According to intergovernmental experts appointed by the
Commission on Human Rights, the term ‘migrant’
should be applied to all “cases where the decision
to migrate is taken freely by the individual concerned,
for reasons of 'personal convenience' and without intervention
of an external compelling factor." 1
Implicit in the Commission’s definition is that migrants
are not forced to leave their homes—they do not migrate
involuntarily, but must leave willfully, or voluntarily.
Prospects of better work, educational opportunities and
the desire to be reunited with family members who have emigrated
are among the reasons migrants may decide to leave
their homes, their communities, their countries and, often
times, close family members behind. Migrants therefore
include, according to the UN definition, job-seekers, students
and family members of migrants. Specifically excluded
from the Commission on Human Rights’ general definition
of migrants are political refugees and asylum seekers, internally
displaced people, victims of trafficking and others forced
to leave their homes because of external compelling factors
(such as natural disasters, nuclear or chemical disasters,
development, etc).
It is worth noting that the term ‘migrant’
as defined by the Commission on Human Rights and as is used
in all UN Covenants and documents, differs from the more
common definition of a migrant: “one who migrates.”
This common and oversimplified definition includes any person
who “moves from one country, place, or locality to
another.” The reason for the distinction made
by the UN between ordinary migrants and refugees, asylum
seekers and internally displaced people is that the latter
are viewed by the UN as special cases of migrants who have
specific civil, political, social, economic and cultural
needs that require distinct protection under the law.
The rights of these special types of migrants are therefore
addressed in separate UN Conventions as explained in detail
in the section B.2. below.
© FAO/18120/M. Sistini
In many parts of the developing world, men migrate seasonally
in search of work. Households headed by the women who remain
behind constitute an important vulnerable group. These women
heads of households typically produce the family food, engage
in local trading and raise small livestock. The land they
farm, however, is often degraded, and the women lack the
knowledge and technologies to reclaim it. Also, the money
brought back by migrant husbands is often spent on prestige
purchases instead of food and other necessities.
1. Regular vs. Irregular Migrants
There are two classifications regarding the legality of
a migrant’s status: regular and irregular. A
regular migrant is a person “authorized
to enter, to stay and to engage in a remunerated activity
in the State of employment pursuant to the law of that State
and to international agreements to which that State is a
party.” 2
In other words, regular migrants reside legally in a country
from which they are not a national.
Irregular migrants, on the other hand,
are foreigners who are not legally allowed to be in the
country in which they reside. A migrant may
be in an irregular situation from the time of arrival by
entering the country without authorization or can become
irregular for a variety of reasons, including: 1) entering
a country as a tourist or student and then working without
a work permit 2) failing to renew a work permit after it
expires and continuing to work anyway 3) entering a country
as an asylum-seeker and remaining after an application to
be recognized as a political refugee is denied 4) remaining
in a country while trying to renew a permit or trying to
change status after valid documentation has expired.3
Back to top
1. Migrant Workers
The International Convention on the Protection of all
Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (hereafter
referred to as the Convention on Migrant Workers), solely
protects the rights and needs of migrant workers,
a category including any “person who is to be engaged,
is engaged or has been engaged in a remunerated activity
in a State of which he or she is not a national.”4
Migrant workers differ from immigrants in that they seek
temporary residence in a host country as opposed to immigrants
who seek permanent residence.
© IOM 2002 - MEC0001 (Photo: Galo Paguay)
As part of the labour migration agreement signed between
the Governments of Ecuador and Spain in 2001, IOM is assisting
the first group of thirty-six persons selected to work in
the hospitality sector to travel to Madrid. All Ecuadorians
applying for jobs in Spain register at the IOM office in
Quito.
