The Global Compacts: A Thematic Series Introduction

Guest post by Camille Lefebvre and Nicholas R. Micinski. Camille Lefebvre is a doctoral candidate at the Faculty of Law of Leiden University, in a joint program with Université Laval. After completing a clerkship at the Federal Court of Appeal of Canada and a Judicial Fellowship at the International Court of Justice, she is now a member of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Council on International Law. She is particularly interested in the implementation of international human rights law and international refugee law, crimmigration and national security (X: @CamLefebvre1). Nicholas R. Micinski is Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at the University of Maine. Nick has published two books: Delegating Responsibility: International Cooperation on Migration in the European Union (University of Michigan Press, 2022) and UN Global Compacts: Governing Migrants and Refugees (Routledge, 2021). Previously, Nick was postdoctoral fellow at Université Laval, ISA James N. Rosenau Postdoctoral Fellow, and visiting researcher at the Center for the Study of Europe, Boston University.

In 2018, the UN General Assembly endorsed the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) and the Global Compacts on Refugees (GCR). The adoption of these two landmark agreements marked a shift in migration cooperation. Even if only considered ‘’soft law’’ (i.e. meaning these instruments have no legally binding effect on States), many were hopeful that these tools would have a positive impact, namely by further encouraging the emergence of new rules and principles related to the protection of refugees and migrants, while addressing the gaps in legally binding instruments. Since their adoption, ongoing crises around the world ⎯ most recently the wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and South Sudan ⎯ in addition to the disastrous effects of climate change, have increased migratory movements, and exacerbated forced displacement. The rise of populism, combined with conflict, has put sovereign interests in the forefront of national agendas, and pushed for restrictive national policies. In light of this current geopolitical environment, and almost six years after the adoption of the Global Compacts, It is essential to question the fundamental assumptions and the actual contributions of these instruments, and examine the ongoing challenges related to their application and implementation.

In order to explore how states have pursued their geopolitical interests through the Global Compacts, the authors of this themed series make three major contributions. 

• First, they demonstrate how the Global Compacts became the peak institutions for migration diplomacy (‘’states’ use of diplomatic tools, processes, and procedures to manage cross-border population mobility’’, as defined by Adamson and Tsourapas). 
• Second, they examine the geopolitics of emerging norms embedded in the Global Compacts and argue that the concept of well-managed migration has favoured states of the Global North. 
• Third, they question the concept of sovereignty, finding that both migrant-sending and migrant-receiving countries have affirmed states’ absolute sovereignty over migration in the Global Compacts. 

More specifically, in the series, Micinski and Bourbeau explore how new capacity building institutions are a form of “intervention-lite,” like the UNHCR Asylum Capacity Support Group and UN Network on Migration’s capacity building mechanism. They discuss the emerging norm of “well-managed migration” and analyse how the Global Compacts affirmed and refined these new framings of how responsible states manage migration.

Robinson shows how Canada promoted and funded capacity building in Southeast Asia and West Africa on anti-smuggling. Robinson’s work examines anti-smuggling policies, and their geopolitical motivations. He questions if capacity building actually empowers states and points to authoritarian governments who are geopolitical allies of Canada, and who are willing implementers of the outsourcing of refoulement and other forms of repression against migrants.

Lefebvre and Cocan highlight the use of the Global Compacts as foreign policy tools. Presenting two case studies, Canada and France, they analyse how responsibility regarding migration has shifted to sending states, not receiving ones. They discuss how geopolitical interests make the Global Compacts useful for certain states, and point to an evident discrepancy between discourse and practice. 

Woodworth critically examines the notion of climate induced movement, and concludes that the rise of populist nationalism, the securitisation of migration, and the complexity of the causal relationship between climate change and migration influenced its exclusion from the GCR. She examines how and why soft law became the tool of choice for migration diplomacy and identifies how the geopolitics around climate migration and anxiety about state sovereignty are part of a wider trend in securitisation rooted in the reassertion of absolute sovereignty.

Finally, Campos-Delgado shows how the Global Compacts became a tool for inter-regional rivalry. Building on the active role played by Mexico in shaping the GCM, she discusses how the government promoted the norm of well-managed migration, in contrast to the lack of leadership by the US under the Trump administration. More specifically, Campos-Delgado highlights how euphemistic rhetoric differs from continued dysphemistic practices. As such, she concludes that the Global Compacts serve Mexico’s geopolitical interests, enforcing deterrence practices, while rhetorically promoting human rights commitments.

This themed series demonstrates that there is a discrepancy between states’ commitments encompassed in the Global Compacts and their policies and practices on migration and refugees. Each blog post attempts to question and problematise the assumptions, logics, and rhetoric put forward in the Global Compacts and resulting implementation by states and international organisations. All of this to better understand the gaps, hypocrisy, and contradictions embedded within these instruments, six years since their endorsement. As such, the following posts will develop the driving questions for the special issue, along with our main themes, concepts, and contributions, and offer a critical review of the Global Compacts’ impacts.

Any comments about this post? Get in touch with us! Send us an email, or post a comment here or on Facebook. You can also tweet us.