FirstPerspectivesontheZeroDraft(5February2018)fortheUNGlobalCompactonSafe,OrderlyandRegularMigration

ProfessorElspethGuild,QueenMaryUniversityofLondonandDrTugbaBasaran,CentredEtudessurlesconflits,laliberteetlasecurite,Paris;

visitingscholarHarvardUniversityEditors

InthiscontributiontothenegotiationsofaUNGlobalCompactMigrationanumberofacademicsandpractitionersbasedatdifferent institutionsanddifferent countries have come together to provide their initial views andcommentsonthe firstdraft,knowingthat theydonotreflect theviewsoftheOdysseusNetworkassuch.TheobjectiveofthisdocumentistoprovideaninitialresponsetotheZeroDraftfromacademiaandcivilsociety,whichexaminewhatweconsider tobe thekeypartsof theZeroDraft.Foreachsection examined we provide our personal views on the advantages andweaknesses inherent in the approach and some commentary explainingbriefly the reasons for our positions. This paper is not intended to be adetailedexaminationofeveryaspectof theZeroDraftandshouldbereadtogetherwiththeDraft.1Theemphasis in thepreambleof theZeroDraftonexistinghuman rightsstandards and their applicability to migrants is very important. Indeed,moreconcentrationontheexistingUNhumanrightsstandards,startingofcoursewiththeUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights(UDHR)andalltheconventions, which provide specificity to it, must be at the centre of theCompact.TheGlobalCompactmustbeguidedbytheNewYorkDeclarationthatwas agreed by consensus ofMember States at theGeneral Assemblymeeting on September 2016. Negotiations on the Compact itself cannotpermitasmallnumberofStatestoalterthecontentofwhatwasoriginallyagreed. The New York Declaration must provide a framework for theCompact, especially with regards to Human Rights. It would beunacceptableifthefinalversionoftheCompactgaveeventheappearance

1Accessibleonlinehere:http://refugeesmigrants.un.org/sites/default/files/180205_gcm_zero_draft_final.pdf.

of moving away from the existing obligations of states to protect anddeliverhumanrightsformigrants(aswellascitizens).Fullerreferencestothecoreinternationalhumanrightstreatieswouldbewelcomehereratherthanaselectiveapproachtakeninpreamble1.ThevisionandguidingprinciplesoftheZeroDraftincludethreesections–common understanding, shared responsibilities and unity of purpose. Allthree reflect a common approach – states must work together on issuesaroundmigration,asmigration isnormal,advantageous forcountriesandpart of international prosperity. It is also important that state authoritiesrememberthattheonlything,whichdistinguishestheircitizensfrombeingmigrants (or foreigners), is an international border. Everyone can be amigrantbyreasonofcrossinganinternationalborderandresidingoutsidehisorhercountryofnationality.Thetreatmentofapersonwhoiscitizenofone country and simultaneously subjected to the immigration rules ofanother is a matter of international relations.. It is right that the UN isseekingnewwaystodiminishfrictionarisingfromtimetotimeregardingmigrants and to ensure that states deliver their human rights duties alsovis-a-vis migrants who are equally beneficiaries of human rightsconventions.The centralityof thosehumanrightsobligationsneeds tobehighlightedintheCompact.Given the new focus on information gathering, sharing and knowledgebuilding,whichisevidentthroughoutthepreambleanddraftobjectives,theCompactmust address the data protection rights ofmigrants themselves.The necessity of firewalls to ensure that data regarding migrants is notbeing shared across Stateswithoutmigrants’ consent, is absent from thecurrentdraftbutisessentialtotheirprivacyprotection.In the following sections, expert academics andmembers of civil societyprovide their perspectives on the positive and negative elements of keyobjectivessetoutintheZeroDraft.Inthefinalsection,thereisanoverviewoftheimplementationandfollowupproposedintheZeroDraft.OBJECTIVE1:collectandutilizeaccurateanddisaggregateddataasabasisforevidencebasedpoliciesProfessorElspethGuild,QueenMaryUniversityofLondonPositiveElements:Evidencebasedpolicymaking.This isaveryimportantaspect of national policy on migration and mobility. Too often policyappears tobedevelopedon thebasis of lackof informationandpersonalimpressionsvergingonprejudices.Therefore,usingrealdataasthebasisof

