The Role of Non-State Actors and Cities in Global Migration and Refugee Governance

Abstract

The multilateral system on migration is facing more and more significant and intersecting challenges: from the climate crisis, rising numbers in forced displacement, to labour needs in many parts of the world, and drastic changes to our world due to disruptive technologies—governments alone cannot address these complexities. This chapter delves into the role of non-state actors and cities in shaping global migration and refugee regimes, particularly in turbulent times. Drawing from extensive research and practical experience, the author examines the evolving landscape of global migration governance, focusing on the influence of non-state actors (NSAs) and cities. Key questions explored include the impact of global compacts on migration and refugees on NSA and city engagement, challenges and opportunities in global processes and fora, and the necessity of stakeholder involvement for effective migration governance. The chapter advocates—based on her research—for increased collaboration between international organizations, states, civil society, and cities, emphasizing the importance of inclusive decision-making to address the complexities of migration on a global scale.

1. Introduction

Throughout the history of nation-states, the regulation of migration—deciding who enters and exits—has been regarded as a cornerstone of state sovereignty. Over the past century, international norms, standards, and cooperative processes have evolved to facilitate the movement of individuals for employment opportunities and to offer refuge to those facing persecution. Notably, certain economic blocs have embraced the concept of unrestricted movement within their respective regions, exemplified by initiatives like the European Union (EU).

At both national and local levels, non-state actors (NSAs) such as civil society organizations, internationally operating NGOs (INGOs), the private sector, trade unions, local authorities, and faith-based groups have played pivotal roles in the integration and facilitation of migration processes. Notably, certain groups, particularly INGOs, have demonstrated extensive involvement and international collaboration spanning decades, particularly in advocating for the rights and protection of displaced communities. However, the reluctance of states to fully integrate migration into the international system, beyond the scope of refugee protection, has historically limited opportunities for NSAs to engage meaningfully in the international system on this issue, particularly until the early 2000s.

This book chapter delves into the emergence of global governance and the refugee regime, how actors other than states have managed to slowly get a seat at the table, how the global compacts on migration and refugees, both adopted in 2018, changed the way NSAs and cities engage in global processes, and will address challenges and opportunities ahead.

I posit that the forthcoming five years will serve as a pivotal juncture for the multilateral framework concerning migration. Confronted with formidable and interconnected obstacles such as the climate emergency, escalating rates of forced displacement, global labour demands, and profound transformations propelled by disruptive technologies, reliance solely on governmental action proves insufficient. While the international governance of migration has involved a diverse array of NSAs over the past two decades and more recently welcomed contributions from municipal and refugee leaders, we must explore novel avenues for cross-sectoral and multilevel collaboration to transform challenges into opportunities. Hence, stakeholders, in conjunction with the United Nations (UN) system and national governments, must assume leadership roles in shaping the future of migration governance, while also being provided with platforms to share insights and forge partnerships with the multilateral apparatus. Moreover, the credibility of the UN system hinges upon its inclusion of civil society, local authorities, and other stakeholders, thereby bridging global dialogs with grassroots engagement at the local and national levels.

2. Global migration governance and the refugee regime: emergence and state of play

This chapter serves to trace the trajectory of global migration governance and the refugee regime from its nascent stages in early 1900s to the contemporary landscape, assessing the role actors other than states have played over time.

Global migration governance, akin to the broader concept of global governance proposed by James Rosenau, pertains to the norms and organizational structures governing and facilitating states’ and other actors’ responses to migration [1]. Its primary objective is to ensure collective action among states to achieve objectives more effectively than acting individually—by the formulation of binding laws, norms, and agreements alongside non-binding normative frameworks; its embeddedness within institutional actors and frameworks (such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM), or the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR)); and the implementation of processes such as dialogs, initiatives, and informal networks at the global level or relating to migration governance [2, 3, 4].

The evolution of global migration governance can be delineated into three core phases: the early stages of migration governance and the setup of the global refugee regime (Section 2.1); putting migration and development on the agenda (Section 2.2); and the global compacts for migration and on refugees changing migration governance (Section 2.3).

