Problems and Prospects of Global Governance Regime in Migration - Essay Example

?Global Governance Table of Contents Overview 3 Migration Defined Internationally 4 Three Levels of Global Migration Governance 7 Problems and Prospects of Global Governance Regime in Migration 10 The Politics of Global Migration Governance 10 Conclusion 15 References 16 Overview Global governance has been defined as governance in the nonexistence of formal government. Governance refers performing the public’s business by following the group of authoritative rules, institutions along with practices through which the group manages the affairs of its business. In the previous times, governance at the global level was considered as a statist affair. Governance at the global level was a system made by and for the states, and it focused on maintaining association among them (CIDSE, 2007). It has been observed that if government exists at the domestic level, global governance has been generally pursued at the international level. Literatures mention that global governance has not been defined properly. However, the term is used to refer to regulation that tends to subsist over and above the level of the national state, whether at the transnational, supranational or international level (Glick, 2009). The usage of the term global governance is quite complex. In modern international relations, the policy as well as the academic origins of the term merged substantially. It has been noted that the definition of the term global governance, the degree of governance, what it controls and how, tend not to be explicit in the increasing literature on the subject. Global governance has been created in response to the evolution of trans-boundary issues. There are numerous issues which tend to be trans-boundary to an extent since the characteristic of the problem is one that goes beyond the borders and thus cannot be dealt with by a single state acting in remoteness. A few of the significant trans-boundary issues are climate alteration, transmissible diseases, international trade, terrorism and transitional crime. States have tried to create forms of institutionalised international cooperation in order to address the problems. Globalisation, because of rising trans-boundary interconnectivity, has developed a growing requirement for governance that goes beyond the nation-state. The requirement for global governance is related with globalisation and the need to state cross-border spill-overs as well as externalities. However, one of the modern expressions of globalisation has been international migration. By its definition, it is considered as a trans-boundary problem which is not possible for the states to address individually. It has not been successful at creating a rational, multilateral global governance framework (Dito, 2000). Global migration governance is based upon variety of formal as well as informal institutions which operate at numerous levels of governance. It is worthy of noticing the fact that the institutions that control states’ responses to human trafficking as well as smuggling are not alike the states that tend to monitor responses to skilled labour migration. In each class of migration, there is multifaceted range of regional, inter-regional, and bilateral agreements with distinct level of governance possessing greater significance with regards to certain categories of migration in comparison to others (Dito, 2000). Migration Defined Internationally According to the United Nations’ (UN) suggestions in the data related to international migration, an international migrant is someone who alters his or her home country. When a person does this for at least one year, then such person is known as long-term migrant. On the other hand, a short-term migrant is someone who tends to alter his or her country and moves to another country for a time frame of as a minimum three months, however below a year, except in cases where the movement to that particular country is for recreation, business, visiting friends and relatives or religious pilgrimage. The characteristics of the duration measures the period of the consent granted upon entry or the actual period of stay in the host country (Lemaitre, 2005). International migration is considered as an inherent part of the process of development of any particular region or the area comprising it. The altering differentials in both the income as well as employment opportunities along with dissimilarities in the demographic and social development among countries in the regions have led to altering patterns in the value, intricacies and structure of international migration. A few of the countries have viewed the concrete contribution made by international migration in the procedure of their nationwide economic growth. Migration plans have become a noteworthy policy issue for the governments of many countries at various regions (Wongboonsin, 2000). The regulations in the global economy are quite important. Markets focus upon institutions, rules and customs so that they can work effectively. Global markets generally require rules as well as regulations so that they can work in an efficient way (Drezner, 2007). The most important global institutions that faced political conflicts along with institutional demands imposed by the economic integration are General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and International Monetary Fund (IMF). Both the technological transformation along with demand for domestic deregulation challenged international regulatory regimes more directly, disordering secure international bargains and invigorating the search for new regulatory structures (Kahler, 1995). Migration is considered as a private good for which the main costs as well as benefits accumulate to the sending as well as receiving states and the migrant. In the meantime, the advantages of global migration governance may be non-rivalrous in the sense that they are undiminished by the other state’s consumption but they are most unlikely to be non-excludable. Much of global migration governance is therefore better