Hubbry Logo
Migrant Workers ConventionMigrant Workers ConventionMain
Open search
Migrant Workers Convention
Community hub
Migrant Workers Convention
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Migrant Workers Convention
Migrant Workers Convention
Migrant Workers Convention
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families
States parties and signatories to the treaty:
  Parties
  Signatories
Signed18 December 1990[1]
LocationNew York
Effective1 July 2003[1]
Condition20 ratifications[1]
Signatories40[1]
Parties60[1]
DepositarySecretary-General of the United Nations
LanguagesArabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families is a United Nations multilateral treaty governing the protection of migrant workers and families. Signed on 18 December 1990, it entered into force on 1 July 2003 after the threshold of 20 ratifying States was reached in March 2003. The Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW) monitors implementation of the convention, and is one of the seven UN-linked human rights treaty bodies. The convention applies as of November 2024 in 60 countries.[1]

Context

[edit]

In his 9 November 2002 report on strengthening the organization, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan wrote: "It is time to take a more comprehensive look at the various dimensions of the migration issue, which now involves hundreds of millions of people, and affects countries of origin, transit and destination. We need to understand better the causes of international flows of people and their complex interrelationship with development."[2]

Overview

[edit]

The United Nations Convention constitutes a comprehensive international treaty regarding the protection of migrant workers' rights. It emphasizes the connection between migration and human rights, which is increasingly becoming a crucial policy topic worldwide. The Convention aims at protecting migrant workers and members of their families; its existence sets a moral standard, and serves as a guide and stimulus for the promotion of migrant rights in each country.

In the Preamble, the Convention recalls conventions by International Labour Organization on migrant workers: Migration for Employment Convention (Revised), 1949, Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1975, and on forced labour; Forced Labour Convention and Abolition of Forced Labour Convention as well as international human rights treaties including Convention against Discrimination in Education.

The primary objective of the Convention is to foster respect for migrants' human rights. Migrants are not only workers, they are also human beings. The Convention does not create new rights for migrants but aims at guaranteeing equality of treatment, and the same working conditions, including in case of temporary work, for migrants and nationals. The Convention innovates because it relies on the fundamental notion that all migrants should have access to a minimum degree of protection. The Convention recognizes that regular migrants have the legitimacy to claim more rights than irregular immigrants, but it stresses that irregular migrants must see their fundamental human rights respected, like all human beings.

In the meantime, the Convention proposes that actions be taken to eradicate clandestine movements, notably through the fight against misleading information inciting people to migrate irregularly, and through sanctions against traffickers and employers of undocumented migrants.

Article 7 of this Convention protects the rights of migrant workers and their families regardless of "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".[3] And Article 29 protects rights of child of migrant worker to name, to registration of birth and to a nationality.

This Convention is also recalled by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities at the Preamble.[4]

Parties and signatories

[edit]

As of September 2023 countries that have ratified the Convention are primarily countries of origin of migrants (such as Mexico, Morocco, and the Philippines). For these countries, the Convention is an important vehicle to protect their citizens living abroad. In the Philippines, for example, ratification of the Convention took place in a context characterized by several cases of Filipino workers being mistreated abroad: such cases hurt the Filipino population and prompted the ratification of the Convention. However, these countries are also transit and destination countries, and the Convention delineates their responsibility to protect the rights of migrants in their territory, and they have done little to protect those at home.[5][6]

No migrant-receiving state in Western Europe or North America has ratified the Convention. Other important receiving countries, such as Australia, Arab states of the Persian Gulf, India and South Africa have not ratified the Convention.