Types of migrant workers specifically protected by the
Convention on Migrant Workers are:
- "frontier worker"- one who retains a residence
in a neighbouring State to which he or she normally returns
every day or at least once a week;
- "seasonal worker"-who is dependent on seasonal
conditions and works only part of the year;
- "seafarer"- which includes a fisherman or
anyone employed on a ship registered in a State of which
he or she is not a national;
- "worker on an offshore installation"- who
is employed on an offshore installation that is under
the jurisdiction of a State of which he or she is not
a national;
- “itinerant worker''- who, having a residence
in one State, has to travel to another State or States
for short periods, owing to the nature of his or her occupation;
- "project-tied worker"- who works on a specific
project being carried out in another State by his or her
employer;
- "specified-employment worker” who has been
sent by his or her employer for a restricted and defined
period of time to a another State to undertake a specific
assignment or duty and who is required to depart from
the State of employment either at the expiration of his
or her authorized period of stay, or earlier
- "self-employed worker" who earns his or her
living through by working alone or together with members
of his or her family, and to any other migrant worker
recognized as self-employed by the State where they work
or by bilateral or multilateral agreements.
Motivated by the possibility of a better life, job-seekers
migrate to places “where work prospects seem--at a
distance, at least-- to be better.”5
Despite common perception, this does not always mean that
migrant workers move from a developing to a developed country.
In fact, migrant workers are just as likely to migrate from
one developing country to another as they are to move from
the developing to the developed world.6
While poverty and/or an inability to support themselves
or their families are the driving force behind migration
for job-seekers, the most impoverished people of the world
usually cannot afford the move. It is therefore generally
those from households with middle incomes (compared to others
in their community) that are migrating.7
2. Special Cases of Migrants not included in
the Convention on Migrant Workers
The Convention on Migrant Workers specifically excludes
students and trainees, refugees and stateless persons, and
people employed by a State but who live outside its territory.
The rights of political refugees are protected
by the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees,
which includes any person who “owing to well-founded
fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group or
political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality
and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail
himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having
a nationality and being outside the country of his former
habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable
or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”8
© IOM 2001 - MIN0014 (Photo: Ovais Sarmad)
Victims of the Gujarat earthquake. IOM focused its relief
efforts on rebuilding shelters for migrant workers employed
in the northwest Indian state's salt pans.
While the UN recognizes people who cross a national border
when fleeing from natural disasters as refugees,
they are not currently protected by the Convention relating
to the Status of Refugees or any other UN document.
There is increased pressure on the UN, however, to extend
similar rights to refugees fleeing from natural disasters
as are currently afforded to political refugees. This
is due in large part to a 2005 UN University report suggesting
that up to 50 million people could be displaced by 2010
because of natural disasters and environmental degradation.9
As it stands now, however, it is “commonly understood”
that in order to be eligible for protection based on the
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the following
three elements must be present:
- “ there must be a form of harm rising to the level
of persecution, inflicted by a government or by individuals
or a group that the government cannot or will not control;
- the person’s fear of such harm must be well-founded
— e.g. the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a fear
can be well-founded if there is a one-in-ten likelihood
of its occurring;
- the harm, or persecution, must be inflicted upon the
person for reasons related to the person’s race,
religion, nationality, political opinion or membership
in a particular social group (the nexus).”10
A person is granted refugee status after successfully going
through the asylum process. An asylum seeker,
on the other hand, is a person going through the asylum
process who has not been granted refugee status.
Internally displaced people, frequently
referred to as IDPs, are similar to refugees and asylum
seekers in that they are forced to leave their homes, but
unlike refugees and asylum seekers, IDPs remain in their
home country. A commonly accepted definition of an
IDP can be found in the “Guiding Principles of Internal
Displacement” produced by the Office for the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This states
that internally displaced people are "persons
or groups of persons who have been forced to flee, or leave,
their homes or places of habitual residence as a result
of armed conflict, internal strife, and habitual violations
of human rights, as well as natural or man-made disasters
involving one or more of these elements, and who have not
crossed an internationally recognised state border."11
© Thomas Moran 2003
Children in Battambang, Cambodia are now regularly taught
about the dangers of trafficking and have been introduced
to a network of local community workers, including police
and social workers who regularly visit the area.
There is another group of people who are forced to migrate
against their will: victims of human trafficking.
Women and children are particularly vulnerable to trafficking
schemes in which traffickers sell them into a life of forced
labor and exploitation.
Back to top
© Eddie Arrossi 2004 - MUS0045
Migrants send some US$93 billion in remittances per year.