conceived as a club good for which the advantage of its survival may well be non-rivalled however can be barred from states. This signifies that states do not require comprehensive, binding multilateral cooperation for the purpose of maximising the advantages and to reduce the costs of mobility, but can instead often relapse to more exclusive bilateral, regional and inter-regional clubs (The World Bank, 2009). The international politics of most areas of migration is featured by a fundamental power asymmetry, normally between the migrant transferring and receiving states. When there is no binding or institutional framework, in such circumstances, the receiving states have judgment to open and to close their borders and are also inherent rule-makers, while the sending state needs to agree to the decisions of receiving states and are considered as implicit rule-takers. This implies that unilateralism is in the interests of the influential, receiving states and multilateralism is in the interests of the weaker, sending states. It can be stated that at the third level, as political concern with regards to labour migration along with irregular migration has enhanced, new methods related to global migration governance have emerged which are basically restricted rather than wide-ranging and can be subsumed under the idea of trans-regionalism (The World Bank, 2009). The point to be considered is that at the third level the global migration governance is growing most quickly. There has been emergence of cross-cutting layer of bilateral, inter-regional and regional cooperation. The northern regions that receive migrants are trying to create the means so that migration can be controlled and managed within and from southern regions of origins. Three Levels of Global Migration Governance It has become quite common to state the fact that there is no or restricted global migration governance. Whilst, it may be true to recommend that global migration governance within a formal multilateral as well as UN situation remains restricted. The progress upon the migration as well as expansion debate within the United Nations has been limited. This is not the basis on which claim can be made that there is no global migration related governance. Few authors split the global governance of migration into three main regimes such as the refugee, the international travel as well as the labour migration regime (Panizzon, 2010). It has further been suggested by the authors that refugee has the most developed multilateralism, labour migration regime have the slightest developed multilateralism and travel is wherever in between. In many ways, each of the regimes stated here offers a layer of multilateral global migration governance, mainly based upon the legacy of cooperation prepared in the inter-war years. One of the strongest types of formalised cooperation on migration has been the global refugee regime which is dependent on the 1951 Convention in relation to Status of Refugees and the role of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). A well recognised fact is that it is the only area related to migration possessing focused UN agency limiting states’ self-governing discretion in their admission policies. The international travel regime has formed number of forms of multilateral coordination. Although, the labour migration regimes are extremely restricted, it is nevertheless underpinned by different labour standards that had been developed by the International Labour Organization (ILO) treaties (Calle & Alvarez, 2011). The governance of global migration is not labelled overtly, however monitors how states can and do behave relative to migration. Most of the global governance, in issue area such as human rights, trade, and security tend to focus upon the migration. At the level of norms, the response of the states to migration is generally regulated by their compulsions in a host of other areas. James Hollifield states that there must be a collective interest in the creation of global migration regime since it would represent a global public good, the gains from which would be non-excludable, in the way that because of its existence, the states would be benefited irrespective of their own involvement (Hollifield, 2010). It tends to be non-rival in the sense that one state’s enjoyment of the benefits of which would be non-excludable, while all the states would gain from one state’s existence irrespective of their contribution. It can be mentioned that the above categorisation misrepresents the characteristics of migration governance. In order to be strictly accurate, migration can be divided into three major areas such as refugees, irregular and low-skilled migration as well as high-skilled migration (The International Organization for Migration (IOM), 2008). The refugee regime may be featured as a global public good even though with asymmetric distribution of the advantages since the return of refugee protection is to certain extent non-excludable and non-rival between states (Fagan & Munck, 2009). Therefore, one anticipates there to be formal and polygonal regime in this area. The global governance related to high-skilled migration might be private good since it is possible not only to exclude states from taking pleasure of the advantages of governance but, given the finite supply of skilled labour, those advantages are most likely to be rivalled between states. A person, therefore, prefers this area to be featured by mainly unilateral liberalisation or bilateral agreements. However, in between the two facets the governance of the significant number of migration governance is more accurately featured as club good in the areas of irregular and low-skilled migration (Kunz & et. al., 2011). Problems and Prospects of Global Governance Regime in Migration When applied to problems related to international labour migration, appropriate theories in relation to global righteousness lead to recommendations which tend to be either politically unreasonable or practically unhelpful. However, the opportunity costs along with real injustices of