Parties
Signatories
Non-signatories






World population covered by the treaty[1][a]
Legend Population[a] Per.
  Parties
 1,830,978,000 23.49%
  Signatories
 83,145,000 1.07%
  Non-signatories
 5,880,676,000 75.44%
Parties and signatories[1]
State Status Signature Deposit Method Population[a]
Albania Party 5 June 2007 Accession 2,878,000
Algeria Party 21 April 2005 Accession 43,851,000
Argentina Party 10 August 2004 23 February 2007 Ratification 45,196,000
Armenia Signatory 26 September 2013 2,963,000
Azerbaijan Party 11 January 1999 Accession 10,139,000
Bangladesh Party 7 October 1998 24 August 2011 Ratification 164,689,000
Belize Party 14 November 2001 Accession 398,000
Benin Party 15 September 2005 6 July 2018 Ratification 12,123,000
Bolivia Party 16 October 2000 Accession 11,673,000
Bosnia and Herzegovina Party 13 December 1996 Accession 3,281,000
Burkina Faso Party 16 November 2001 26 November 2003 Ratification 20,903,000
Cabo Verde Party 16 September 1997 Accession 556,000
Cambodia Signatory 27 September 2004 16,719,000
Cameroon Signatory 15 December 2009 26,546,000
Chad Party 26 September 2012 22 February 2022 Ratification 16,426,000
Chile Party 24 September 1993 21 March 2005 Ratification 19,116,000
Colombia Party 24 May 1995 Accession 50,883,000
Comoros Signatory 22 September 2000 870,000
Congo, Republic of the Party 29 September 2008 31 March 2017 Ratification 5,518,000
Côte d'Ivoire Party 26 September 2023 Accession 25,717,000
Ecuador Party 5 February 2002 Accession 17,643,000
Egypt Party 19 February 1993 Accession 102,334,000
El Salvador Party 13 September 2002 14 March 2003 Ratification 6,486,000
Fiji Party 19 August 2019 Accession 896,000
Gabon Signatory 15 December 2004 2,226,000
Gambia Party 20 September 2017 28 September 2018 Ratification 2,417,000
Ghana Party 7 September 2000 7 September 2000 Ratification 31,073,000
Guatemala Party 7 September 2000 14 March 2003 Ratification 17,916,000
Guinea Party 7 September 2000 Accession 13,133,000
Guinea-Bissau Party 12 September 2000 22 October 2018 Ratification 1,968,000
Guyana Party 15 September 2005 7 July 2010 Ratification 787,000
Haiti Signatory 5 December 2013 11,403,000
Honduras Party 9 August 2005 Accession 9,905,000
Indonesia Party 22 September 2004 31 May 2012 Ratification 273,524,000
Jamaica Party 25 September 2008 25 September 2008 Ratification 2,961,000
Kyrgyzstan Party 29 September 2003 Accession 6,524,000
Lesotho Party 24 September 2004 16 September 2005 Ratification 2,142,000
Liberia Signatory 22 September 2004 5,058,000
Libya Party 18 June 2004 Accession 6,871,000
Madagascar Party 24 September 2014 13 May 2015 Ratification 27,691,000
Malawi Party 23 September 2022 23 September 2022 Ratification 19,130,000
Mali Party 5 June 2003 Accession 20,251,000
Mauritania Party 22 January 2007 Accession 4,650,000
Mexico Party 22 May 1991 8 March 1999 Ratification 128,933,000
Montenegro Signatory 23 October 2006 628,000
Morocco Party 15 August 1991 21 June 1993 Ratification 36,911,000
Mozambique Party 15 March 2012 19 August 2013 Ratification 31,255,000
Nicaragua Party 26 October 2005 Accession 6,625,000
Niger Party 18 March 2009 Accession 24,207,000
Nigeria Party 27 July 2009 Accession 206,140,000
Palau Signatory 20 September 2011 18,000
Paraguay Party 13 September 2000 23 September 2008 Ratification 7,133,000
Peru Party 22 September 2004 14 September 2005 Ratification 32,972,000
Philippines Party 15 November 1993 5 July 1995 Ratification 109,581,000
Rwanda Party 15 December 2008 Accession 12,952,000
São Tomé and Príncipe Party 6 September 2000 10 January 2017 Ratification 219,000
Senegal Party 9 June 1999 Accession 16,744,000
Serbia Signatory 11 November 2004 8,737,000
Seychelles Party 15 December 1994 Accession 98,000
Sierra Leone Signatory 15 September 2000 7,977,000
Sri Lanka Party 11 March 1996 Accession 21,413,000
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Party 29 October 2010 Accession 111,000
Syria Party 2 June 2005 Accession 17,501,000
Tajikistan Party 7 September 2000 8 January 2002 Ratification 9,538,000
Timor-Leste Party 30 January 2004 Accession 1,318,000
Togo Party 15 November 2001 16 December 2020 Ratification 8,279,000
Turkey Party 13 January 1999 27 September 2004 Ratification 84,339,000
Uganda Party 14 November 1995 Accession 45,741,000
Uruguay Party 15 February 2001 Accession 3,474,000
Venezuela Party 4 October 2011 25 October 2016 Ratification 28,436,000
Zimbabwe Party 5 November 2024 Accession 30,965,000

Intersessional panel discussion

[edit]

In June/July 2022, at the Human Rights Council Fiftieth session, the Human Rights Council held an Intersessional panel discussion on the human rights of migrants in vulnerable situations that were previously stated under 35/17 and 47/12 resolutions. The High Commissioner pointed out concerns related to the criminalization of migration, gender-based violence, arbitrary detention, family separation, loss of lives, harmful and dehumanizing narratives, and pervasive discrimination owing to personal factors, including age, gender, or disability. The broader impact of COVID-19 was also highlighted. Statements were provided by panelists reiterating that all migrants, regardless of status, were entitled to all human rights. Concerns on situations of vulnerability that migrants encountered in transit and at borders and violence perpetrated against migrants, including by State and non-State actors were also referred. Calls were made for independent mechanisms to monitor human rights violations, increase attention to the human rights of migrants, the importance of international cooperation, and the need to translate these rights into adequate legal and regulatory provisions. Additional recommendations included the need for implementing comprehensive protection regimes to identify and address situations of vulnerability in the process of migration. Remarks were made on the need for the international community to understand the root causes of migration and the challenges associated with it, and the range of measures that are needed to respond adequately to those challenges. Annual panel discussions were suggested by the High Commissioner.[8][9]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Migrant Workers Convention

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families is a United Nations treaty adopted by the General Assembly on 18 December 1990 and entering into force on 1 July 2003 after ratification by 20 states, designed to establish minimum standards for the treatment and rights of individuals engaged in remunerated work abroad, including undocumented migrants, and their dependents.
The convention delineates a broad definition of migrant workers, encompassing those in wage labor across state borders irrespective of documentation status, and mandates protections such as non-discrimination in employment, access to emergency medical care, family reunification rights, and safeguards against exploitation, trafficking, and arbitrary expulsion.
It establishes a Committee on Migrant Workers to oversee compliance through state reports, though enforcement relies on voluntary adherence without binding judicial mechanisms.
As of August 2025, only 60 states are parties, overwhelmingly migrant-sending nations from Latin America, Africa, and Asia, while major destination countries in Europe, North America, and the Gulf have refrained from ratification due to provisions granting extensive rights to irregular migrants that could constrain border control and deportation policies.
This disparity underscores the convention's limited practical impact on global migration governance, as its comprehensive scope—extending civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights to non-citizens—has provoked concerns over sovereignty and incentivized non-participation by labor-importing states.