2.1 The early stages and the global refugee regime

The institutions and frameworks for international migration and refugees established in the early twentieth century continue to shape contemporary migration governance. During the inter-war years, starting in 1919 with the formation of the International Labour Organization (ILO), the groundwork for migration governance was laid. The ILO then adopted conventions on labour rights, including the protection of migrant workers, and played a significant role in implementing the so-called Nansen travel documents, facilitating the movement of displaced individuals across Europe and beyond [5, 6, 7].

In response to the mass displacement and the humanitarian crises caused by the First and the Second World War, the international community embarked on a process of formulating guidelines, laws, and conventions aimed at safeguarding the fundamental human rights of individuals compelled to flee their homes due to conflict and persecution. This effort, initiated under the League of Nations in 1921, culminated in the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, a milestone in international refugee law (the Protocol removes the geographical and time-based limitations). The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol to date remains the most comprehensive codification of the rights of refugees at the global level. Further, it serves as the cornerstone of the mandate of the UNHCR, created in 1950. The Convention provides a legally binding document aimed at protecting individuals who are unable or unwilling to return to their home countries due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion [3, 5, 8, 9, 10]. Further, in response to the 1948 war, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) was established by decision of the UN General Assembly 1949, starting operations in 1950 [11].

In tandem with ongoing deliberations among influential states regarding the extent of global cooperation on matters concerning migrants and refugees, the groundwork for today’s IOM was laid. Originating in 1951, the Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe (PICMME) was established, eventually transforming into the Intergovernmental Committee for Migration (ICM) in 1980 and finally IOM in 1989. Initially focused on facilitating the transportation of migrants, PICMME was conceptualized as a “logistics agency” [12].

Hence, by the landmark decision on a legally binding instrument— the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol—and the little appetite to cooperation on the mobility of people beyond the refugee regime, the differentiation between refugees and migrants has been solidified.

Despite some progress, comprehensive frameworks for international migration remained limited during the Cold War era, with the UN hesitating to substantially engage with migration issues. This resulted in migration—beyond refugees—largely falling under the control of individual nation-states. Nonetheless, there were some notable developments reflecting migration in international norms and structures: Migration was indirectly addressed in international human rights norms, while labour migration was regulated through ILO conventions. Regional Consultative Processes (RCPs) emerged as platforms for state cooperation on migration issues, with regional mobility agreements influencing migration governance since the 1980s [3, 4, 13].

2.2 Migration and development on the agenda

While the 1990s continued to witness minimal progress on global migration governance, the early 2000s marked a notable surge in initiatives and dialogs concerning migration-related issues, albeit with a largely uncoordinated approach. For instance, the Doyle Report, the Global Commission on International Migration (GCIM), the Berne Initiative, or the appointment of Peter Sutherland as the first Special Representative of the Secretary General (SRSG) for Migration in 2005 were pivotal in pushing for stronger migration governance [14, 15]. Further, in the 1990s and 2000s, various norms related to migration were introduced to the UN agenda, e.g. on the rights of migrant workers and domestic workers, on human trafficking, and on migrant smuggling [3, 5].

The Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD), established in 2007, became the key and most prominent platform for state-led discussions on migration outside the UN. The GFMD started to facilitate knowledge exchange and policy discussions, contributing to an acknowledgment of the intersection of migration and development. Another significant milestone was the establishment of the UN High-level Dialog on International Migration and Development (HLD), which for the first time took place in 2006. While not being a process, like the GFMD, it served as a tool to address the intersection of migration and development within the UN and to connect thematically with the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) process [16].

The SDGs, unlike the MDGs, explicitly address migration, which signifies a milestone in the global development discourse. This recognition is evident in the acknowledgment of migrants’ positive contributions to inclusive growth and sustainable development within the agenda’s framework. Notably, the inclusion of migration-related language, such as “to ensure and facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration,” [17] originated in the SDGs and subsequently influenced key documents like the New York Declaration of 2016 and the GCM of 2018 [3].