According to the report of the UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan, there were 191 million known international migrants
as of 2005. Due to the sensitive political issues involved,
there are innumerable undocumented cases of migration, however,
that cannot be accounted for in migration statistics.
As of yet, “No reliable global estimate of the number
of migrants in an irregular situation exists. The United
States has an estimated 11 to 12 million at the present
time. In 2003, the Republic of Korea had 140,000 individuals
who had overstayed their visas; Japan had 221,000; Australia,
60,000; and New Zealand about 20,000. For Europe, the estimates
of irregular migration are less well founded and fluctuate
as a result of regularization. Irregular migration is also
common in the developing world, but the figures cited are
generally not based on data.” 12
Of 191 million documented migrants, 115 million were living
in industrialized countries and 75 million were in developing
nations in 2005. The total migrant population was
split fairly evenly between males and females, but a greater
number of female migrants were living in industrialized
countries whereas more males were living in developing nations.
Twenty percent of all migrants (approximately 40 million
people, or one in every five migrants) were living in the
United States at the time of the report. 13
By continent, Europe hosted the greatest number of international
migrants (34% of the total) in 2005. Asia followed
with 28% and then North America with 23%. Only 9%
of all migrants were living in Africa at the time, with
even fewer in Latin America and the Caribbean (3%) and 3%
in Oceania.14
The number of South-South migrations (i.e. from one developing
country to another developing country) and South-North migrations
(i.e. from a developing country to an industrialized country)
were approximately the same (60 million people). The majority
of all international migrants (60% or 112 million) live
in countries with high-income economies. 15
Cash
and Flow
This IFAD
documentary tells the story of the Cortez family in the
United States and El Salvador and explores the role development
can play in spreading the impact of the remittances flow.
>>
Play Video
(Real Player Required)
Duration: 22’ 41”
Locations: El Salvador, United States
Producer: James Heer
Languages: English
The money sent home by migrants, commonly referred to as
remittances, increased from $102 billion in 1995
to an estimated $232 billion in 2005. The percentage
of such remittances going to developing countries also increased,
from 57% ($58 billion) in 1995 to 72% ($167 billion) in
2005. One third of global remittances went to only
four countries: India, China, Mexico and France (in order
of total money received with India receiving the most and
France the least). In two countries, the Philippines
and Serbia and Montenegro, remittances constituted a high
share of gross domestic product. 16
Globally, remittances have a profound effect on the economy.
In 2005, remittances sent home from migrants to developing
countries—the $167 billion--surpassed the total amount
of official aid from all donor countries combined.
Remittance money, which is usually recirculated through
the local economy of the receiving country, has a social
and economic multiplier effect. It has been found,
for instance, that family members receiving remittances
from migrant workers spend more money on education and health
care, thereby improving community social services.
They are also more likely to make financial investments,
for example business ventures or investments into the stock
market, which often positively affect the economy.
© IOM - MCL0016 1989
Migrant workers in Chile help stimulate the economy and
development.
These are a few of the positive effects international migration
has on development, contributing to the Secretary General’s
assertion that“mounting evidence indicates that international
migration is usually positive both for countries of origin
and of destination” and that international migration’s
“potential benefits are larger than the potential
gains from freer international trade, particularly for developing
countries.”17
The following conclusions, based upon migration research,
further support the Secretary General’s claim:
- “Many advanced and dynamic economies need
migrant workers to fill jobs that cannot be outsourced
and that do not find local workers willing to take them
at going wages.”
- Prevailing research in the field suggests that most
migrants complement the skills of domestic workers rather
than compete with them. Migrant workers, therefore,
allow citizens to perform other, more productive and better-paid
jobs by performing tasks that either would go undone or
cost more.
- “By maintaining viable economic activities that,
in their absence, would be outsourced, migrants enlarge
the labor force and the pool of consumers, and by contributing
their entrepreneurial capacities, migrants boost economic
growth in receiving countries.”
- “When migrants establish themselves abroad, they
help friends and relatives to follow and, in the process,
the costs and risks of migration fall, making it possible
for poorer people, though not for the poorest, to join
the stream. Low-skilled migration has the largest potential
to reduce the depth and severity of poverty in communities
of origin.”