Historical Background

Adoption and Negotiation Process

The negotiation of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families originated from early concerns about migrant workers' conditions, prompted by Economic and Social Council resolution 1706 (LIII) on 6 June 1972, which directed the Secretary-General to commission studies on their . On 23 December 1979, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 34/52, establishing an open-ended working group under the Commission on Human Rights to draft a comprehensive convention, with initial sessions commencing in 1980 and continuing biannually through 1990. The working group's deliberations spanned over a decade, involving delegates from all UN regional groups, and centered on contentious issues such as the convention's applicability to irregular migrants, the extent of family reunification rights, and state obligations regarding recruitment and return, with labor-sending nations advocating broader protections while major receiving states sought narrower scopes to preserve sovereignty over immigration controls. Despite these divisions, the General Assembly adopted the convention on 18 December 1990 via resolution 45/158, with 54 votes in favor, none against, and 46 abstentions, primarily from Western European and other high-income receiving countries; it was opened for signature immediately thereafter.

Influences and Preceding Instruments

The development of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their (1990) was significantly influenced by earlier (ILO) instruments, particularly the Migration for Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 97), which established foundational standards for equality of treatment between migrant and national workers in areas such as employment conditions, social security, and vocational training. Adopted in the post-World War II era to facilitate orderly labor migration amid reconstruction efforts, Convention No. 97 emphasized recruitment safeguards, free assistance services for migrants, and protections against abusive practices, applying primarily to documented workers migrating for employment. These provisions addressed immediate economic needs but left gaps in coverage for irregular migration and members, prompting subsequent expansions. Building directly on No. 97, the Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1975 (No. 143), extended protections to address clandestine migration and equality for all migrant workers, regardless of legal status, by requiring states to combat illegal trafficking and ensure basic observance during recruitment, employment, and return. Ratified by 24 countries as of 2023, No. 143 introduced obligations to respect migrants' in host states and promoted international cooperation against exploitative migration networks, reflecting growing concerns over undocumented flows in the and . However, its focus remained labor-centric and supplementary, without comprehensive family protections or full civil parity, which the 1990 UN Convention sought to rectify by integrating these ILO standards into a broader framework applicable to all migrants and their families. Broader influences included core United Nations treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), which provided universal principles of non-discrimination and equality that informed the Convention's emphasis on migrant-specific vulnerabilities. Negotiations for the UN instrument, initiated by Resolution 34/52 in 1979, drew on these precedents to fill enforcement gaps, particularly for undocumented workers excluded from many ILO provisions, aiming for a holistic approach amid rising global migration pressures in the late . Regional instruments, like the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers (1977) by the , also contributed by advocating equal treatment in social and economic rights, though their scope was geographically limited.

Core Provisions

Definitions and Scope

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families establishes its scope in Article 1, applying to all such individuals within the territory of a State Party, irrespective of distinctions based on factors such as , race, or , and extends across the entire migration process, including preparation for migration, departure, transit, the entirety of stay or residence, employment, and return to the State of origin or any other State. This comprehensive temporal coverage aims to safeguard rights at every stage, though certain provisions differentiate between documented and undocumented migrants, with fuller protections generally afforded to those in regular status. Article 2(1) defines a "" precisely as "a 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," thereby excluding purely non-economic migrants such as or permanent settlers without employment ties. The article further delineates specific categories to clarify applicability, including frontier workers (who retain residence in a neighboring State and commute daily or weekly), seasonal workers (engaged in activities tied to recurrent seasonal conditions for part of the year), (employed on vessels flying the flag of a non-national State and intended to return home), workers on offshore installations (under of a non-national State), itinerant workers (who for short periods due to the nature of their occupation), project-tied workers (admitted for a specific construction, installation, or development project for a delimited period), specified-employment workers (sent for particular duties or functions for a restricted period), and self-employed workers (who independently engage in remunerated activities as migrants). These categories encompass both documented and certain undocumented migrants, though the Convention's Parts III and IV impose graduated obligations, with Part IV extending basic protections to irregular migrants while limiting economic rights. The scope includes "members of the " as outlined in Article 4, comprising the (or companion in a marital relationship recognized by law), minor dependent children, and other dependent members such as those aged under 18 unable to fend for themselves due to conditions like , provided they are recognized under national law or applicable bilateral/multilateral agreements. States Parties are obligated to respect unity and facilitate reunification under Article 44, subject to resources and national policy. Article 3 delimits exclusions from the Convention's full scope, exempting persons sent or employed by international organizations and their agencies, as well as State officials and ; refugees and stateless persons covered by other instruments (unless national law extends application); and non-wage-earning migrants such as students, trainees, or those participating in voluntary service programs, along with certain short-term or workers not admitted for settlement. These carve-outs reflect the Convention's targeted focus on labor-related migration rather than broader displacement or temporary non-economic stays, ensuring applicability aligns with the economic and needs of wage-earning non-nationals.