The process of integrating migration into the SDGs involved various actors beyond national governments, including UN agencies, SRSG Sutherland, think tanks, and civil society organizations. These stakeholders played instrumental roles in advocating for the inclusion of migration within the agenda, highlighting the evolving dynamics of global governance [3, 13]. However, civil society faced challenges in navigating the complex dynamics of international diplomacy at the time [18]. Nonetheless, the eventual recognition of migration within the SDGs marked a critical moment further institutionalizing migration as a global issue [13].

Further, the 2013 HLD and the GFMD process showcased an increased involvement of actors other than states. Specifically, and pioneering in global migration debates, the GFMD has expanded its scope to involve a wider array of participants, including civil society, then the private sector, and finally mayors. This progression underscores a growing understanding of the necessity for diverse stakeholders to tackle complex migration issues effectively. As a result, non-state actors, particularly civil society, the private sector, and academic experts, have become more actively engaged in global migration governance since the early 2000s, marking a notable shift towards inclusivity in addressing migration challenges [3, 5, 9, 19].

Despite these developments, challenges persisted. Migration governance lacked a cohesive vision, and fragmentation both within and outside the UN system was evident [3, 5].

2.3 The global compacts on migration and on refugees: new structures for the global governance of migration

The global rise in displacement in 2015, and movements to Europe, propelled migration onto the UN’s agenda, compelling a re-evaluation of migration governance. This crisis spurred the presentation of long-standing ideas and proposals previously overlooked or refused by the UN. Consequently, traditional roles of national governments and international organizations have shifted as civil society, regions, and cities have taken on more active roles in providing refuge [3, 5, 14, 20].

Between 2015 and 2018, several pivotal moments reshaped global migration governance: the crisis response in 2015, the New York Declaration on Refugees and Migrants adopted in 2016 at the UN, IOM’s incorporation into the UN system in 2016 (Section 2.3.1), and the development of the two Global Compacts, one on Migration (Section 2.3.2) and one on Refugees (Section 2.3.3)—both adopted in 2018. Despite occurring over a short span, this phase marked a significant transformation in migration governance, although its full impact and implementation remain uncertain. Nonetheless, these developments facilitated swift action by the UN, convening discussions on refugee and migrant movements and establishing an architecture for international cooperation. This shift also welcomed increased participation from non-state actors, including civil society networks, businesses, religious groups, and cities, in shaping global migration policies and frameworks [3, 21, 22, 23, 24].

2.3.1 The New York declaration and IOM’s inclusion in the UN system

In September 2016 more than 100 heads of states convened in New York to jointly address migration and refugee policies for the first time. This summit resulted in the adoption of the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants by the UN General Assembly, reflecting the growing urgency to respond to forced displacement and migration situations worldwide [3, 25, 26].

Civil society played a crucial role in shaping the Declaration’s framing and content, highlighting the need for inclusivity and comprehensive approaches to migration issues. The Informals, a multi-stakeholder alliance convened by SRSG Sutherland, facilitated knowledge sharing and collaboration outside formal negotiations, contributing to the Declaration’s development [3].

A significant decision made alongside the adoption of the New York Declaration was the inclusion of IOM into the UN system, marking another shift in global migration governance. This decision underscored the increasing recognition of migration as a pressing global issue. IOM’s journey to integration into the UN system was influenced by several factors, including the heightened visibility of migration since 2015, the reframing of migration as a development issue, and concerns about the potential exclusion of IOM or the creation of a new agency for migration within the UN system—which were weighed and debated against concerns of major donor countries at the time. While welcomed by many, IOM’s integration raised questions about its relationship with existing UN agencies such as UNHCR and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), as well as its specific mandate and role within the UN system [5, 13, 27, 28, 29]. Clarifying these aspects remains a challenge as the organization is navigating and defining its new status within the UN system.

The New York Declaration paved the way for significant outcomes in global migration governance, including the establishment of the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF) and the initiation of processes leading to the adoption of the Global Compact for Migration and the Global Compact on Refugees. However, debates persisted regarding the development of a single comprehensive compact to address human mobility holistically, driven by concerns over existing refugee protection standards, organizational conflicts, government sensitivities, and legal complexities surrounding mixed migration [3, 30].

