Let's Argue about Migration: advancing a right(s) discourse via communicative opportunities

Abstract

The emerging global governance of migration is dominated by two discourses which shape policy approaches: 1) migration management and 2) the migration–development nexus. With large numbers of labour migrants being marginalised, migrant rights organisations have formed global alliances to argue for the centrality of a third discourse, the rights-based approach to migration. The question is how to inject this into the global debate which has sidelined migrant rights issues. Despite having hardly any bargaining power and restricted space for direct access vis-à-vis global governing institutions, migrant rights organisations are employing a number of strategies to overcome this marginalisation. We analyse these efforts by drawing on social movement studies and International Relations research on communicative action. Empirically this article draws on observations made during two major global fora: the negotiations in connection with the new Convention on ‘Decent Work for Domestic Workers’ at the International Labour Conference (ilc) and civil society participation in the Global Forum on Migration and Development (gfmd).

Notes

We thank the anonymous reviewer(s) and the guest editors for their helpful comments and assistance, which allowed us to develop this paper. Stefan Rother would also like to thank the Freiburg Southeast Asia Area Studies Program, supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (bmbf) for supporting his participation in the 2011 gfmfd meeting in Geneva.

1 N Piper, P Oberoi & H Alefsen, ‘Protection of the rights of migrants in South and South-west Asia: key issues’, in Situation Report of International Migration in South and South-West Asia, Bangkok, 2012 forthcoming.

2 P Wickramasekara, ‘Rights of migrant workers in Asia: any light at the end of the tunnel?, International Migration Papers No. 75, Geneva, 2006.

3 See, for example, Piper et al, ‘Protection of the rights of migrant workers in South and South-west Asia’.

4 N Piper & S Rother, ‘Transnational inequalities, transnational responses: the politicization of migrant rights in Asia’, in B Rehbein (ed), Globalization and Inequality in Emerging Societies, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011, pp 235–255.

5 S Martin, ‘The legal and normative framework of international migration’, paper prepared for the Policy Analysis and Research Programme of the Global Commission on International Migration, Geneva, 2005; K Kloser, ‘Introduction: international migration and global governance’, Global Governance, 16(3), 2010, pp 301–315; and A Betts, ‘Introduction: global migration governance’, in Betts (ed), Global Migration Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, pp 1–33.

6 M Geiger & A Pécoud (eds), The Politics of International Migration Management, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. For a human rights perspective, see N Piper, ‘The “migration–development nexus” revisited from a rights perspective’, Journal of Human Rights, 7(3), 2008, pp 1–18.

7 S Rother, ‘“Inseln der Überzeugung” nicht in Sicht: der Nationalstaat, ngos und die globale Governance von Migration’, Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 20(3–4), 2010, pp 409–439; and J Grugel & N Piper, ‘Global governance, economic migration and the difficulties of social activism’, International Sociology, 26(4), 2011, pp 435–454.

8 N Piper, ‘All quiet on the eastern front? Temporary contract migration in Asia revisited from a development perspective’, Policy and Society, 29(4), 2010, pp 399–411.

9 We are aware that this movement is no unified actor but quite fragmented. For the cleavages see S Rother, ‘“Inside–outside” or “outsiders by choice”? Civil society strategies towards the 2nd Global Forum on Migration and Development (gfmd) in Manila’, German Journal on Contemporary Asia, 111, 2009, pp 95–107. For the purpose of this article, however, we focus on those actors who refrain from total opposition to global governance institutions and processes in the field of migration but rather engage in the discussions and deliberations—and argue about migration.

10 LH Fujiwara, ‘Immigrant rights are human rights: the reframing of immigrant entitlement and welfare’, Social Problems, 52(1), 2005, pp 79–101; and ML Cook, ‘The advocate's dilemma: framing migrant rights in national settings’, Studies in Social Justice, 4(2), 2010, pp 145–164.

11 Strictly speaking the first two pgas ran under a different name: ‘Global Community Dialogue on Migration Development and Human Rights’. The pga name and logo were introduced for the first time during the gfmd in Manila, but the pga can definitely be seen as a continuation of the process started in 2006.

12 N Phillips, ‘Migration in the global political economy’, in N Phillips (ed), Migration in the Global Political Economy, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2011, pp 1–14.

13 PM Kennedy, D Messner & F Nuscheler (eds), Global Trends and Global Governance, London: Pluto Press, 2002; and C Jönsson & J Tallberg (eds), Transnational Actors in Global Governance: Patterns, Explanations, and Implications—Democracy beyond the Nation State?, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

14 C Bjola & M Kornprobst, ‘Introduction: the argumentative deontology of global governance’, in Bjola & Kornprobst (eds), Arguing Global Governance: Agency, Lifeworld, and Shared Reasoning, London: Routledge, 2011, pp 1–16.

15 J Grugel & N Piper, Critical Perspectives on Global Governance: Rights and Regulation in Governing Regimes, London: Routledge, 2007.

16 RD Benford, ‘Framing global governance from below: discursive opportunities and challenges in the transnational social movement arena’, in Bjola & Kornprobst, Arguing Global Governance, pp 67–84.

17 P Routledge & A Cumbers, Global Justice Networks: Geographies of Transnational Solidarity, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2009, p 17.

18 See M Ford & N Piper, ‘Southern sites of female agency: informal regimes and female migrant labour resistance in East and Southeast Asia’, in JM Hobson & L Seabrooke (eds), Everyday Politics of the World Economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp 63–80; N Piper, ‘Political participation and empowerment of foreign workers—gendered advocacy and migrant labour organising in Southeast and East Asia’, in N Piper (ed), New Perspectives on Gender and Migration: Livelihood, Rights and Entitlements, New York: Routledge/ unrisd Research in Gender and Development, 2008, pp 249–275; and Piper & Rother, ‘Transnational inequalities, transnational responses’.