Rights and Protections Afforded

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, adopted by the on 18 December 1990 and entering into force on 1 July 2003, delineates rights applicable to migrant workers—defined as persons engaged or to be engaged in remunerated activity in a state of which they are not nationals—and their family members, encompassing spouses, dependent children, and others recognized by law. These protections extend throughout the migration process, including preparation, transit, and return, with Part III (Articles 8–35) guaranteeing fundamental to all such individuals irrespective of migration status, while Part IV (Articles 36–56) provides additional entitlements primarily for those in documented or regular situations. Under Part III, migrant workers and family members enjoy core civil and political safeguards, including the freedom to leave any state, including their state of origin, subject only to necessary restrictions for national security or public order. The right to life is protected by law, with prohibitions against arbitrary execution, torture, cruel or degrading treatment, slavery, servitude, or forced labor (except in lawful detention or emergencies). Further provisions ensure liberty and security of person, protection from arbitrary arrest or detention, fair and public hearings by competent tribunals, equality before the law without discrimination based on sex, race, color, language, religion, or other status, and recognition as persons before the law with rights to legal personality and protection of privacy, including family, home, and correspondence. Migrant workers also hold the right to seek effective remedies for violations of their rights and to report abuses to competent authorities without reprisal, alongside protections against collective expulsion and rights to consular notification and assistance upon arrest. For documented migrant workers, Part IV extends , mandating equal treatment with nationals regarding remuneration, working conditions, membership in trade unions, access to vocational training, , and , medical care, and social security services, insofar as these are financed from public funds. Family unity is promoted through measures facilitating reunification, with family members entitled to conditions enabling residence, (for working-age adults), and basic public services like for children. Documented workers possess liberty of movement and residence within the state of employment, the right to engage in authorized remunerated activities without dependency on specific employers, and the ability to transfer earnings and savings to their or elsewhere. Protections against abusive practices, such as fraudulent or exploitation, include to on living and working conditions and repatriation assistance upon contract termination or dismissal. Part V tailors these rights to specific categories, such as frontier, seasonal, project-tied, or self-employed migrant workers, granting them applicable entitlements from Parts III and IV while allowing state-specific adjustments, for instance, limiting certain residence freedoms for project-tied workers bound to designated sites. Part VI emphasizes state obligations to foster equitable migration through bilateral or multilateral agreements, prevent irregular migration via information campaigns and sanctions on facilitators of illegal employment, and ensure migrant workers' conditions meet international labor standards for , , and . Non-discrimination permeates the convention, with Article 7 prohibiting distinctions based on status and requiring equality in enjoyment of .

Obligations of States Parties

States parties undertake to respect and ensure to all migrant workers and members of their families the and fundamental freedoms recognized 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 or other status. Article 7 prohibits and requires states to report on legislative, judicial, administrative, or other measures adopted to give effect to this obligation. Under Part III, applicable to all migrant workers irrespective of status, states parties must ensure equal treatment with nationals in and conditions of work (Article 25), protection against exploitation and abusive conditions (Article 27), and the right to transfer earnings and savings (Article 32). States are obligated to respect the of migrants (Article 31) and to facilitate family unity where possible (Article 44, extended from Part IV principles). Expulsion of migrants is limited to reasons defined by law, with procedural safeguards against arbitrary action (Article 56). Part IV imposes enhanced obligations for documented or regular migrant workers, requiring states to guarantee liberty of movement within the territory (Article 39), access to for children on equal terms (Article 43), and effective protection against violence or injury (Article 45). must be authorized where the migrant fulfills necessary conditions (Article 44), and states shall facilitate the integration of migrant families (Article 45). For specific categories like frontier workers (Article 58), seasonal workers (Article 59), and project-tied workers (Article 61), states must apply relevant protections proportionally to their situation. Part VI mandates states parties to exchange information and consult on migration policies (Article 65), prevent irregular migration through bilateral or multilateral agreements (Article 68), and combat clandestine movements while verifying documents without prejudice to migrants' rights (Article 69). States must promote sound, equitable, humane, and lawful conditions for (Article 64) and provide information to migrants about policies and obligations (Article 66). Under Part VII, states parties commit to submitting an initial report within one year of and periodic reports every five years to the Committee on Migrant Workers on measures taken to implement the Convention (Article 73). They must establish national focal points for implementation (Article 72) and ensure effective remedies for violations (Article 83), while cooperating with the Committee in its monitoring functions (Articles 75-77).

