to a neighboring state is to provide assistance and protection within the territory of the offending state.
The new opportunities for humanitarian action also affect the roles and responsibilities of international organizations with regard to forced migrants. Formerly, most of the responsibility for handling refugee crises went to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). In contrast to other forms of migration, a global regime did exist for aid and protection of refugees. Today, new sets of actors drawn from security, military, human rights, and development communities have growing involvement in assisting both internally and externally displaced persons, broadening the scope of the current migration regime from one solely concerned with refugees.
Demographic and Gender Trends
Fertility rates are falling worldwide, although many countries in the developing world continue to see rapid population growth. In most developed countries, fertility levels are well below replacement rates–that is, couples are having fewer than two children. These countries can foresee a time in which total population will decrease, leading some demographers to refer to a looming population implosion.
They can also expect an aging population. The United Nations Population Division projects that the number of persons aged sixty or older will increase from 600 million in the late 1990s to 2 billion in 2050. The population of older persons will exceed that of children for the first time in history. At the same time, the ratio of the number of working–age people to people over sixty will decline.
Along with these changes in population growth and age distribution are changes in the role of women within society. An increasing number of women pursue educational opportunities, work outside of the home, and participate in civil society. Not surprisingly, as women gain greater autonomy through education and work, they are also migrating, not just as reunifying spouses, but also as principal applicants for work visas.
Demographic trends are an important factor in explaining emigration pressures in many countries. Societies with rapid population growth often are unable to generate sufficient employment to keep pace with new entries into the labor force. Environmental degradation may also result, particularly when land–use policies do not protect fragile ecosystems. Natural phenomena such as hurricanes and earthquakes often have disproportionately negative effects on densely populated areas, particularly those in poor countries, and displace large numbers from homes that have been destroyed.
Demographic trends also influence the receptivity toward and impact of migration on countries of destination. The direction of these effects, however, is not necessarily straightforward. For example, a country with low fertility rates and an aging population may benefit from the admission of working–age international migrants, but as the migrant population becomes a larger share of total population, there may be a backlash against the newcomers. This pattern is seen particularly where the migrants are of a different race, ethnicity, or religion than the native population.
Transnationalism
Partly because of the technological revolution of the second half of the nineteenth century, migrants can far more easily live in two societies at the same time. While circular migration has been a notable aspect of migration for much of the past century, when travel was more difficult, migrants tended to live sequentially in one country or the other. Now they can maintain two homes, shuttling easily between them. This phenomenon can be seen in migration from north Africa and Turkey into Europe; Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean into the United States; China into Canada, Australia, and the United States; and Mozambique and Lesotho into South Africa.
Money flows between immigrants and those who remain at home is another important aspect of transnationalism. Remittances often exceed any other form of trade, investment, or foreign aid available to the source countries of migrants. According to the International Monetary Fund, an estimated $77 billion was remitted in 1997. Maintaining the flow of these resources is often an important consideration in immigration policymaking.
Perhaps the most visible aspect of transnationalism is the growing acceptance of dual nationality. Several major emigration countries, including Mexico and the Dominican Republic, have shifted from opposition to dual nationality to its active support. In some cases, states permit absentee voting by nationals who are naturalized elsewhere.
Regional Migration Approaches
In 1995, the UN General Assembly asked Secretary–General Kofi Annan to report on the feasibility and desirability of convening an international conference on international migration and development. After consulting with member governments, Annan concluded that there was insufficient consensus about what could be accomplished at such a conference. Given the “disparate experiences of countries or subregions with regard to international migration,” he believed that regional and subregional approaches would be most practical and effective.
Since then, there has been significant growth in such regional processes. Three examples of regional cooperation illustrate the point. The first represents a regional effort to address forced migration pressures, while the others bring source, transit, and receiving countries together to discuss areas of common concern.
In 1996, the United Nations convened a conference to address and act upon the problems of refugees, displaced persons, and returnees in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and surrounding territories. The CIS conference aimed to prevent emergencies, and where prevention was not possible, ensure early and effective responses to mass migration. The conference identified concrete programs toward these ends. Although funding has not kept pace with requests for assistance, the conference has helped the CIS countries develop and implement national laws and practices that improve migration management. The conference and its aftermath also generated new roles for non–governmental organizations in countries that had little in the way of civil societies.
Second, the Regional Migration Conference, referred to as the “Puebla Group,” has brought together all the countries of Central and North America for regular, constructive dialogue on migration issues, including an annual session at the vice–ministerial level. Their “Plan of Action” calls for cooperation in exchanging information on migration policy, exploring the links between development and migration, combating migrant trafficking, returning extra–regional migrants, ensuring full respect for the human rights of migrants, reintegrating repatriated migrants within the region, equipping and modernizing immigration control systems, and training officials in migration policy and procedures. An early and continuing issue on the agenda is averting movements of extra–regional migrants through Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean to the United States and Canada.