19 In general, the bargaining and persuasive power of non-state actors depends upon context and circumstances. Newer literature has demonstrated this by pointing, for instance, to specific policy fields. See J Steffek, ‘Explaining patterns of transnational participation: the role of policy fields’, in Jönsson & Tallberg (eds), Transnational Actors in Global Governance, pp 67–87. But for human rights organisations, especially those operating in the realm of labour and mobility rights, the situation has been particularly dire. N Piper, ‘Migration and social development: organisational and political dimensions’, in K Hujo & N Piper (eds), South–South Migration: Implications for Social Policy and Development—Social Policy in a Development Context, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010, pp 120–157.

20 T Risse, ‘Global governance and communicative action’, Government and Opposition, 2004, 39(2), pp 288–313.

21 M Albert, O Kessler & S Stetter, ‘On order and conflict: International Relations and the “communicative turn”’, Review of International Studies, 34(1), 2008, pp 43–67.

22 J Neyer, ‘The deliberative turn in integration theory’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13(5), 2006, pp 779–791.

23 T Risse & M Kleine, ‘Deliberation in negotiations’, Journal of European Public Policy, 17(5), 2010, pp 708–726; and T Risse, ‘Global Governance und kommunikatives Handeln’, in P Niesen & B Herborth (eds), Anarchie der kommunikativen Freiheit: Jürgen Habermas und die Theorie der internationalen Politik, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2007, pp 57–86.

24 B Herborth, ‘Verständigung verstehen: Anmerkungen zur zib-Debatte’, in Niesen & Herborth, Anarchie der kommunikativen Freiheit, pp 147–172; and Risse & Kleine, ‘Deliberation in negotiations’, p 709.

25 J Habermas, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Vol 4, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1988.

26 T Risse, ‘“Let's argue!” Communicative action in world politics’, International Organisation, 54(1), 2000, pp 1–39.

27 Risse & Kleine, ‘Deliberation in negotiations’, p 711.

28 RA Payne, ‘Persuasion, frames and norm construction’, European Journal of International Relations, 7(1), 2001, pp 37–61; and Risse, ‘Global Governance and kommunikatives Handeln’, p 76.

29 J Steffek & MP Ferretti, ‘Accountability or “good decisions”? The competing goals of civil society participation in international governance’, Global Society, 23(1), 2009, pp 37–57.

30 M Cooke, ‘Five arguments for deliberative democracy’, Political Studies Review, 48(5), 2000, pp 947–959.

31 Steffek & Feretti, ‘Accountability or “good decisions”?’, p 43.

32 EO Eriksen, ‘Deliberation und demokratische Legitimität in der EU: zwischen Konsens und Kompromiss’, in Niesen & Herborth, Anarchie der kommunikativen Freiheit, pp 294–320; and N Deitelhoff, ‘The discursive process of legalization: charting islands of persuasion in the icc case’, International Organisation, 63(1), 2009, pp 33–65.

33 Grugel & Piper, ‘Global governance, economic migration and the difficulties of social activism’.

34 T Brühl & E Rosert, ‘Another quiet revolution? New governance forms in the United Nations system’, in The Future of Civil Society Participation at the United Nations: Documentation of a Workshop held at the acuns Annual Meeting 6 June 2008, Bonn, 2008, pp 5–20.

35 T Basok, ‘Counter-hegemonic human rights discourses and migrant rights activism in the US and Canada’, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 50(2), 2009, pp 183–205.

36 Rother, ‘“Inseln der Überzeugung” nicht in Sicht’; and Grugel & Piper, ‘Global governance, economic migration and difficulties of social activism’. See also http://gfmd-blog.com.

37 The second network in Asia is caram Asia, headquartered in Kuala Lumpur.

38 Personal conversation, Bangkok, 26 January 2012.

39 csd Statement, Geneva, 2011, p 2.

40 Migrant Forum in Asia (mfa), Mobilizing Migrant Community and Civil Society Voices for the Second Global Forum on Migration and Development (gfmd): The Migrant Forum in Asia Experience, Manila: mfa, 2009, p 25, at http://www.mfasia.org/peoplesglobalaction/resources/GFMD2008Report.pdf.

41 S Rother, ‘Standing in the shadow of civil society? The 4th Global Forum on Migration and Development (gfmd) in Mexico’, International Migration, 50(1), 2012, pp 179–188.

42 Statement of the pga , Mexico City, 2–5 November 2010, p 1.

43 mfa, Mobilizing Migrant Community and Civil Society Voices, p 25.

44 G Standing, ‘The ilo: an agency for globalization?’, Development and Change, 39(3), 2008, pp 355–384.

45 This new network grew out of a conference held in 2006 on ‘Respect and Rights: Protection for Domestic Workers’ led by the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Association. For the conference report, see www.domesticworkerrights.org.

46 Information from personal interviews with ilo senior staff.

47 S Ally, ‘Caring about care workers: organizing in the female shadow of globalization’, Travail, Capital et Societé, 38(1–2), 2005, pp 185–207.

48 Rother, ‘“Inside–outside” or “outsiders by choice”?’; and Rother, ‘The gfmd from Manila to Athens: one step forward, one step back?’, Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 19(1), 2010, pp 157–173.

49 csd Statement, Geneva 2001, p 2. In the first draft of the final statement, reference was made to the iom as an organisation which should not be given the central role it has been given by states because it lacks a mandate on human rights protection. (This is known to the authors because of the involvement of one author in the writing team.)

50 At the time of revisions (September 2012), the Philippines had become the second country to ratify the convention (Uruguay being the first); thus, the convention will come into force in 2013.