Ratification and Status

List of Ratifying States

As of 2025, 60 states are parties to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. The following table lists the states parties alphabetically, along with the date of or accession (noted as "(a)" where applicable) and the date of for each.
StateDate of Ratification/AccessionEntry into Force
5 Jun 2007 (a)1 Oct 2007
21 Apr 2005 (a)1 Aug 2005
23 Feb 20071 Jun 2007
26 Sep 2013-
11 Jan 1999 (a)1 Jul 2003
24 Aug 201123 Sep 2011
14 Nov 2001 (a)1 Jul 2003
Benin6 Jul 20181 Nov 2018
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)16 Oct 2000 (a)1 Jul 2003
Bosnia and Herzegovina13 Dec 1996 (a)1 Jul 2003
Burkina Faso26 Nov 20031 Mar 2004
Cabo Verde16 Sep 1997 (a)1 Jul 2003
Cambodia27 Sep 2004-
Cameroon15 Dec 2009-
Chad22 Feb 202222 May 2022
Chile21 Mar 20051 Jul 2005
Colombia24 May 1995 (a)1 Jul 2003
Congo31 Mar 20171 Jul 2017
Côte d'Ivoire26 Sep 2023 (a)1 Jan 2024
Ecuador5 Feb 2002 (a)1 Jun 2003
Egypt19 Feb 1993 (a)1 Jul 2003
El Salvador14 Mar 20031 Jul 2003
Fiji19 Aug 2019 (a)1 Dec 2019
Gabon15 Dec 2004-
Gambia28 Sep 20181 Jan 2019
Ghana7 Sep 20001 Jul 2003
Guatemala14 Mar 20031 Jul 2003
Guinea7 Sep 2000 (a)1 Jul 2003
Guinea-Bissau22 Oct 20181 Feb 2019
Guyana7 Jul 20107 Aug 2010
Honduras9 Aug 2005 (a)1 Dec 2005
Indonesia31 May 201231 Aug 2012
Jamaica25 Sep 20081 Jan 2009
Kyrgyzstan29 Sep 2003 (a)1 Jan 2004
Lesotho16 Sep 20051 Jan 2006
Liberia22 Sep 2004-
Libya18 Jun 2004 (a)1 Oct 2004
Madagascar13 May 20151 Sep 2015
Malawi23 Sep 20221 Jan 2023
Mali5 Jun 2003 (a)1 Jul 2003
Mauritania22 Jan 2007 (a)1 May 2007
Mexico8 Mar 19991 Jul 2003
Morocco21 Jun 19931 Jul 2003
Mozambique19 Aug 201319 Nov 2013
Nicaragua26 Oct 2005 (a)1 Feb 2006
Niger18 Mar 2009 (a)1 Jul 2009
Nigeria27 Jul 2009 (a)27 Oct 2009
Paraguay23 Sep 20081 Jan 2009
Peru14 Sep 20051 Jan 2006
Philippines5 Jul 19951 Jul 2003
Rwanda15 Dec 2008 (a)15 Apr 2009
São Tomé and Príncipe10 Jan 20171 May 2017
Senegal9 Jun 1999 (a)1 Jul 2003
Seychelles15 Dec 1994 (a)1 Jul 2003
Sierra Leone15 Sep 20001 Jul 2003
Sri Lanka11 Mar 1996 (a)1 Jul 2003
Syrian Arab Republic2 Jun 2005 (a)1 Oct 2005
Tajikistan8 Jan 20021 Jul 2003
Timor-Leste30 Jan 2004 (a)1 May 2004
Togo16 Dec 20201 Apr 2021
Türkiye27 Sep 20041 Jan 2005
Uganda14 Nov 1995 (a)1 Jul 2003
Uruguay15 Feb 2001 (a)1 Jul 2003
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)25 Oct 20161 Feb 2017
Zimbabwe5 Nov 2024 (a)1 Mar 2025
Notable recent ratifications include Côte d'Ivoire in 2023 and in 2024, bringing the total to 60. No major migrant-receiving countries such as those in , the , or are among the states parties.

Reasons for Non-Ratification by Major Receiving Countries

Major migrant-receiving countries, including the , , , and most member states, have refrained from ratifying the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (ICRMW), citing incompatibilities with national over control and the convention's broad application to undocumented migrants. The convention's extensive protections for migrants, including irregular ones, are viewed as conflicting with state sovereignty over borders and deportation, potentially limiting enforcement mechanisms. The extension of certain rights—such as emergency medical care, basic labor protections, and limits on arbitrary expulsion—to irregular migrants is viewed as potentially undermining enforcement of immigration laws by restricting deportation authority and acting as a "pull factor" for unauthorized entries, despite Article 79 explicitly preserving to regulate admission and Article 35 clarifying no of irregular status. These states argue that such provisions could increase fiscal burdens through equal access to social benefits like and support, prioritizing national citizens amid economic pressures. In the United States, which participated in the convention's negotiations but has neither signed nor ratified it as of 2025, officials maintain that domestic laws already provide sufficient protections, rendering the ICRMW redundant while imposing unnecessary reporting obligations under Article 73. Political barriers, including domestic opposition to enhanced migrant rights amid anti-immigrant sentiment, have delayed any substantive post-negotiation review, consistent with U.S. patterns of selective human rights treaty engagement often requiring extensive reservations. Similarly, Australia and Canada cite sovereignty concerns and the administrative costs of implementation, viewing the convention's scope as conflicting with temporary worker programs and border security priorities. European Union member states highlight definitional issues, such as the ICRMW's broad "" term under Article 2 failing to adequately differentiate regular from irregular status, leading to perceived conflicts with directives on returns and shared competence in migration . Governments in countries like and argue incompatibility with national frameworks, including restrictions on (Article 44) and employment freedoms, though many provisions overlap with the and could be addressed via reservations; redundancy with existing treaties like the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is frequently invoked to justify non-. , another key receiving state, echoes these apprehensions, emphasizing control over labor inflows in its guest worker systems without binding international oversight. Overall, these positions reflect a prioritization of flexibility to manage migration volumes and composition, with empirical assessments indicating that could constrain states' leverage in bilateral agreements and domestic enforcement.

Monitoring and Implementation

Role of the Committee on Migrant Workers

The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (CMW) was established under Article 72 of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families to monitor the convention's implementation. It consists of 14 independent experts, nominated by States parties and elected by for renewable four-year terms, with consideration given to equitable geographical distribution and representation of different legal systems. The committee held its first session in March 2004, following the convention's on July 1, 2003, after ratification by the 20th State party. Members serve in their personal capacity, receive emoluments set by the UN General Assembly, and are entitled to UN privileges and immunities, with the UN Secretary-General providing necessary staff and facilities. The 's primary function is to examine periodic reports submitted by States parties on measures adopted to give effect to the convention's rights and protections. Under Articles 73 and 74, States parties must submit an initial report within one year of the convention's for that State and subsequent reports every five years, detailing legislative, judicial, and administrative actions, as well as factors impeding implementation and trends in migration flows. The reviews these reports in sessions, often engaging in constructive dialogue with State representatives, and issues concluding observations with specific recommendations for improving compliance. It may request supplementary information and collaborates with the (ILO) and other specialized agencies, inviting their consultative participation. In addition to report examination, the committee adopts general comments to clarify convention provisions and guide States parties, such as General Comment No. 1 on migrant domestic workers (2011) and General Comment No. 2 on left-behind children (2015). It submits annual reports to the , including its observations and recommendations, which are transmitted to States parties, the Economic and Social Council, and relevant organizations. Under Article 76, the committee can receive and consider inter-State communications alleging violations, provided at least 10 States parties recognize its competence via declarations; it facilitates amicable settlements through good offices and closed proceedings, submitting findings within 12 months if no resolution is reached. However, this mechanism remains largely unused due to limited declarations. The committee meets annually at UN Headquarters, adopts its own rules of procedure, and elects a bureau for two-year terms.