policydevelopment iskeytoeffectivepublicpolicy. Intheprocessofdatacollection, theGlobalCompact shouldplace individuals at its core (asperZero Draft, para 13). Gathering data on the exact costs ofmigration and,subsequently,reducingthecostsofmigrationshouldbeacoreobjectiveinthe collection of data as a basis of evidence based policies. As theinternationalcommunityhasunderlined,migrationisexcessivelypricedforthemajorityofindividualswhochoosetomove(A/68/190,25July2013).What elements these costs entail, how they are distributed and whoencountersthemwherehassofarbeeninsufficientlyanalyzed,duetolackofsufficientdata.Thisdataneedstotakeintoaccounta)up-frontcostsforrecruitment,butalsob)wage,workingandsocialconditiondifferentialsinthe destination countries, and c) return costs (see the Migrant Premium2018). The reduction of the migrant premium and associated costs may,undercertainconditions(suchasprohibiteddiscrimination),notbeonlyadesirable outcome, but an international obligation. Some of theseobjectivesareintheZeroDraftunder1h)suchas‘remittancetransfercosts,health, education, living and working conditions, wages’, but a moreextensivedatacollectionisrequiredthatcoversthefullcycleofcostforthevarietyofmigrationcorridors.NegativeElements:disaggregateddatasharingamongstates:Intheprocessof data collection any interference with the right to privacy of migrants,whetherthisinterferenceemanatesfromauthoritiesofthedeparturestateor destination state or even a transit state, should be assessed verycarefully in terms of lawfulness and the principle of proportionalityaccording to Article 17 ICCPR. According to this Article, all persons areprotected, both citizens and non-citizens. This means that the gathering,sharingandholdingofpersonalinformationondatabasesamongcountriesformigration-related purposesmust be regulated by law. The volition tocapture data of passengers is evident in various Passenger Name Recordagreements, the Trump Travel Bans, which impose an obligation on allstatestoprovidetheUSauthoritieswithinformationaboutpeopleleavingtheircountriesfortheUSA.Inmanystatesconcernabouttheentitlementofstate authorities to cull and manipulate data of citizens is subject toconstitutional limitations. But, as soon as the citizen is mobile movingacrossinternationalborders,hisorherdataistreatedinthesamewayasthatofa foreigner(seepassengernamerecordagreements).The fact thatsome statesusemobility as a surrogate to enable them to collectdataontheir own citizens who have travelled abroad indicates the extent of theproblem.Commentary

There is a tendency in many states to seek ever-increasing amounts ofpersonal data on both their own citizens (often blocked by nationalconstitutions) and foreigners. The convergence of fears about foreignersand risks to society has resulted in a legitimation of the collection of asmuchdataaspossibleaboutpeople,boththroughobligationsontheprivatesector(suchasFacebook,Microsoftetc)toprovidedatawhichpeoplehaveprovided for thepurposeofaccess tospecificservicesand throughpublicmeans.Mobility is one of those areaswhere some states claim there is agrey space between being a passenger and being a citizen or foreignerenteringastate.Inthatgreyareathecollection,storage,manipulationandsharingofpersonaldatabecomeacontestedarea.ItwouldbeaworryingdevelopmentiftheGlobalCompactonSafe,Orderlyand Regular Migration adopted an approach that the privacy of people,whether foreigners or citizens, can be collected, stored manipulated andsharedirrespectiveofthehumanrighttoprivacy.Thisprofoundchallengeto the right to privacy,which is a right espoused in the UDHR and givenconstraining force in Article 17 ICCPR,must be justified. The objective oforderly movementmust not be linked to the collection of personal data.Ratheritshouldbeassociatedwithsafetravelthatbringspeopletoplaceswheretheauthoritiesofthedestinationexpectthemtoarrive.Peopleonlyarriveindisorderlymannersbecausetheycannotarriveorderly(aresultofobstacles to ordinarymovement in the forms of visas, carriers sanctionsandothers).Orderlyarrivalrequiresstatestoencouragepeopletoarriveinplaces where they have plenty of border guards in place rather than todivertsomepeopletoriskyanduncommonentrypointswheretherearenoborder guards. It is not wise in a Global Compact to encourage states tohave disregard to their obligations to protect the right to privacy of allpeople,whethercitizensorforeigners.Objective3:Provideadequateandtimely informationatallstagesofmigration.KatharineT.Weatherhead,QueenMaryUniversityofLondonPositive Elements: This objective provides a basis for developingpredictability in migration policies and supporting people to understandthe frameworks which impact upon their migration. The objectiverecognises that information canhelp to enable access to justice andbasicserviceswhichisintegraltotheprotectionofmigrants’humanrights.

