Introduction

Question

1. What are the key themes and tensions in IOM's role in global migration governance?

2. IO obligations debate?

3. How does IOM engage with international norms?

4. What obligations does IOM have as a protection actor?

7. What are the core aims of constitutional reforms for IOM?

Accepted Answer

The key themes and tensions in IOM's role in global migration governance revolve around its position as a driver of international cooperation, its relationship with the UN, and its accountability. Some view IOM as a significant force in shaping migration norms and promoting international cooperation, while others dismiss it as peripheral. There are also concerns about IOM's impact on migrants' rights and wellbeing. The chapters in the volume reflect disagreements on IOM's role, interpretation of the 2016 IOM-UN Agreement, and the extent to which international law holds IOM accountable. Despite these differences, four key areas of convergence emerge: grounding assessments in international law, IOM's roles vis-a-vis norms, its approach to protection, and the need for nuanced explanations of institutional change at IOM. These themes highlight the unsettled nature of debates regarding IOM and international law.

Accepted Answer

The debate revolves around the parameters of IOM's obligations and protection responsibilities. While there is contestation, the conversation needs to move beyond binary discussions of whether or not IOM is bound by international law. International law may lack strong enforcement mechanisms, but states cannot escape their own obligations under international treaties by outsourcing migration 'dirty work' to IOM. The European Court of Human Rights has found that contracting states cannot be absolved from their responsibility under the convention by outsourcing to IOs. This calls for a recalibration of assessments of IOM to better account for the obligations attendant upon the agency and its member states under contemporary international law. It also raises questions about why states turn to IOM for certain services and whether it shields them from scrutiny.

Accepted Answer

IOM engages with international norms in three roles: norm breaker, taker, and shaper. Many IOM staff have historically seen their organization as one that 'gets things done' on behalf of member states by preserving its flexibility and not getting bogged down by principles that are often seen as overly legalistic, academic, and constraining. IOM has compromised the right to seek asylum by supporting Australia in implementing offshore deterrence policies and detention programs, and facilitated US efforts to curtail the exodus from Haiti after the 1991 coup. However, IOM is now less overt in breaking international norms and is attempting to jettison its reputation as a norm breaker, repositioning itself as a dutiful norm taker. IOM's uptake of international norms has been patchy but essential to its expansion. Despite its 'non-normative' designation, IOM is also extensively involved in shaping how existing norms are interpreted and applied, and advancing new (non-binding) norms. IOM has for decades assertively promulgated migration management norms intended to support states' claim to independent, sovereign control of entry and membership. However, IOM is now tentatively extending into other areas of norm entrepreneurship more closely connected to human rights, humanitarianism, and other norms associated with IOs as a 'force for good' in the world. While IOM's shifting roles vis-a-vis international norms are evident, whether these changes are normatively legitimate or desirable is yet another question that remains unsettled.

Accepted Answer

IOM, despite lacking a formal protection mandate, has emerged as a protection actor. Contributors trace its commitments, policies, and practices related to protection, subjecting them to critical analysis. IOM's approach aligns with other IOs that recognized their protection responsibilities over time. The World Food Programme and UNRWA serve as examples of organizations that evolved to view themselves as protection actors. IOM now asserts its role as a protection actor, but the extent to which it has implemented effective mechanisms remains mixed. Some member states advocate for a more active role in protection, while others believe a formal legal mandate is unnecessary. The IOM Constitution lacks clarity on protection obligations, prompting calls for an overhaul to define IOM's normative commitments.

Accepted Answer

Critiques of IOM often miss the mark because they primarily focus on the IOM bureaucracy without considering the underlying reasons for its behavior and the levers of power that could bring about change. This highlights the need for more nuanced accounts of institutional dynamics and organizational change within IOM. Understanding the roles of the IOM bureaucracy, leadership, and staff in internalizing normative obligations and redressing accountability deficits is crucial. Additionally, attention should be given to a wider range of actors, including member states, other IOs, and civil society, to fully comprehend the institutional change dynamics and strengthen IOM's accountability systems. The engagement of IOM with the UN system, such as the 1996 and 2016 IOM-UN relationship agreements, and its involvement in UN human rights due diligence processes, have shaped its obligations and accountability structures. However, IOM has rarely attracted sustained attention and critique from major international human rights advocacy organizations, which serve as vital watchdogs for other IOs like UNHCR. Advocacy NGOs play an important but underdeveloped role in holding IOM accountable for the norms it has taken on and encouraging continued institutional change.