Reporting and Compliance Mechanisms

States parties to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families are required under Article 73 to submit reports to the Secretary-General detailing legislative, judicial, administrative, and other measures adopted to implement the Convention's provisions. The initial report must be filed no later than one year after the Convention's for that state party, with subsequent periodic reports due every five years thereafter, or more frequently if requested by the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (CMW). The CMW, composed of 14 independent experts elected by states parties, examines these reports during public sessions, often engaging in a constructive dialogue with state delegations. Following review, the adopts concluding observations, which assess compliance, highlight positive developments, identify shortcomings, and recommend specific actions to enhance protection for migrant workers and their families. These observations are non-binding but serve as a primary tool for monitoring and encouraging adherence, with states expected to address them in future reports. The reporting process is guided by harmonized guidelines on indicative framework for reports, emphasizing comprehensive coverage of the Convention's articles, including data on populations, mechanisms, and challenges in implementation. States may also receive requests for supplementary information from the CMW to clarify ambiguities or gaps. Unlike some other UN treaties, the Convention lacks an optional protocol establishing an communications procedure, limiting compliance to state reporting and Committee recommendations rather than judicial remedies for violations. In practice, compliance varies, with the CMW noting delays in report submissions by some states parties and incomplete data on migrant rights protections, though it has issued general comments to interpret obligations, such as General Comment No. 1 on migrant domestic workers in , to aid uniform application. The Committee's reports and observations are transmitted to states parties and made publicly available, fostering transparency but relying on voluntary cooperation without coercive measures.

Recent Committee Activities

In its thirty-ninth session from 2 to 13 December 2024, the reviewed the initial report of , expressing concern over inadequate data collection on migrants and prevalent labor exploitation, while urging enhanced inspections and policies against ; the combined second to fourth periodic report of , noting delays in labor law updates and arbitrary raids leading to expulsions; and the second periodic report of , criticizing of irregular entry and restrictive reforms despite humanitarian visa progress. The issued concluding observations recommending alignment of national laws with Convention obligations in these areas. During the fortieth session from 7 to 17 2025, the Committee examined reports from , focusing on barriers to labor market access, child detention, disappearances, and agricultural exploitation; , highlighting inadequate border protections and migrant exploitation; and , addressing abuses in labor export agreements and detention of non-nationals. It also adopted lists of issues prior to reporting for , , , and , and launched General Comment No. 6 (adopted in 2024) on migrants' access to justice and remedies. The Committee's to the General Assembly (A/80/48), submitted on 1 July 2025, emphasized efforts to eradicate against migrants, including recommendations for states to combat discriminatory and integrate anti- measures into migration policies. On 18 December 2024, it issued a joint statement with other UN committees on the dual neglect faced by migrants with disabilities, calling for targeted protections against intersecting vulnerabilities. These activities reflect the Committee's ongoing focus on empirical gaps in state implementation, such as data deficiencies and enforcement shortfalls, amid rising global migration pressures including 8,938 recorded migration-related deaths in 2024.

Criticisms and Controversies

Sovereignty and Border Control Concerns

Critics of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (ICRMW) contend that its extension of human rights protections to irregular migrants undermines states' sovereign authority to enforce border controls and manage immigration flows. The convention grants undocumented migrants rights such as recognition as persons before the law (Article 16), protection against arbitrary expulsion (Article 22), and due process in expulsion decisions (Article 52), which require individualized assessments rather than expedited or collective removals. These provisions, while aimed at preventing abuses, are argued to impose procedural hurdles that delay or complicate deportations, thereby weakening states' capacity to deter unauthorized entries and maintain territorial integrity. Major migrant-receiving nations, including the , have refrained from partly due to perceived conflicts with domestic frameworks that prioritize rapid and . The U.S., for instance, has neither signed nor ratified the ICRMW, viewing its mandates as incompatible with policies allowing summary returns of irregular crossers and broad discretion under s like the Immigration and Nationality Act. Similarly, Western European countries and cite over admission and expulsion as reasons for non-, arguing that the convention's emphasis on migrant post-entry effectively cedes control to international norms, potentially incentivizing irregular migration by reducing the risks of removal. Article 79 of the ICRMW explicitly preserves to regulate entry, but opponents maintain that the cumulative effect of in-country protections erodes practical autonomy. Empirical patterns reinforce these concerns, as no major destination countries from , , or have ratified the , with ratifications concentrated among labor-sending states. This selectivity highlights a causal tension: while the ICRMW seeks to balance with state interests, its application to irregular cases is seen as transferring discretionary power from national authorities to supranational oversight via the Committee on Migrant Workers, potentially straining resources for compliance and litigation over expulsions. Proponents counter that and migrant protections are reconcilable, with some United Nations analyses arguing that effective migration management laws protecting human rights can enhance state sovereignty by safeguarding national security, promoting orderly flows, and mitigating abuses that undermine public trust and resource allocation. Yet the persistent non-ratification by high-inflow states underscores the perceived trade-off in retaining unilateral .

