In the absence of a binding and coherent international migration regime, the global governance of migration relies on normative narratives produced by UN agencies and other intergovernmental processes, in line with the discursive legitimacy traditionally associated with international organizations. Such narratives impact migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees because they support certain policy frameworks among member states. Yet, global migration governance remains fragmented, especially as far as the long-standing divide between the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is concerned. This article contributes to this discussion by applying CorpusAssisted Critical Discourse Analysis to the narratives produced by these two organizations. The article identifies some of the dominant worldviews in the narratives of IOM and UNHCR. Results show that IOM and UNHCR have distinct worldviews, associated with different textual patterns, and that, while IOM’s textual productions seem to influence UNHCR’s discourses, the opposite is less true. This would support the view that IOM is currently the leading actor in terms of framing migration, thereby exerting a strong influence on global migration governance.

Les chercheurs spécialistes des migrations sont régulièrement confrontés aux idées reçues et aux erreurs qui circulent sur le sujet. Dans un contexte de forte politisation des enjeux migratoires, ces idées reçues contribuent à la (dés)information sur la question et soulèvent des enjeux démocratiques fondamentaux. Elles ont de longue date fait l’objet de réfutation par des chercheurs soucieux d’informer l’opinion publique et d’améliorer la qualité du débat politique. Bien qu’essentielle, cette démarche se heurte à de nombreux obstacles. Elle soulève également un certain nombre de questions sur le rôle et la place des sciences sociales, et en particulier des études sur les migrations. Cet article propose un tour d’horizon de ces enjeux, et de ce qu’ils révèlent des conditions épistémologiques et politiques dans lesquelles les connaissances sur les migrations sont produites et débattues aujourd’hui.

As the introduction to the special issue 'Rethinking the International Organization for Migration', this article reviews the growing literature on this organisation and contextualises the contributions of the special issue. It identifies five key topics in the research on this organisation. (1) Its history and transformation into a leading agency in the current global migration governance. (2) The ideological dimension of this transformation, with IOM's expansion coming along with the emergence of specific worldviews about migration. (3) The 'datafication' of IOM and the central role of research, knowledge and information in its expansion. (4) The nexus between humanitarianism and security in the IOM's activities. And (5) the questions pertaining to power and interest, in a context in which the IOM claims to work 'in the interest of all' while also serving the interests of specific governments. The conclusion analyses the political/epistemological issues underlying cooperation between researchers and IOM.

IOM Unbound? Obligations and Accountability of the International Organization for Migration in an Era of Expansion. Edited by Megan Bradley, Cathryn Costello, and Angela Sherwood. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2023. Pp. xxiii, 467. Index. - Volume 118 Issue 2

Even though migration policy is closely associated with state sovereignty, international organizations (IOs) have become key actors in migration governance, especially as far as organizations like the International Organization for Migration or the Office of the High-Commissioner for Refugees are concerned. The United Nations has also adopted ambitious and comprehensive policy recommendations, while fostering multilateral discussions among states. This chapter provides an overview of IOs' place in migration governance. It contextualises their role by analysing the strong relationship between state sovereignty and migration policy, and the consequent absence of a migration regime. It recalls the long-term history of IOs' interest in migration, from the creation of the ILO in 1919 to post-Cold War developments. The core IOs are then briefly presented, along with regional actors and coordination mechanisms. Finally, the chapter looks at what IOs do, distinguishing between narratives, policy guidance, and service provision.

This chapter explores recent developments in regional cooperation and integration over migration governance. It provides an overview of how, and why, regional migration governance has become involved in the governance of human mobility, and of the relationship between regional and national/global migration governance respectively. It documents the diversity of experiences across the planet in terms of objectives and practices of regional migration governance, as well as the complexity of interregional dynamics, in a context in which the most pressing issues in terms of migration governance concern people who move from one region to another. Overall, while regions may embody an alternative level at which people’s mobility can be governed, they also reproduce some of the characteristics – and sometimes the shortcomings – of both national and global migration policy.

Over the past decades, and across different contexts worldwide, migration has become inseparable from a narrative of crisis. This article analyses the connection between migration and crisis. It proposes a migration as crisis framework, designed to understand and analyze the emergence of this specific perception of migration, on the basis of an interplay between social “subjective” constructions of reality and “objective” migration dynamics. Migration as crisis rests upon a fragmented, changing, and contested assemblage of events, representations, and practices, which in turn call for specific ways of governing migration. The link between migration and crisis can be activated or not, and may or may not be correlated with empirical realities. By engaging with migration as crisis (rather than migration crisis), the article denaturalizes and historicizes the relationship between migration and crisis, and unpacks the processes through which key actors (including media, policymakers, civil society, and academics) frame migration as such.

The introduction provides a comprehensive overview of the content of the handbook. It draws on the notion of institution to bring together the wide range of actors, of a different nature, that interact to shape global migration governance. It focuses on the plurality of institutions that shape and govern migration at the global level, and which are situated outside of, in relation to, or in opposition to states, and which include intergovernmental organisations, non-governmental organisations, social networks, smuggling cartels, religious transnational organisations, cash transfer companies, security firms, trade unions, families, sponsors, etc.