Accepted Answer

IOM's mandate, structure, and its place in the international system under international law and in relation to the UN, significantly impact its obligations and accountability. Bradley's historical and legal analysis, combined with theories on IO legitimation, provides a foundation for understanding the evolution of IOM's mandate and obligations. Klabbers argues that difficulties in holding IOM accountable for potential breaches stem from both IOM's characteristics and limitations of international law. Johansen discusses IOM's human rights obligations and accountability mechanisms, considering accessibility, claimant participation, neutrality, and potential remedial outcomes. The 2016 Agreement binds IOM to the UN Human Rights Due Diligence Policy (HRDDP), symbolizing a shift in accountability. However, Cullen questions the legal significance of the shifts achieved through the 2016 Agreement compared to the 1996 Agreement, highlighting the limitations of IOM's position as a related organization. The book further explores IOM's expansion in crisis operations, migration and climate change, data, ethical labor recruitment, humanitarianism, internal displacement, immigration detention, and AVR, emphasizing the normative implications and potential clarification of IOM's obligations and accountability in these areas. The volume concludes by acknowledging the need for broader political, moral, and ethical considerations in shaping IOM's role in global governance of migration, suggesting further engagement with political theory and philosophy to address the gap in comprehensive guidance on IOM's obligations and accountability.

Accepted Answer

The core aims of constitutional reforms for IOM are threefold. First, they should update and clarify IOM's mandate. Second, they should recognize that IOM is bound by and in its work must promote respect for international law, including international migration law, human rights, humanitarian and refugee law. Third, they should explicitly acknowledge and direct IOM to uphold its protection obligations to all those affected by its operations. These reforms should provide clarity for IOM, its partners, and 'beneficiaries' on its approach and commitments, creating greater predictability and reliability. The reform process should also provide clarity on the scope and limits of IOM's engagement in highly sensitive matters such as returns and immigration detention, and the correct interpretation of IOM's 'nonnormative' designation. Constitutional reform is a high-risk undertaking in a political environment in which xenophobia and aggressive anti-migrant policies are widespread and rewarded. However, tackling the gross mismatch between IOM's arcane Constitution and its new role as 'the global lead agency on migration' is essential to its continued maturation and meaningful accountability to all those affected by its work -including, most significantly, migrants themselves. Recourse to indirect modes of holding IOM to account surely have a role to play also, such as turning to domestic and regional human rights courts, UN Treaty Bodies, and indeed other UN mechanisms to indirectly scrutinize IOM's actions. Researchers also have significant roles to play in holding IOM to account. Although IOM engages only a subset of the populations with whom it interacts, who often face pronounced protection concerns, it is crucial to strengthen formal mechanisms, look beyond formal approaches to also reconfigure incentive structures and organizational culture, and encourage greater engagement with external accountability holders.2016 Agreement (n 2).

Introduction

Chat with Paper

AI Agents for this Paper

Most frequently asked questions

1. What are the key themes and tensions in IOM's role in global migration governance?

2. IO obligations debate?

3. How does IOM engage with international norms?

4. What obligations does IOM have as a protection actor?

5. Why do IOM critiques often miss the mark?

6. How does IOM's mandate affect its obligations and accountability?

7. What are the core aims of constitutional reforms for IOM?

Citations

Introduction

References

For the Benefit of Some: The International Organization for Migration and its Global Migration Management

Policing the Desert: The IOM in Libya Beyond War and Peace

Money and multilateralism: how funding rules constitute IO governance

Relations with Civil Society

UNHCR and the Struggle for Accountability : Technology, law and results-based management

Related Papers (4)

Broad Scope Accountability the Reporting Priority

Educational accountability — what ho the 1990s!

Discussing the Methodological Approach

Travel and management: an introduction.