2.3.2 The global compact for safe, orderly, and regular migration (GCM)

The GCM, adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 2018, represents a paradigm shift in international cooperation on migration, introducing a common language and reference point for addressing migration on a global scale. Its 23 non-binding objectives serve as a toolbox for managing migration in a safe, orderly, and regular manner to states, as well as non-state actors and local authorities. Unlike the GCR, the GCM is the result of a politically negotiated agreement, ushering in new structures for reporting, reviewing, and follow-up, with a significant influence over other, long-established processes outside the UN, such as the GFMD [28]. Moreover, it has facilitated the establishment of a shared infrastructure, with IOM not only joining the UN system, but also hosting the coordination and implementation infrastructure, being responsible for the UN Migration Network as well as the Migration Multi-Partner Trust Fund [7].

The negotiations of the GCM were co-facilitated by Switzerland and Mexico, who were championing the inclusion of civil society, academics, and the private sector, particularly during the (pre-negotiation) consultation phase, being allies to networks and actors willing to engage in the process. Through the setup of the process, much of the content, especially the zero-draft of the GCM, stems from the input and expertise of non-state actors [3, 7]. Further, during the negotiations, mayors coordinated and stepped forward to bring much-needed local perspectives and expertise to the negotiating table, leading to much attention to the local level in the follow-up and review process of the GCM [3].

However, the negotiation process faced challenges, notably regarding concerns over sovereignty, as states grappled with the notion of ceding control over migration management, prompting tensions throughout the negotiation process. The withdrawal of the United States from the GCM negotiations under the Trump administration in late 2017 underscored the political sensitivities surrounding the agreement. Additionally, the period between the finalization of the document in July 2018 and its formal adoption in Marrakech later that year witnessed further political tensions, leading to governmental upheavals in some cases, such as the fall of the Belgian government over a vote on the GCM. Further, critics argued that the lack of robust communication strategies from the UN and governmental silence on the negotiation process provided fertile ground for political exploitation by certain groups [2, 3, 24, 28, 31].

The GCM process also presented significant hurdles for NSAs seeking to engage and contribute: Many UN member states displayed limited interest in incorporating stakeholder input, while the negotiation structure hindered their participation, relegating engagement to a voluntary and external realm. Key UN entities and individuals emerged as critical facilitators for civil society involvement. Moreover, actors possessing crucial knowledge, especially at the grassroots level, often lacked the resources and know-how to obtain accreditation as stakeholders. Even securing ECOSOC status proved to be a daunting and time-consuming task. Amidst dispersed roles and responsibilities, stakeholders grappled with uncertainty regarding the most effective structures and constituencies to engage with. Simultaneous consultative processes further complicated decision-making. Further, a significant challenge was limited resources, both financial and temporal, hindering organizations’ ability to participate in processes like the GCM or engage with UN entities. This scarcity underscores the critical issue of accessibility, determining who can ultimately participate and influence processes like the GCM [3].

Yet, the GCM has created numerous new opportunities for NSAs and cities to engage going forward: The UN Migration Network, tasked with GCM implementation, actively engages a plethora of stakeholders. Organized into thematic workstreams often co-led by UN agencies and non-governmental partners, the network conducts regional and global reviews of the GCM. Further, the Migration Multi-Partner Trust Fund’s Steering Committee, tasked with funding decisions in line with GCM objectives, includes both governments and stakeholders, making it the sole mechanism within IOM structures to involve NSAs in decision-making [32, 33].

Notably, since the adoption of the GCM, where mayors have put themselves on the radar, and city leaders have played an increasingly active role in engaging with the UN system and beyond on migration issues. This engagement reflects a growing recognition of the importance of local authorities in shaping migration governance from the global to the local level. One notable development is the formation of the Mayors Migration Council (MMC), established in 2018. The MMC serves as a platform for mayors from around the world to exchange knowledge, share best practices, and advocate for policies that address the needs of migrants and promote inclusive urban development. By that, city leaders are a key “resource to bring global governance closer to the people, and an asset in the implementation of global agreements” [34]. Ever since, the MMC has been crucial in bringing local authorities’ voices into global debates through strategic city diplomacy and thereby has brought city leaders at the forefront of migration fora.