Effectiveness and Unintended Consequences

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (CMW) has demonstrated limited effectiveness in enhancing protections for migrant workers globally, primarily due to its low rate among major destination countries. As of October 2024, only 59 states are parties to the convention, with prominent receiving nations such as the , , , and most members abstaining, thereby exempting them from its obligations. This selective adherence confines the CMW's influence to predominantly origin or transit states in , , and parts of , where migrants often face exploitation upon arrival in non-ratifying destinations. Empirical assessments indicate no substantial between CMW and measurable improvements in labor conditions, wage equity, or reduced abuses for cross-border workers, as violations persist even among parties; for instance, state reports to the CMW reveal ongoing issues like and inadequate enforcement in countries such as . The convention's monitoring mechanisms, reliant on voluntary reporting and lacking coercive enforcement, further undermine its impact, with the on Migrant Workers issuing recommendations that states frequently disregard without consequence. The CMW's broad provisions, extending rights to undocumented migrants and , have inadvertently deterred ratifications by destination states concerned over diminished in immigration control. High-income countries perceive the treaty as incompatible with and economic priorities, viewing its non-discrimination clauses as potentially obligating equal treatment that could incentivize irregular entries; this reluctance has perpetuated a regulatory vacuum, leaving millions of migrants—estimated at over 169 million internationally mobile workers in 2023—outside its framework and reliant on weaker bilateral arrangements or domestic laws. In ratifying origin states, the convention has occasionally strained limited resources by mandating protections for returning migrants without corresponding capacity-building, exacerbating domestic vulnerabilities rather than resolving them; for example, some parties report challenges in implementing family rights amid economic pressures from emigration outflows. Additionally, the treaty's emphasis on universal rights has fueled debates over , where origin countries leverage CMW complaints against non-ratifiers to deflect internal failures in addressing push factors like , without fostering practical bilateral reforms. These dynamics highlight how the CMW's aspirational scope, while advancing normative discourse, has causally contributed to its marginalization in real-world migration governance.

Ideological Debates on Migration Rights

The ideological debates surrounding migration rights, as embodied in the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (ICMW), pit cosmopolitan universalism against communitarian particularism. Cosmopolitans, drawing from philosophical traditions emphasizing global dignity and individual liberty, argue that migrant workers possess inherent rights to mobility, fair treatment, and family unity irrespective of national borders, viewing restrictions as arbitrary barriers to human flourishing. This perspective frames the ICMW as a to extend protections akin to those of citizens, countering exploitation in labor markets where migrants fill essential roles but face precarious conditions, as evidenced by reports of in sectors like and in high-income states. Proponents, often aligned with international bodies, contend that denying such rights perpetuates inequality, with empirical data showing remittances from migrants exceeding $700 billion annually to origin countries in , underscoring their economic contributions that justify reciprocal protections. Communitarians, conversely, prioritize the state's duty to its existing members, asserting a presumptive right to exclude non-citizens to safeguard social cohesion, democratic , and finite public resources. This view holds that unrestricted migration , as potentially mandated by the ICMW's provisions on non-discrimination and regularization of irregular migrants, undermine national welfare systems—strained by data indicating net fiscal costs for low-skilled in countries like the , where such migrants consume more in services than they contribute in taxes over lifetimes. Philosophers in this argue that communities form through shared history and values, not mere , and that the convention's emphasis on universal entitlements ignores causal realities like cultural dilution or security risks, as seen in elevated crime correlations with certain migrant cohorts in European host nations post-2015 influxes. High-income non-ratifiers, including most Western states, embody this stance by rejecting the ICMW to retain policy flexibility, reflecting a realism that migration is an economic transaction rather than an unqualified right, lest it erode citizen priorities. These divides extend to critiques of the ICMW's implementation gaps: cosmopolitans decry non-ratification by 40 major receiving countries as hypocrisy in rhetoric, while communitarians see ratification's concentration among 59 mostly low-income sending states as self-interested advocacy for emigrant protections without reciprocal burdens. Empirical outcomes fuel the tension; for instance, where protections align with communitarian controls—like temporary worker programs—they yield labor benefits without pressures, but expansive rights interpretations risk "pull factors" incentivizing uncontrolled flows, as modeled in economic analyses showing welfare generosity correlating with higher inflows. Neither resolves the trade-offs absent first-principles reconciliation: individual agency versus collective stability, with source biases in academia often tilting cosmopolitan despite data on integration failures in diverse, low-trust societies.

Impact and Empirical Outcomes

Achievements in Ratifying States

In origin countries that have ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (ICRMW), such as the , implementation has led to enhanced institutional frameworks for safeguarding nationals working abroad, including mandatory pre-departure orientation seminars and oversight of private recruitment agencies to prevent exploitation. The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (CMW) has commended the for these measures, noting progress in providing legal assistance, medical care, and skills assessment programs for overseas Filipino workers, which have facilitated safer migration pathways and repatriation support. Ecuador, having ratified the ICRMW in 2005, has advanced protections for its migrant workers through transparent labor migration policies, including bilateral agreements with destination countries to ensure fair and consular support abroad. The CMW has recognized Ecuador's efforts in this area, particularly in coordinating assistance for nationals in distress and integrating ICRMW standards into domestic to address vulnerabilities during transit and employment. Other ratifying states, such as (ratified 1999) and several African nations including (ratified 2001), have reported establishing specialized units for migrant counseling and transit protection, drawing on ICRMW obligations to combat irregular migration risks and promote equitable conditions, as highlighted in CMW examinations of state reports. These initiatives have yielded qualitative improvements in awareness and reporting mechanisms, though empirical data on reduced exploitation rates remains limited due to underreporting and challenges in destination countries not bound by the . Overall, achievements are most evident in legislative harmonization and capacity-building in origin states, with 56 ratifications as of 2021 primarily from such nations, enabling better advocacy in international forums but constrained by the absence of major destination states like those in the Gulf or .