This Special Issue considers the role of civil society, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society organizations (CSOs), in contemporary migration and border governance, with a particular focus on its relationship to states and on its involvement in the control of migration. While civil society is usually opposed to states and markets, the contributions to this special issue show how NGOs and CSOs play a more complex and nuanced role. They document their different activities and attitudes, which range from resistance to (in)direct support to migration/border control, and stress the diversity of NGOs/CSOs, from professionalized international NGOs to local grassroots organizations, and from human rights to humanitarian organizations. Contributions challenge the standard divide between sending and receiving regions, as they examine civil society in different geographical spaces throughout European borderlands, in destination countries like Italy or Germany, in so-called transit states (Ukraine and Libya), and in transnational in-between spaces, such as hotspots in Southern Europe or international waters in the Mediterranean Sea. In so doing, this special issue also highlights the multiple borders/boundaries that shape migrants’ journeys as well as their socio-economic and political status from traditional state borders to legal categories: whether it rescues migrants at sea or provides welfare provision to refugees, civil society is indeed present at all the places where foreigners are included or excluded from the societies in which they find themselves. The role of civil society in migration governance is not only a research issue, but also a sensitive policy concern, not least because borders are key sovereign institutions over which states claim full control. In this context, the 2018 Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (hereafter Global Compact), a non-binding but ambitious UN-sponsored statement on migration policy, puts forward what it calls a ‘whole-of-society approach’, according to which migration governance should rely on ‘multi-stakeholder partnerships’ that would include not only governments, but also non-state actors like migrant diasporas, local communities, civil society, the private sector, or trade unions (United Nations 2019).

Assisted-voluntary returns and information campaigns are common tools in immigration policy. They participate of a communicative strategy, whereby migrant-receiving states do not only exercise their sovereign right to control their borders, but communicate with migrants about borders and migration. This article discusses the relationship between control and communication. On the one hand, communication is showed to be tactically used to complement and achieve control, leading to the strategic (and usually untruthful) diffusion of negative messages about migration. On the other hand, and like all communication, assisted-voluntary returns and information campaigns rely on a rational/normative basis, by putting forward sensible arguments (for example about the risks associated with unauthorized migration) that appeal to the rationality of the audience and have, to some extent, the performative effect of increasing the acceptability of immigration policy.

In the absence of a binding and coherent international migration regime, the global governance of migration relies on normative narratives produced by UN agencies and other intergovernmental forums, in line with the discursive legitimacy traditionally associated with international organizations. Such narratives impact migrants, asylum-seekers, and refugees because they support certain policy frameworks among member states. Yet, global migration governance remains fragmented, especially as far as the long-standing divide between the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is concerned. This article contributes to this discussion by applying corpus-assisted critical discourse analysis to the narratives produced by these two organizations. The article identifies some of the dominant worldviews in the narratives of IOM and UNHCR. Results show that IOM and UNHCR have distinct worldviews, associated with different textual patterns, and that, while IOM's textual productions seem to influence UNHCR's discourses, the opposite is less true. This would support the view that IOM is currently the leading actor in terms of framing migration, thereby exerting a strong influence on global migration governance.

The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) was adopted in 2018 under the auspices of the United Nations. In a context in which the global governance of international migration remains weak, and in which states regularly confront migration/refugee crises, the GCM provides an internationally agreed-upon assessment of the political issues raised by international migration and identifies non-binding policy recommendations regarding how governments should address them. This article analyses the content of the GCM in light of the migration-related discussions at the international level since the 1990s. It critically examines its core arguments and argues that, because of the diverging worldviews and interests among governments and other stakeholders, the GCM is marked by major internal contradictions. This results into a depoliticized document and in a political language that hides the dilemmas raised by migration politics. There is therefore little consensus among states regarding the nature of migration and the political responses to govern the transnational mobility of people.

Les politiques migratoires ont connu, depuis environ deux décennies, un processus d’internationalisation, qui les voit être débattues dans des structures intergouvernementales (Organisation des Nations Unies et organisations internationales notamment) et devenir ainsi un enjeu de ce que ces institutions qualifient souvent de « gouvernance mondiale ». Ces débats se caractérisent par une tonalité pro-immigration (pour des raisons démographiques et économiques), ainsi que par l’ambition de refonder les politiques migratoires sur la base de principes universels (comme le développement ou les droits de l’homme). La liberté de circulation n’y apparaît cependant pas, et n’est même pas reconnue comme un scénario digne d’être mentionné. Cet article émet l’hypothèse que, s’il existe des raisons politiques évidentes qui empêchent des organisations intergouvernementales de remettre en cause la souveraineté des États, cette omission relève également de deux biais qui caractérisent les débats internationaux sur les migrations. Un biais utilitariste d’abord, qui n’aborde pas la mobilité comme un droit mais comme une stratégie (de réduction de la pauvreté dans les pays de départ, et de croissance dans les pays de destination). Un biais sédentariste ensuite, qui célèbre et encourage la mobilité, mais sans remettre en cause le lien entre les migrants et leur pays d’origine. Dans les deux cas, la possibilité du choix de migrer comme une décision autonome relevant de la liberté de circuler n’est pas prise en compte. Il s’ensuit que la mobilité reste un objet de contrôle, qui doit être normativement discipliné et encadré.