The first International Migration Review Forum (IMRF) as tool to review the implementation of the GCM was convened at the UN in New York in May 2022 and resulted in the adoption of a Progress Declaration. This represents a significant achievement, especially considering the contentious debates surrounding the adoption of the GCM in 2018 [35]. Just like the GCR, the GCM takes stock at an IMRF every four years—albeit at a different rhythm. At the IMRF mayors—along with civil society and private sector stakeholders—were visibly present and “delivered the largest number of pledges to advance the GCM, […] [and] were welcomed as speakers across the official UN program” [36]. Further, in Ref. to objective 2 of the GCM, along with C40 Cities, the MMC further pushed the agenda on climate migration, positioning city leaders as key in responding to both the challenges and opportunities [37].

The Mayor of Montreal, Valerie Plante, reflected on the contribution to global debates by saying: “I could not be prouder of what mayors have accomplished […]. We went from being an outsider to having a seat at the table at global migration negotiations” [37]. In addition to these global developments, mayors have pushed policy agendas and implementation of new practices and collaborations on the regional, national, and local level, pushing and showcasing the benefits of a localization agenda [38]. Cities hereby present themselves as “glocal” – global and local – actors [22].

Despite its imperfections, the GCM marks a significant milestone in addressing global migration within the UN framework. As future opportunities remain uncertain, it is crucial to fully utilize the GCM’s framework to navigate the complexities of migration governance. Implementation of innovative ideas—by non-state actors and local authorities, as well as multi-stakeholder partnerships operating with references to the GCM, has highlighted that shaping global migration governance is not up to states alone.

Moving forward, the GCM’s relevance will depend on its implementation and review processes at various governance levels. While serving as a non-binding declaration, its establishment of benchmarks and encouragement for new agreements can pressure for comprehensive implementation.

2.3.3 The global compact on refugees (GCR)

The GCR, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 2018, focuses on practical measures to support the states in implementing norms and standards, building upon the CRRF adopted along with the New York Declaration in 2016. The GCR aims to address four key objectives: easing pressures on host countries, enhancing refugee self-reliance, expanding access to third-country solutions, and supporting conditions for safe return to countries of origin. The GCR complements existing international refugee law, prioritizing responsibility sharing among states [24, 26, 39].

Led by UNHCR, the negotiation process focused on states but also invited various stakeholders, including civil society and refugees themselves, for thematic sessions and formal consultations throughout 2017 and 2018 [40]. With that the GCR influences refugee policies and debates globally.

For the implementation and review of the GCR, the UNHCR held a Global Refugee Forum twice, in 2019, shortly after the adoption of the GCR, and in 2023. While at the 2019 GRF, a small number of refugees and mayors were present, in addition to more traditional NGO players, the 2023 GRF saw a spike in engagement from these actors: Refugee leaders hosted a dedicated space, called “R-Space”, that served as platform for events, visibility, and collaboration among themselves, with governments, and other stakeholders [41, 42]. Also Mayors have shown a significant presence at both the 2019 and particularly the 2023 Global Refugee Forum, highlighting their commitment to “welcoming and including refugees and displaced populations” [43]. Hence, the GRF has broadly established itself as a pledging conference for resources, protection, and pathways, as well as a gathering for stakeholders to come together.

While the GRF marks a significant forum for global debates on refugees and to unlock pledges, to influence UNHCR’s policies and programs, additionally the annual meetings of the Executive Committee (ExCom) is the key platform. Increasingly states invite refugee leaders to join their delegation to such meetings and [44, 45].

3. Conclusion: a way forward for a more inclusive governance

In conclusion, the past two decades have seen a gradual empowerment of NSAs and local authorities in shaping global migration governance. Employing strategies akin to those in established policy fields such as climate change or human rights, these actors have emerged as influential agenda setters, employing strategies like blaming and shaming, forming alliances, and participating in norm-setting processes [3, 22]. Despite their limited participation in decision-making processes, their involvement remains crucial for fostering more inclusive governance.