NegativeElements:ThelanguageinthisobjectiveprivilegesaState-centredunderstandingof informationdissemination.Suchanunderstandinglimitstheopportunities formigrantstomakeuseof informationabout lawsandpolicies,andwidenstherisksforinformationtobedominatedbymigrationrestrictionefforts.CommentaryThis objective goes beyond the New York Declaration in considering theplaceofinformationinmigrationandpromptsactivitythatcanhelppeopleto understand the procedures, rights, and obligations engaged duringmigration. It expansively commits to information efforts which take intoaccount all stages of migration, including emergency situations whereinformation should be provided to migrants “on an equal footing withnationals”.Theobjectiveincludesactionswhichprovideforinformationtobe made available about fundamental human rights, internationalprotection,accesstobasicservices,andaccesstojustice,especiallywhenitcomestohumanrightsviolations.Thesefeaturesindicatepotentialfortheobjective to contribute to migration policies which are accessible to theindividuals concerned and whose human rights protections are open tobeingcalledupon.ThereisroomforthispotentialtobeenhancedinlaterdraftsoftheGlobalCompactonMigration.TheactionsarecurrentlycentredaroundState-runmeasures to provide migrants with information about laws and policies,without recognition of people’s rights also to seek, receive, and impartinformation, as provided in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration ofHumanRights.Suchactionwhichsupportsmigranteffortstoseek,receive,and impart information might include, for example, responding tocommunicationneeds thatarise from languagedifferences, literacy levels,connectivity issues, and gender. It might also include strengthening theopportunities for people to know about their own personal migrationsituation,ratherthanonlyaboutgenerallawsandpolicies.As it stands, there is a risk that the objective may encourage States toemphasisedeterrenceintheirinformationactivities,ratherthancommittodevelopingpredictability and certainty as stated.The risk is underpinnedby a combination of references to informing migrant decisions, pre-departure orientation, dangers of irregularmigration, data gathering andintelligence sharing between States, as well as by a lack of reference toindependent or trusted information sources. Some peoplemigrate out ofdesperation, as mentioned in the Secretary-General’s report on ‘Making