- Successful migrants often return home transferring technology
and knowledge to their countries of origin. It is
also common for migrants to invest in and therefore boost
the economies of their home countries.18
Back to top
“The special vulnerability of migrants stems from
the fact that they are not citizens of the country in which
they live, they have crossed an international border and-
unlike citizens-they may generally enter and live in another
country only with the express consent of its authorities
. . . As strangers to a society, migrants may be unfamiliar
with the national language, laws and practice, and so less
able than others to know and assert their rights.
They may face discrimination, and be subjected to unequal
treatment and unequal opportunities at work, and in their
daily lives. They may also face racism and xenophobia.At
times of political tension, they may be the first to be
suspected-or scapegoated- as security risks.”19
© IOM 2001 - MIN0002 (Photo: Chris Lom)
Following the Gujarat earthquake, IOM focused its relief
efforts on rebuilding shelters for migrant workers employed
in the northwest Indian state's salt pans.
1. Labor Issues
The vulnerability already suffered by migrants because
of their alien status is exacerbated when migrants enter
a country illegally or become irregular over time (by remaining
in a country after their visa expires or beginning to work
without a work visa, for instance). Such migrants
are significantly more likely to be subject to abuse and
exploitation such as extortion, forced labor (often for
exceptionally long hours, little pay and in dangerous work
environments), withholding of identification, and so on
because of their already compromised position. Women,
because of their high risk of sexual exploitation, are considered
“doubly vulnerable” because they are 1) irregular
and 2) female. This is often referred to as “double
marginalization.”20
Because of fears of criminal charges or deportation,
irregular migrants very rarely report any kind of abuse
to authorities.
a. Work-related Health and Safety Issues
Migrant workers, especially low-skilled migrants or those
in an irregular situation, place their health and lives
in danger by taking the high-risk jobs that nationals often
refuse. These include: mining, construction, heavy manufacturing
and agricultural work. Migrant workers in these industries
are often exposed to toxic agents (such as pesticides),
are forced to operate unfamiliar machinery, work long hours
(particularly dangerous when operating heavy machinery)
and are rarely given appropriate training or told of the
risks involved with these jobs.
The World Heath Organization found that “occupational
accident rates are about twice as high for immigrant workers
as native workers in Europe,” and claims that “there
is no reason to believe the situation is not similar in
other parts of the world.”21
Migrant agriculture workers report high incidences of depression,
headaches, neurological disorders and miscarriage presumably
as a result of exposure to pesticides and other chemicals.
In Spain, researchers have found that migrants who spend
long periods of time in greenhouses are more likely to suffer
from muscular diseases, dehydration and heart problems.
These findings are, at least in part, because of the types
of jobs migrants take, but there is also indication that
some employers are less likely to take appropriate safety
precautions when they have a predominantly migrant staff.
This may explain why migrant workers suffer from higher
rates of respiratory problems and tumors linked to pesticides
and other chemicals than agriculture workers who are nationals.22
b. Problems of Accessibility to Healthcare
Even though the UN decreed “right to health”
requires governments to ensure that “health facilities,
goods and services are accessible to all, especially the
most vulnerable or marginalized sections of the population,
in law and in fact, without discrimination on any of the
prohibited grounds,” migrant workers face many obstacles
in attaining adequate healthcare. This is in part because
they “often fall outside of state-sponsored health
programs, and frequently are unable to afford private insurance.
Consequently, migrant workers, even in very rich countries,
generally live in poor health conditions and are largely
uninsured and frequently uninformed about the programs that
do cover them.”
An example of these problems, cited by the World Health
Organization, is based on a survey of migrant farm workers
in California, USA. The majority of those surveyed
were young, married Mexican men of low educational attainment
who evidenced high rates of asthma, stroke, heart disease
and diabetes. Almost 20% of those surveyed were “at
high risk for elevated cholesterol, high blood pressure
or obesity, and many were severely anemic. Approximately
30% had never been to a doctor, over half had never seen
a dentist, 75% had no health insurance and a mere 7% were
covered by government sponsored low-income insurance programs.