Third, in East and Southeast Asia, two regional migration consultation processes are ongoing. One, known as the “Manila Process,” is coordinated by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and focuses on irregular migration and trafficking in East and Southeast Asia. Since 1996, each year it has brought together seventeen countries for the regular exchange of information. The second Asian regional process, Asia–Pacific Consultations (APC), is co–sponsored by IOM and UNHCR. It provides for consultations among governments in Asia and Oceania on a broad range of issues concerning population movements in the region. Both of these ongoing dialogues were strengthened by the ministerial–level International Symposium on Migration that the Royal Thai Government hosted in Bangkok. The search for solutions to the many migration–related problems affecting the region has increased in relevance in light of the economic crisis affecting parts of Asia.
Other such processes are in the making in the southern cone of South America, in southern Africa, and in the Mediterranean. They intend to bring together the governments of all countries involved in the migration process, be they origin, transit, or receiving.
Toward a Global Migration Regime
Will these regional processes lead to a global migration regime? It is too early to know. Three issues need to be addressed if a global regime is to emerge.
First, there must be increased agreement among states on the benefits accruing from harmonization of policies. There are signs, in fact, of growing convergence among regional groups in setting an agenda for such harmonization, but much more discussion and debate is needed. As discussed above, many of the issues on regional agendas relate to unauthorized migration: How can such migration best be deterred and remain consistent with respect to the rule of law and the human rights of migrants? Although source and destination countries may disagree still as to the causes of these movements, there is growing agreement on some approaches, for example, that curbing alien smuggling and trafficking–a global enterprise that nets an estimated $7–10 billion per year–requires international cooperation.
Other issues arise in addressing forced migration. For example, how should states best protect persons fleeing repression and conflict? When conflicts end and migrants no longer require protection, when and in what manner should they be required to return? The growing use of temporary protection, as witnessed in response to the crises in Bosnia and Kosovo, has led the European Union member states to place harmonization of temporary protection policies and mechanisms for burden sharing high on its agenda. At the same time, the Puebla Process, in the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch, has been a forum for discussing temporary protection of the victims of natural disasters.
More recently, certain legal admissions issues have found their way onto regional agendas. When and to whom should visa restrictions apply? Under what circumstances should family reunification be guaranteed? Who should be eligible for work and residence permits? What rights should accrue to those legally admitted for work or family purposes? Answers to these questions will take time since attitudes and policies toward legal immigration states still differ significantly from state to state.
Signs of change can be seen even here, though. The European Union has led the way since its inception with free movement of labor for its own nationals. The Amsterdam Treaty takes the EU to the next step, mandating the establishment of a common immigration policy for participating states. In Africa, protocols on free movements of persons are under discussion in the context of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). APEC is reviewing proposals for multiple–entry visas, visa waiver arrangements, travel passes, harmonization of entry conditions, and information sharing and systems training for border management agencies of member countries.
A global migration regime will require global standards, policies, and new international legal frameworks. Such a legal framework already exists in reference to refugee movements, with most countries now signatories to the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or its 1967 Protocol. There are also international agreements on the rights of migrant workers, but very few states ratified the most recent UN convention related to this. There is no body of international law or policy governing responses to other forms of international migration. With growing economic integration, however, international trade agreements may become vehicles for the formulation of such policies. The current round of negotiations on the General Agreement on Trade in Services, for example, is likely to result in new migration agreements under the rubric of the “movement of natural persons.”
Another issue to address in forming a global migration regime pertains to organizational responsibilities. At the heart of the refugee regime is the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, whose mandate dates back to 1950. No comparable institution has the mandate for other migration matters. The International Organization for Migration comes the closest, as an intergovernmental body asked by states to assume a broad set of responsibilities related to the management of migration flows. In particular, it serves as the secretariat for a number of the regional processes discussing international migration. Although IOM cooperates with UN agencies, it is not a part of the UN system, and it represents far fewer states. For it to be the focal point of a new migration regime, the organization would need substantially more resources and government support for taking on new roles.
A Multilateral Approach
In an increasingly interconnected world, it is unlikely that governments will be able to find solutions to the many questions raised by international migration only through unilateral approaches. The cooperation of receiving, source, and transit countries of immigration is essential to ensuring effective management of international migration.
Finding agreement will be relatively straightforward when countries share similar interests and problems. In many cases, though, interests will diverge, with source countries pressing for easier access to the labor markets of wealthier countries, while the likely receivers of migrants face public concerns about seemingly uncontrolled movements into their territories. These issues will not go away, however. Sheer necessity is likely to move governments toward embracing a global migration regime to ensure that cooperation in managing migration is forthcoming.
Endnotes
Note *: Susan Martin is Director of the Institute for the Study of International Migration, Georgetown University. Back.