Structurally, NSAs engage with international organizations at three levels: (1) transparency/ getting access to information, (2) voice/ being able to give input, and (3) vote/action, with the latter being the most impactful yet rarest form of participation [3]. Looking ahead, it is imperative to prioritize inclusive governance structures that enable meaningful participation of all stakeholders for better policy outcomes and implementation on all three levels. By leveraging the expertise and influence of NSAs and local authorities alongside international organizations and states, we can shape the future of migration governance. Embracing transparency, fostering dialog, and promoting collaboration, these actors can work towards a more inclusive and effective global migration governance framework.

This book chapter provided an overview of the evolution of global migration governance and the refugee regime, highlighting the pivotal roles played by NSAs and local authorities in shaping contemporary global migration policies but also their challenges. It outlines three core phases: the early stages of migration governance and the establishment of the global refugee regime, the integration of migration and development into the international agenda, and the transformative impact of the Global Compacts on Migration and on Refugees adopted in 2018.

Historically, nation-states have viewed the regulation of migration as a cornerstone of sovereignty. However, the emergence of international norms and cooperative processes, coupled with the rise of economic blocs, has challenged traditional paradigms. NSAs, including civil society organizations and NGOs, as well as local authorities, have increasingly influenced migration governance, advocating for the rights and protection of displaced communities. The adoption of the Global Compacts on Migration and on Refugees in 2018 marked a significant shift in migration governance, providing a new common framework and infrastructure for international cooperation. These compacts facilitated increased participation from NSAs and local authorities, signaling a move towards more inclusive governance structures. Despite challenges such as political tensions, the compacts and their follow-up and review processes represent important milestones in addressing global migration issues.

While the development of the two Global Compacts was spurred by events in Syria and movements to Europe, the response to significant displacement from Ukraine has primarily been handled at a regional level, notably with the European Union activating the Temporary Protection Directive (TPD). Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the International Migration Review Forum has been convened in May 2022 as a global platform for states and NSAs to address pressing migration issues. Despite the urgency of displacement from Ukraine, it was notably absent from the agenda, likely because it falls more within the framework of refugee concerns than general migration. Some governments have expressed discontent over this omission, highlighting the lack of focus on Ukraine during the gathering [3, 46].

As of April 2024, the substantial displacement of the population in Gaza has prompted responses and appeals from organizations such as UNRWA, UNHCR, and IOM, and European governments are taking concrete measures to manage and limit movements to Europe. Filipo Grandi of UNHCR utilized the GRF in December 2023 to reiterate calls for a ceasefire and significant funding for the situation; however, current efforts predominantly focus on providing necessary immediate humanitarian aid rather than addressing longer-term political and practical solutions for affected populations [47, 48]. Beyond these displacement situations in the headlines of Western media, there are other pressing situations around the world that need attention—from Afghanistan to South Sudan, to Sudan, to Bangladesh.

Looking ahead, the multilateral framework for migration is more needed than ever, but also heavily under pressure to deliver results. With interconnected challenges such as the climate emergency and escalating rates of forced displacement, reliance solely on governmental action proves insufficient. There is a need for novel avenues of collaboration and multilevel engagement to transform challenges into opportunities, prevent human suffering, and provide mobility as an option to people. Stakeholders, in collaboration with the UN system and national governments, must assume leadership roles in shaping the future of migration governance, ensuring inclusivity and transparency at all levels. The Global Compacts have created new opportunities for NSAs and local authorities to engage in global migration governance, emphasizing the importance of multi-stakeholder partnerships in addressing complex migration issues. Moving forward, the relevance of these compacts will depend on their effective implementation and review processes, and delivering concrete results in accordance with their objectives, with the involvement of diverse stakeholders critical for success. By harnessing the expertise and resources of NSAs, local authorities, and other stakeholders, states and IOs can work towards a more inclusive and effective global migration governance framework that addresses the needs of all actors concerned.

Acknowledgments

This book chapter builds on the author’s book “Beyond States. The global compact for migration and the role of non-state actors and cities”, published in 2023 with Springer VS Wiesbaden, as well as her extensive experience working with International Organizations, states, and numerous stakeholders in both the global migration and refugee space over the past decade.

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.