Additionally, while 20% had experienced work-related injuries
that should have led to workers’ compensation, only
30% of all workers even knew about such programs.”23
In addition to the actual cost of doctors’ visits,
migrant workers are often deterred from seeking medical
treatment because of the associated costs. These include:
an inability to miss work, an inability to find or afford
childcare and lack of transportation. There have even
been reported cases of employers forbidding domestic workers
to see a doctor when they are ill or requiring them to work
when they need medical attention. In addition, migrant
workers tend to be unfamiliar with the health-care systems
and are afraid of communication problems resulting from
language barriers and/or cultural differences. A study
in Denmark, for instance, revealed that poor communication
with healthcare staff has been a major cause of the poor
obstetrical and gynecological care of female migrants and
refugees.24
As a result, migrants—especially ones in an irregular
situation-- often wait until they are in a “sufficiently
hazardous” condition requiring emergency care before
ever visiting a doctor. This means that minor problems,
which may have been easy to treat in the early stages, often
progress into something far more serious and expensive to
address. This puts added stress on emergency care
facilities, which are required in most States to accept
anyone requiring attention, including irregular migrants.
c. The Treatment
of Female Migrant Workers
As mentioned above, many female migrant workers are employed
in the domestic sector, making them particularly vulnerable
to abuse and exploitation by employers. Female migrant
workers are often forced to work long hours (sometimes fourteen
hours per day) without rest days for low or unpaid wages.
Their movement is often restricted--innumerable women are
held captive, locked in their employers’ homes and
not allowed to leave or communicate with anyone—and
their living conditions are inadequate. To make matters
worse, female migrant workers are often mistreated by employers,
who abuse them physically, psychologically and sexually.
Because of the afore mentioned difficulties authorities
face in detecting human rights abuses of domestic workers,
these violations often go unnoticed and unaddressed.
While this is a problem found around the world, the instances
of mistreatment of migrant women in some countries is markedly
worse.
For instance, the International Organization for Migration
reports that a high number of Ethiopian women die while
working in Arab states or return home with “broken
limbs and back, acid burns, and (evidence of) other physical
abuse.”25
Malaysia and Indonesia (which is the country of origin for
over 90% of domestic workers in Malaysia), have also been
the focus of global concern surrounding the treatment of
female workers. Domestic workers from Indonesia risk
being subject to abusive treatment during every phase of
the migration process (recruitment, training, transit, employment,
repatriation). Female workers-in-training, for example,
are usually forced to stay in Indonesian camps for a time
ranging from one to six months before the government will
grant them permission to leave the country. This is
often where the abuse against them begins. One Indonesian
migrant recounts her experiences in the following:
“I slept on the floor without
a mat and used my bag as a pillow. There were 300
people there, all women…. We were staying
in a big room with no windows…. There were
three toilets but two were out of order. The water
was not enough and the toilets were dirty. I took
a bath twice a week, there were so many people that there
were long lines. We were not allowed to go outside,
there was a gate with a lock. Many people wanted
to run away but didn’t know how…. Some
of the women had anxiety and were crazy, because it was
very scary.”
As this quote reveals, the women in training camps suffer
abuses similar to those found in the domestic workplace--restricted
movement, inadequate living conditions and mistreatment
of all kinds. They are often forced to shower together
in front of their trainers and are subject to ridicule and
harassment. Many women are affected psychologically
by the harsh training camp conditions. They want to
leave, but cannot without paying exorbitant amounts (Human
Rights Watch found that the fee to be released from the
camps ranged from $122-610). And even if they are
able to leave, they are not guaranteed a life any better
than they had in the camps.
Additionally, the laws of Indonesia and Malaysia hardly
protect the women. In Malaysia, for instance, visible physical
evidence of injury must be present for a woman to bring
an abuse case to trial, which means that women migrant workers
who have suffered from sexual abuse without visible physical
harm have very little recourse, if any. 26
2. Discrimination
© IOM 2002 - MDO0001 (Photo: Niurka Piñeiro)
Haitian migrant sells flowers in the local market of Santo
Domingo.