Limitations and Broader Migration Realities

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families has achieved only limited , with 56 states parties as of 2023, primarily low-income origin and transit countries rather than major destination economies. Prominent receiving states, including the , , , the , , , and members, have declined to ratify due to provisions extending to irregular migrants and their families, which conflict with domestic policies prioritizing border enforcement and deportation. This asymmetry hampers enforcement, as protections lack reciprocity between sending and receiving nations, rendering the instrument ineffective for addressing abuses in high-volume migration corridors. Empirical assessments reveal scant evidence of the Convention altering migration patterns or reducing exploitation in ratifying states, where remains inconsistent amid weak monitoring by the on Migrant Workers. Broader dynamics, involving approximately 281 million people as of 2020—equivalent to 3.6% of the global population—overwhelmingly feature irregular entries, estimated at tens of millions annually, which evade the Convention's framework entirely. Such flows, driven by wage disparities and lax enforcement rather than legal channels, perpetuate smuggling networks and labor abuses, with the reporting 27.6 million victims of forced labor in 2021, disproportionately migrants undocumented in host countries. Causal factors in migration realities underscore mismatches: expansive without corresponding obligations for integration or contribution exacerbate fiscal burdens in destinations, where low-skilled inflows correlate with net public costs exceeding remittances' benefits to hosts, as documented in analyses of European and North American systems. Cultural and challenges, including elevated rates among certain migrant cohorts and stalled assimilation in parallel societies, further strain social cohesion, outcomes not mitigated by the Convention's emphasis on individual entitlements over collective host interests. These gaps highlight how international instruments like the Convention, absent robust state sovereignty and bilateral controls, fail to curb unintended escalations in unauthorized migration or address root economic incentives propelling it.

References

  1. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-protection-rights-all-migrant-workers
  2. https://treaties.un.org/pages/showdetails.aspx?objid=080000028004b0a9&clang=_en
  3. https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/cmw/background-convention
  4. https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?Treaty=CMW&Lang=en
  5. https://www.aalco.int/63rdAnnualSession/Briefs2025/Final%2520Legal%2520Protection%2520of%2520Migrant%2520Workers%25202025.pdf
  6. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/promise-and-prospects-uns-convention-migrant-workers
  7. https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/wps/art145/
  8. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet24rev.1en.pdf
  9. https://scholarship.libraries.rutgers.edu/view/pdfCoverPage?instCode=01RUT_INST&filePid=13680073410004646&download=true
  10. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3054664
  11. https://nyujilp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/42.2-Lyon.pdf
  12. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-13&chapter=4
  13. https://www.ilo.org/resource/article/un-convention-migrant-workers-rights-enters-force
  14. https://www.ilo.org/media/407116/download
  15. https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/b/a/19246.pdf
  16. https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/cmw
  17. https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/protection-migrants-rights-and-state-sovereignty
  18. https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/article/the-human-rights-of-migrant-workers-why-do-so-few-countries-care
  19. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3147007
  20. https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/pol330052006en.pdf
  21. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/433715/EXPO-DROI_ET(2013)433715_EN.pdf
  22. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1990/12/19901218%2008-12%20AM/Ch_IV_13p.pdf
  23. https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/cmw/reporting-guidelines
  24. https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/cmw/general-comments
  25. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/12/un-committee-migrant-workers-publishes-findings-benin-egypt-peru-and
  26. https://www.ohchr.org/en/meeting-summaries/2025/04/committee-rights-migrant-workers-opens-fortieth-session-and-meets-civil
  27. https://docs.un.org/en/A/80/48
  28. https://www.lawjournals.org/assets/archives/2018/vol4issue2/4-1-73-403.pdf
  29. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379819406_Reviewing_the_International_Convention_on_the_Protection_of_the_Rights_of_All_Migrant_Workers_and_Members_of_Their_Families_ICRMW_in_the_context_of_contemporary_Cross-border_Labour_Migration
  30. https://docs.un.org/en/CMW/C/EGY/CO/2-4
  31. https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/protecting_migrant_workers.pdf
  32. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/immigration/
  33. https://www.iom.int/resources/international-migration-and-human-rights-stefanie-grant
  34. https://firstthings.com/two-theories-of-immigration/
  35. https://philosophynow.org/issues/166/Philosophers_and_Immigration_Control
  36. https://dfa.gov.ph/dfa-news/news-from-our-foreign-service-postsupdate/32130-philippines-holds-successful-dialogue-on-migrant-workers-rights-protection-with-un-committee-in-geneva
  37. https://philippines.un.org/en/303111-building-safer-migration-pathways-filipino-migrants
  38. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2009/10/committee-protection-rights-migrant-workers-considers-initial-report-ecuador
  39. https://hrlibrary.umn.edu/cmw/ecuador2010.html
  40. https://www.iom.int/resources/report-committee-protection-rights-all-migrant-workers-and-members-their-families-63-48
  41. https://docs.un.org/en/A/79/48
  42. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EXPO-DROI_ET%282013%29433715
  43. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/12/16/key-facts-about-recent-trends-in-global-migration/
  44. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/top-statistics-global-migration-migrants
  45. https://comparativemigrationstudies.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40878-020-00181-6
  46. https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/WP/2021/English/wpiea2021088-print-pdf.ashx
  47. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21632324.2017.1419544
  48. https://www.quora.com/Why-havent-western-countries-signed-the-International-Convention-on-the-Protection-of-the-Rights-of-All-Migrant-Workers-Members-of-Their-Families
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.