![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Since negotiations began in 2015 on the two Global Compacts on Migration and Refugees, many within academia have felt uncomfortable engaging with the processes. This reflects a general weariness around new international cooperation agreements, the perceived control over the two processes by key international agencies, and an apparent lack of postcolonial voices in the drafting and consultation stages. However, with both Compacts now adopted, there has been a marked increase in engagement within academia and policy circles. This postscript to the special issue reflects on the discussions presented in the essays and the Compacts more broadly. The focus is on two main themes that emerge when reading this special issue: (1) forms of protection; and (2) the concept of mixed migration. This essay finds that within both these two themes, attention continues to focus on protection and movement between states, rather than between regions. As such, it remains uncertain how the Compacts will be able to shift the dominance of self-serving policies imposed by the Global North. Nevertheless, the essay concludes by attempting to find some glimmers of optimism. Currently, there exists the political space (however slight) for various actors to try and utilize the Compacts to improve protection and opportunities for migrants who adopt mobility strategies – particularly for those who choose to move between global regions in this postcolonial era.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Christina Oelgemöller for her valued input. In addition, the authors are indebted to the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback on previous drafts. Nicholas Maple is grateful for input by his PhD supervisor Prof. David Cantor at the Refugee Law Initiative, University of London and colleagues including Prof. Loren Landau at the African Centre for Migration & Society (ACMS), University of the Witwatersrand (where he is completing a fellowship) for their comments on previous work that inspired sections of this essay. The views expressed in the essay, and any errors that it contains, remain those of the authors alone.
Correction Statement
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
Notes
1 These are the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) and the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR).
2 By and large, human rights activists, peace activists, political parties, governments and regional actors have been left out.
3 Loughborough University and the Refuge Law Initiative (RLI).
4 The RLI is the only academic centre in the UK to concentrate specifically on international refugee law. As a national focal point for leading and promoting research in this field, it works to integrate the shared interests of refugee law scholars and practitioners, stimulate collaboration between academics and non-academics, and achieve policy impact at the national and international levels.
5 For an explanation of the distinction between international protection and protection, see Garlick and Inder in this special edition.
6 Even if mobility is not articulated in clear terms in the GCR.
7 GCM, paras. 13, 23(l), 27(a), 28(b). It also refers to “migrants in a situation of vulnerability” (paras. 21, 23(b), 23(k)) and “migrants who face situations of vulnerability” (para. 23).
8 For a discussion on the use of the term “vunerable” in international agreements, see Flegar and Iedema (Citation2019).
9 For an example of this in relation to international human rights law and internally displaced persons (IDPs), see Cantor (Citation2018).
10 As Betts (Citation2009) highlights, previous attempts such as the International Conferences on Assistance to Refugees in Africa (ICARA) of 1981 and 1984 were deemed failures, with little lasting legacy. In the specific case of ICARA, he suggests the ultimate failure of the initiative was down to restricted cooperation and limited financial contributions in relation to refugees in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa by states in the Global North.
11 Many states in the Global South are no longer convinced commitments at the international level will translate into actual long-term support. For example, Zambia has already expressed frustration at a lack of international support to their new Mantapala settlement, which was set up after Zambia's commitment to the CRRF (UNHCR Citation2019).
12 Such as initiatives in Ethiopia and Jordan. See Bardelli (Citation2019).
13 As it is set out in Objective 23 of the GCM (Oelgemöller and Maple Citation2018). The financial support for refugee hosting countries is planned to be mainly the loans that these countries obtain from the World Bank in order to support greater opportunities for refugees (Kivilcim Citation2018).
14 See the RLI blog series for an analysis of the negotiation process of each objective: https://www.rli.blogs.sas.ac.uk/themed-content/global-compact-for-migration/.
15 For additional discussions on issues that have emerged due to the creation of two separate Compacts, see Costello (Citation2018) and Hovil and Phillips (Citation2018).
16 As suggested by Jeff Crisp, former head of the UNHCR's Policy Development and Analysis Unit, as quoted in Hovil and Phillips (Citation2018).