According to Article 7 of the International Convention
on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and
Members of Their Families, “States parties should
respect and ensure the rights contained in the Convention
without distinction of any kind such as sex, race, colour,
language, religion or conviction, political or other opinion,
national, ethnic or social origin, nationality, age, economic
position, property, marital status, birth or other status.”
Article 1 also states that the “Convention applies
to all migrant workers and members of their families without
distinction of any kind.” These stipulations are referred
to as “the right to non-discrimination.”
However, many migrants suffer from discrimination, sometimes
before ever entering their destination country. In
addition to the reasons mentioned above, migrants are often
discriminated against during screening at the border because
of their health status. While some of this is legally
justified (see the Siracusa principles27)--for
instance screening for highly infectious diseases such as
SARS—other border screening practices violate “the
right to non-discrimination.” For example, the
World Health Organization argues that screening for HIV/AIDS—especially
when it results in deportation—is unnecessary and
discriminatory because 1) research shows that allowing HIV
infected migrants into a country does not add any additional
risk of contracting the disease to the local population
and 2) HIV exists in all countries of the world. Yet,
all migrant workers who tested positive for HIV/AIDs in
1998 were repatriated and the US State Department reports
that 60 countries still require long-term visitors to be
screened for the disease.28
Once allowed in the country, migrants—particularly
migrant workers--suffer from unequal treatment and unequal
opportunities because 1) they are aliens and 2) racism/xenophobia
may exist in the host country. To make
matters worse, few countries protect migrants against such
treatment. The International Labor Organization found
in their International Migration Survey that fewer than
half the countries surveyed provided for any protection
against discrimination at work. In fact, in Kuwait
and Saudi Arabia, migrant workers are excluded specifically
from national social and labor laws.29
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
(CERD), established under Article 8 of the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
(1965), which was set up under the Office of the High Commissioner
on Human Rights and concerned by issues of discrimination
against foreign workers, their spouses and their children,
commissioned a report on the rights of non-citizens.
The CERD expressed concern about violations of the following
rights guaranteed under the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination:
- The “exploitation of foreign workers including
practices of debt bondage, passport deprivation, illegal
confinement, and physical assault including rape.”
- Discrimination in the workplace and obstruction by employers
of the free choice of employment (protected under article
5), which gives migrants access to all professions and
trades.
- Denial of the rights of children of foreign workers
to join their parents in the host State and to be provided
an education in their own language.
- Discrimination in employment, housing and education
and denial of equal access to courts and administrative
bodies (article 6).
The CERD report, published on June 6, 2001, found that
“continued discriminatory practices against non-citizens
demonstrate the lack of standards adopted and particularly
implemented by States regarding the rights of individuals
who are not citizens of the country in which they live.”
Based on this research, the report claims that the “CERD
is correct in noting that ‘distinctions are being
made between different categories of non-citizens’
(E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/31, annex, p. 4) and that these distinctions
may amount to total exclusion of persons, depriving them
of the most fundamental rights and having racist implications.”
(ibid) The report goes on to say that “because aliens
tend to be of a minority race, discrimination against aliens
has some of the same underlying tendencies as racism, and
there is a substantial relationship between discrimination
on the basis of race and discrimination against aliens.”30
3. Obstacles to Integration and Assimilation
Besides discrimination, language barriers and
cultural differences make integrating and/or
assimilating difficult for migrants. Migrants are
often confronted with religious and cultural conflicts between
the values of their homeland and that of the new society
they have joined. Second generation immigrants, or
the children of migrants, especially, find themselves torn
between the influences of the cultures in which they are
raised and that of their parents.
To make matters worse, migrants often find that the countries
they have moved or escaped to are not always welcoming of
their religious/cultural differences even though the International
Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant
Workers and Members of Their Families,
asserts that migrants are entitled “to their own religious
beliefs and practices” as long as they do not threaten
the “public safety, order, health or morals or the
fundamental rights and freedoms of others,” this right
is not always respected.31
The Special Rapporteur has received numerous other reports
that migrant domestic workers have been forbidden to practice
their religion in countries around the world.32
Back to top
In 1948, the UN General Assembly (GA) adopted the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) and proclaimed
the document should be “a common standard of achievement
for all peoples and all nations, to the
end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping
this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching
and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms
and by progressive measures, national and international,
to secure their universal and effective recognition and
observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves
and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.”
