Affiliation:
1. Carleton University
2. Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES)
3. Chongqing University
Abstract
This article focuses on IOM and its place in global migration governance. China’s and Russia’s memberships were considered overdue, considering the relevance of both countries for the global migration system and their respective weight on the international stage. We aim to contribute to advancing research on IOM as an organization of increasing global relevance and on its engagement with member states, moving beyond the “usual” focus on the European Union (EU) member states, African, North American, and South American immigration and sending countries. Our analysis draws upon recent research, which conceptualizes intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) as “world organizations” and which we fi nd interesting and applicable to our empirical inquiry and discussion of IOM. We regard IOM as a “world organization” that could be examined along four interrelated components: (1) its “internal world” (e.g., establishment, relations with states, internal decisions); (2) its self-image and self-reference as an organization integrated into and referring to world society, hence as the “world of migration governance”; (3) its external relations, integration into wider environments, and responses to external events; and (4) its contribution to the world order, i.e., global migration governance. Our analysis shows that due to its new status as a related organization of the UN, its leading role in the Global Compact on Migration, and China and Russia becoming its new members, IOM will likely play an increasingly signifi cant role in global migration governance. The main reason for this is the need to reactivate the existing modes of migration governance and adapt them to a drastically changed global political and migration-related situation following the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior to their memberships in IOM, China and Russia have already been able to benefi t from the IOM assistance. Provided that both countries continue to engage with IOM and provide more substantial funding to it, IOM’s assistance to both China and Russia could be expanded. Meanwhile, both countries may take a position, which would allow them to exert a more signifi cant infl uence on IOM and global migration governance.
Publisher
Moscow State Institute of International Relations
Reference23 articles.
1. Albert, Mathias, and Lena Hilkermeier. “Organizations in/and World Society.” In Observing International Relations: Niklas Luhmann and World Politics, edited by Albert, Mathias, and Lena Hilkermeier, 177–195. London: Routledge, 2004.
2. Elie, Jé rome. “The Historical Roots of Cooperation Between the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organization for Migration.” Global Governance 16, no. 3 (2010): 345–360.
3. Garnier, Adèle. “Arrested Development? UNHCR, ILO and the Refugees’ Right to Work.” Refuge 30, no. 2 (2014): 15–25.
4. Geiger, Martin. “Managing Eurasia’s borders: The European Union and International Organizations in Russia’s ‘Near abroad’.” In Eurasia on the Edge: Managing Complexity, edited by Piotr Dutkiewicz et al., 213–228. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefi eld, 2018.
5. Geiger, Martin, and Martin Koch. “World Organization in Migration Politics: The International Organization for Migration.” Journal of International Organizations Studies 9, no. 1 (2018): 25–44.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献