migrationworkforall’,andinformationplaysacomplexroleinthesecases.Objective 3 would benefit from a broader understanding of informationdissemination as an ongoing and non-linear conversation betweenmigrationstakeholders.OBJECTIVE4:Provideallmigrantswithproofoflegalidentity,properidentificationanddocumentationAmaldeChickera,InstituteonStatelessnessandInclusionPositiveElements:ItisofsignificantimportancethattheZerodraftmakesclearreferencetothecommitmentoftheStatestoaddressstatelessnessinthecontextofmigration.Indeed,statelessnessisanoften-overlookedissue,but para 18 of the Zero Draft sets out a commitment from the outset to“equipmigrantswith proof of legal identity… at all stages ofmigration inorder toendstatelessness andavoidothervulnerabilities.”Anothermajoradvantage is that thisobjectivespeaksof“proofof legal identity”,andnot‘legalidentity’perse.ThisisasignificantimprovementontheTarget16.9ofSustainableDevelopmentGoals,whichreferstoa“Legalidentityforall…”The phrasing of the Zero Draft is an acknowledgement that the legalidentityofeverypersonisinherenttotheirpersonality,andthatthelackofdocumentationisnottobeequatedwithalackoflegalidentity.Giventhatinter alia ‘nationality’ is one component of a person’s legal identity (CRCArticle8para1),thisisanimportantdistinctiontobemade.Further positive elements include the emphasis on providing identitydocuments to all migrants “by registering migrant births and reachingundocumentedpopulations”.Thiscommitment isdirectly linkedtoexistingstateobligationstoavoidstatelessnessandensuretherighttoanationality;and indicates an existing large-scale problem problem, since in manycountriesstatelesspersonsandirregularmigrantsarewronglydeniedbirthregistration.The commitment to ensuring “adequate, timely, reliable and accessibleconsulardocumentationtoallmigrants”isalsoimportant,giventhatmanymigrants become statelesswhen their own country fails to recognise andprotect them. Therefore, this commitment, addresses one of the mostcommon challenges in the context of statelessness andmigration, namelythesituation inwhichan individual is caughtbetweena failure/refusalofthe country of origin to take responsibility and a failure/refusal of thecountryofmigration to identifyandprotect.As itwillbeaddressed later,theZeroDraft couldhave takenamorecomprehensivepositionhere,butnonetheless,thisisapositiveelementofthetext.

A further importantaspect is thecommitment to “Abolish requirements toprove citizenship or nationality at service delivery centres to ensure thatstatelessmigrantsarenotprecludedfromaccessingbasicservicesnordeniedotherbasichumanrights”.Inpractice,statelesspeopleareroutinelydeniedaccess to basic services and rights because of their lack of a nationality,whereashumanrightslawisclearthatthisshouldnotbethecase.Forthisreason, this is a timely and important restatement of the commitment torespectandprotecttheuniversalapplicationofhumanrightstoallpersons.Therelatedcommitmenttoissueidentitycardstoallmigrants(regardlessof their status) is a practical recommendation, which could increase thelikelihood of statelessmigrants actually being able to access their rights.However,asdiscussedbelow,thiscommitmentinformofrecommendationentails a potential danger of actual implementation and of failing inguaranteeingamorecomprehensiveandsustainableprotection.NegativeElements:Theover-relianceonbiometrics,withoutplacingequalemphasis on privacy, data protection and the prevention of abuses, isperhapsthegreatestconcern.Bothpara18(a)and18(c)callfortherollingoutandsharingofbiometricdata,withoutmakingreferencetoprotectionagainst potential abuses. Furthermore, para 18(g) speaks of providing allmigrantswithidentitycardsasameansofenablingtheiraccesstoservicesandrights.Inreality,therollingoutandsharingofbiometricdataandthelinkingofthepossessionofbiometriccardstotheaccessofsocio-economicrightshaveledtomanylarge-scalebreachesoftherighttoprivacy,aswellas abuses of power by public officials. The experience in India with therollingoutofAadharcardsisoneexample.Furthermore,thereisaconcernthat,intheabsenceofclearconnectionofpara18(g)withObjective12onstatus determination, the process of providing stateless persons withidentitycardscouldserveasaprecursortoattemptedremoval,againsttheenvisaged protection and integration aims. Importantly, the emphasis onbiometric data is mentioned throughout the Zero Draft and shouldthereforebeaddressedatamorefundamentallevel.Theotherconcernsrelatedtothe fourthObjectiveare lessaboutnegativeelementsandmoreaboutmissedopportunities.Theseareaddressedinthecommentarybelow.CommentaryObjective 4 goes beyond the New York Declaration by clearly identifyingstatelessnessasaphenomenonthatcanandmustbeaddressedthroughthe