unregulated virtual global environment are too significant to be ignored. The dimension related to migrant rights is of independent significance, and most of them might consider it to be the core of the moral problems relating to immigration. In the present times, international labour migration is at the tip of international development policy, with the previous record of growth aid provision being miserable and the prospects of international trade impacts on development appearing too declining within the World Trade Organizations (WTOs) Doha Development Round (Broude, 2007). It can be mentioned that the immigration policy must not impair the prospects of burdened societies in order to attain the independent capability so that their affairs can be administered practically (Broude, 2007). The Politics of Global Migration Governance For the purpose of investigating what leads to the politics of international migration, and the scope for inter-state cooperation, numerous concepts can be taken out from the international relations. In particular, an individual can expect to find an explanation for the various forms of international cooperation that subsists, and their effects, by viewing the aspects of interest, power as well as idea (Grugel & Piper, 2000). Interests International relations attempt to discover the area from which the state preference derives and how the so-called national interest evolves. The questions are significant for the global governance since it identifies the scope for mutually beneficial international collaboration. Nonetheless, recognising and explaining the way states define their interest with regards to the international politics of migration is difficult and tends to be quite challenging. According to the rationalist approach to international relations, it has been assumed that the nation-state can be viewed as a ‘black-box’ which can be hypothesised to be interested in enhancing its own interests. This form of approach provides certain analytical utility with regards to international migration. States tend to create their migration policies for the purpose of enhancing their economic as well as security interests. They try to lure desirable migrants who are capable of meeting the requirements of the economy’s labour market, while discouraging undesirable migrants thereby offering little economic benefits and who are viewed to be a threat to the security of the society. It would be better to consider states’ interests in the global politics as being based upon stimulation of their economic and security interests (Smith & Favell, 2006). With the help of international cooperation, when these interests tend to be met, in such circumstances an individual can have a penchant for cooperation. When these interests can be met via competition, preference for competition can be expected. Nonetheless, in the context of international migration, it is apparent that intra-state politics identify the states interests. In the context of international politics of migration, the lobbying as well as interests group creation has a significant role to play so that the position of the state can be determined (Coffee, 1999). In fact, a political economy approach to the international politics of migration would realise the requirement to disaggregate the state and investigate numerous interests evolving within domestic politics and via the function of the private sector. This leads to threat, if one is to comprehend the global politics of migration; there is requirement for recognising the sub-state actors that demonstrate the situation of the strongest powerful migration states. The interest that makes sense for global migration governance might alter in numerous contexts of migration. However, it is apparent that, in most areas, they comprise of difficult range of actors along with distinct sets of interests. In order to comprehend the interests that become relevant and influential, it is vital to investigate the role of power (Gagnon & Khoudour-Casteras, 2011). Power Power is also vital for comprehending the international politics of migration. In comparison to other areas of world politics, the international politics of migration can be viewed to be anarchical, in the sense that there is no overarching global power. Subsequently, states can involve in self-help and try to capitalize on their own interests subjected to limitations developed by behaviour of other states (Ruggie, 2003). In the context of international politics of migration, if logical and comprehensive multilateral governance structure would mean that states can aggressively act in their own interest. Instead of being restrained by any clear institutional structure, powerful states are capable of addressing their migration policies according to their interest (International Energy Agency, 2011). The states will recognise their migration intentions depending on reconciling their economic as well as security interests. In economic terms, the receiving states are focused upon meeting their labour market requirements; on the other hand, the sending states are focused upon remittance income and the weakening of skilled labour. In the context of security, receiving states are concerned with reduction of the threat to security from admitting non-citizens (Maimbo & Ratha, 2005). Within this area, those states which are considered as powerful define the concepts of global migration governance. It is the policies along with the ad-hoc organizations that are shaped by the powerful states help in improving the limitations that is generally faced by the less powerful states. In such situations, the numerous informal institutions developed on a two-pronged, regional as well as inter-regional level often serve to strengthen asymmetric power relations. They are often developed as exclusive institutional structures permitting the states to include and exclude partner states on a practical basis (Betts, 2010). Idea One of the significant aspects is to be aware of the fact that idea assist in shaping the international politics of migration. Ideas concerning independence