While the UDHR was meant to be universally applied to protect
all members of society, UN member States soon realized that
despite the UDHR, migrant workers were one of the many groups
whose rights were not respected.
The following year, the International Labor Organization
(ILO) adopted the Migration for Employment Convention
(Convention 97), which was the first document to
explicitly protect the rights of migrant workers and laid
the groundwork for other conventions to come.33
In 1972, the Economic and Social Council of the UN adopted
resolution 1706 (Llll), expressing alarm
at the exploitation of African workers in European countries
(often illegally transported) “in conditions akin
to slavery and forced labour.” Later that year,
the General Assembly, in resolution 2920 (XXVII)
“condemned discrimination against foreign workers
and called upon Governments to end such practices and improve
reception arrangements for migrant workers.”
By 1975, the ILO had adopted Convention 143: Concerning
Migrations in Abusive Conditions and the Promotion of Equality
of Opportunity and Treatment of Migrant Worker,
defining the term migrant worker and recognizing the abuses
specific to this subset of people.34
© IOM 2003 - MGH0012
(Photo: Jean-Philippe Chauzy)
Fishing boys drawing nets under the supervision of a "slave
master" in Tonka, Ghana a small fishing community on
the shores of Lake Volta. The trafficked children, mostly
boys aged between five and fourteen are forced to work from
dawn to dusk, casting and drawing nets.
The Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention
of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Mrs. Halima
Warzazi, published a report in 1976 on the exploitation
of labor through “illicit and clandestine trafficking”
at the request of the Economic and Social Council.
In her report, Warzazi highlighted the discrimination migrant
workers faced in host States. She recommended the
creation of a UN convention on the rights of migrant workers.
Similar suggestions were made at the World Conference to
Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination in Geneva (1978)
and in the General Assembly resolution 33/163 on improving
the situation of and ensuring the human rights and dignity
of all migrant workers.
Also during 1976, the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) went into effect.
The articles under Part III outline the civil and political
rights of “all” migrants, including irregular
ones. Article 8, for instance, states that 1. No one
shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave trade in
all their forms shall be prohibited. 2. No one shall
be held in servitude. 3. (a) No one shall be required
to perform forced or compulsory labour.
Under Article 12 (3), the Covenant states that “everyone
shall be free to leave any country, including his own.”
This key document goes on to assert that there is to be
equal treatment between all migrant workers and nationals,
including employment conditions, social security, emergency
medical care, etc. The Covenant also protects cultural
rights, stating that “everyone shall have
the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”
and that minorities in a country, often times migrants,
“shall not be denied the right, in community with
the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture,
to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their
own language.” Under Part IV, the ICCPR lays out rights
granted only to regular migrant workers, such as the right
to form trade unions and participate politically or the
right to family reunification.35
On December 17, 1979, the General Assembly (GA) adopted
resolution 34/172 and a working
group was established in 1980 to draft a convention on the
rights of migrants specifically. The GA encouraged
all Member States to participate in drafting the convention
along with all related international organizations—the
Commission on Human Rights; the Commission for Social Development;
the International Labour Organization; the United Nations
Educational, Scientific Organization; and the World Heath
Organization. The draft, titled the International
Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant
Workers and Members of Their Families, was completed
and adopted by the General Assembly on December 18, 1990.
It was opened for signature by all Member States of the
UN at that time.
Due to slow response to the convention by Member States,
a group of nongovernmental and UN organizations formed a
unique alliance in 1998 called the Steering Committee
of the Global Campaign for Ratification of the United Nations
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights
of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.36
The Committee organized events internationally to raise
awareness about the Convention in an attempt to convince
a greater number of member states to ratify the document.
Over the next six years, the number of ratifications and
signatures tripled from 9 Member State signatures in 1998
to 27 by 2004.37
Still, the document is only legally binding in the 34 countries
that have ratified or acceded to the document†, none
of which are major employment countries. The International
Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers therefore lacks
the legal authority of other human rights treaties that
have been ratified by a majority of UN Member States.38
Back to top