and the nation-state create the ideational situation in which international migration is viewed. The way in which the states comprehend the characteristics of the migration issue is dominant in relation to how they approach the international politics of migration. When there is risk regarding the characteristic of the issue, states demonstrate their reluctance to commit to multilateral institutions as demonstrated by the negotiation of global governance of climate change (Betts, 2008). Conclusion Global governance can be defined as governance in the absence of formal governance. While the government generally exists at the domestic level, global governance tends to exist at the international level. It is defined to have existed over and above the national level. An international migrant is considered as someone who normally alters his or her home country. International migrant has a significant influence upon the development of the country in which the migration takes place. Opportunity cost and migrant rights are few problems associated with global migration. Immigration policy must not damage the prospects of loaded societies for the purpose of attaining the independent capability so that their dealings can be managed practically. References Broude, T., 2007. The WTO/GATS Mode 4, International Labour Migration Regimes And Global Justice. Abstract. [Online] Available at: http://www.worldtradelaw.net/articles/broudemode4.pdf [Accessed February 22, 2012]. Betts, A., 2008. Global Migration Governance. Abstract. [Online] Available at: http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wpcontent/uploads/BettsIntroductionGEGWorkingPaperFinal.pdf [Accessed February 22, 2012]. Betts, A., 2010. Introduction: Global Migration Governance. OUP Corrected Proof. [Online] Available at: http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.com/pdf/13/9780199600458.pdf [Accessed February 22, 2012]. CIDSE, 2007. An Introduction to Global Governance. Introduction. [Online] Available at: http://www.cidse.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/Publication_repository/cidse_misc_intro_global_governance_may07_EN.pdf [Accessed February 22, 2012]. Coffee, J. C., 1999. The Future as History: The Prospects for Global Convergence in Corporate Governance and its Implications. Accession. [Online] Available at: http://tcgf.org/research/accession/991020101.pdf [Accessed February 22, 2012]. Calle, R. F. & Alvarez, M. M., 2011. Columbia. Migration To International Regulatory Standards. [Online] Available at: http://www.iflr1000.com/pdfs/Directories/24/Colombia.pdf [Accessed February 22, 2012]. Dito, M. E., 2000. GCC Labour Migration Governance. Population. [Online] Available at: https://www.un.org/esa/population/meetings/EGM_Ittmig_Asia/P07_Dito.pdf [Accessed February 22, 2012]. Drezner, D. W., 2007. All Politics Is Global: Explaining International Regulatory Regimes. Princeton University Press. Fagan, G. H. & Munck, R., 2009. Globalization And Security: Social And Cultural Aspects. Introduction To Volume 2. ABC-CLIO. Glick, S. N., 2009. “A Global Perspective on Migration and Development”, Berghahn Journals. Vol: 53, Iss: 3, pp: 14-37. Grugel, J. & Piper, N., 2000. Critical Perspectives On Global Governance: Rights And Regulation In Governing Regimes. Routledge. Gagnon, J. & Khoudour-Casteras, D., 2011. “Tackling the Policy Challenges of Migration Regulation, Integration, Development”, Development Center Studies. pp. 1-160. Hollifield, J. F., 2010. A Public Goods Approach to Managing Migration. Abstract. [Online] Available at: http://www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/shared/shared/mainsite/policy_and_research/wmr2010/pres_hollifield.pdf [Accessed February 22, 2012]. International Energy Agency, 2011. Development Centre Studies Tackling the Policy Challenges of Migration: Regulation, Integration, Development. OECD Publishing. Kunz, R. & et. al., 2011. Multilayered Migration Governance. Taylor & Francis Group. Kahler, M., 1995. International Institutions And The Political Economy Of Integration. Brookings Institution Press. Lemaitre, G., 2005. The Comparability of International Migration Statistics. Problems and Prospects. [Online] Available at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/4/41/35082073.pdf [Accessed February 22, 2012]. Miambo, S. M. & Ratha, D., 2005. Remittances: Development Impact And Future Prospects. World Bank Publications. Panizzon, M., 2010. Trade and Labor Migration. Global. [Online] Available at: http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/global/06955.pdf [Accessed February 22, 2012]. Ruggie, J. G., 2003. American Exceptionalism, Exemptionalism And Global Governance. Introduction. [Online] Available at: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/american_exceptionalism.pdf [Accessed February 22, 2012]. Smith, M. P. & Favell, A., 2006. The Human Face of Global Mobility: International Highly Skilled Migration In Europe, North America And The Asia-Pacific. Transaction Publishers. The International Organization for Migration (IOM), 2008. International Migration and Development. Overview. [Online] Available at: http://www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/site/myjahiasite/shared/shared/mainsite/published_docs/books/International_Migration_Development.pdf [Accessed February 22, 2012]. The World Bank, 2006. Migration and Remittances. Overview. [Online] Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTECA/Resources/2578961167856389505/Migration_FullReport.pdf [Accessed February 22, 2012]. The World Bank, 2009. Labour Market. International Migration. [Online] Available at: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTSOCIALPROTECTION/EXTLM/0,,contentMDK:20338384~menuPK:642317~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:390615,00.html [Accessed February 22, 2012]. Wongboonsin, P., 2000. Comparative Migration Policies in the Escap Region. Chapter Three. [Online] Available at: http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/population/popseries/apss160/apss160chap3.pdf [Accessed February 22, 2012]. Read More