GlobalCompact,andbyprovidingsomeconcreteandpracticalguidanceonhowthiscanbedone.Manyofthepositiveelementsofthetexthavebeendiscussed above, similarly, the negative element of putting emphasis on“biometric data”withoutproviding adequate attention toprotection frompertinentabuseshasbeenhighlighted..Uponanalysis,themostimportanttokeepfromtheObjective4textisthatitgoesfar,butnotfarenough.Itidentifieshowstatelessnesscanbecausedinamigrationcontext,butonlyofferspartialsolutions. Itprovidessound,practicalguidanceonhowstatelesspeoplecanbeprotectedinamigrationcontext but does not extend this to all stateless people. Where the textwouldhavebenefitedfromdirectreferencetootherObjectives(andwhereother Objectives should refer to Objective 4), it fails to do so. And so,Objective4isamarkerofbothprogressandmissedopportunity.Thetextappearstobuildondualassumptionsthat:1. Providingmigrantswith the right documentation alonewill resolvetheirstatelessness.

2. The overwhelming responsibility to end statelessness lies with thecountryoforigin.

As such, it remains largely silent on the more fundamental problem ofdiscriminatory laws, policies and practices which create and perpetuatestatelessness (regardless of documentation); and does not re-state thehuman rights obligation of host states to also play a role in endingstatelessness.For example para 18(b) calls for strengthened measures to “facilitatecitizenshiptochildrenborninanotherState’sterritoryinsituationswhereachild would otherwise be stateless, including by allowing women to confertheirnationalitytotheirchildren”.Whilethisparagraphsetsoutobligationsofthecountryoforiginoftheparentsofachildborninathirdcountry,itissilentontheobligationofcountryofbirth/migrationtograntnationalitytochildrenbornontheirterritorywhowouldotherwisebestateless.ThisobligationisclearlysetoutinboththeConventionontheRightsoftheChildand the1961Conventionon theReductionofStatelessness.Furthermore,whileitisimportantthatdiscriminationagainstwomenhasbeensetout,anopportunity to be more comprehensive has been missed through theObjective’sfailurebothtoemphasisethatfathersshouldalsohavetherighttopassonnationalitytochildrenbornabroadandtocoverotherformsofdiscrimination(race,disabilityetc.)whichalsocausestatelessness.

Para18(d)onaccesstoconsulardocumentationhasalsoapositiveimpact.However, while it sets out the role of the country of origin to provideconsulardocumentation,itissilentontheresponsibilityofthehoststateinthe absence of suchprotection anddocumentation. Furthermore, the textdoes not cross-refer this commitment with Objectives 12 (statusdetermination),13 (detention)and14 (consularprotection).Significantly,thetextofalloftheseObjectivesdoesnotrefertostatelessness,despiteitbeing of utmost relevance. Had the text approached this issue in amorecomprehensive way, it would havemade a connection between (lack of)consular protection and documentation and (prohibition of) arbitrarydetention,concludingthatthehoststatehasanobligationtoprotectthosewhohavenoconsularprotectionoraredenieditbytheirstate.Thisshouldthen lead to referral to a Statelessness Determination Procedure (whichshouldbedirectlyaddressedunderObjective12).Similarly, para 18(f) on abolishing requirements to prove citizenship inorder to access rights and services could have gone further byrecommending that such persons are automatically referred to aStatelessnessDeterminationProcedure.It isonlythroughbeingidentifiedas stateless person in a migration context that durable solutions willultimatelybeviable.Objective 5: Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways forregularmigrationKeesGroenendijk,EmeritusProfessorofSociologyofLawattheUniversityofNijmegen

Positive elements: "allowing flexible visa status conversions" under 5(d)and facilitating regional free movement regimes and visa liberalisationunder 5(b). A number of regions in the world have implemented suchregimessuchastheEuropeanUnion,MERCOSUR,ECOWASandothers.Thispractice reduces friction at borders, provides greater certainty to peoplemoving across these regions regarding their states and clarity on theirentitlements which are guaranteed by the participating states together.Statesand the international community could learn from the positiveeffectsofthepracticeofexistingregionalregimesonthesepoints.

Negativeelements:Itisoddthatin5(a)themodelagreementsattachedtothe ILOMigrantWorkersConventionsnos.97and147arenotmentionedand the "sector specific standard terms should be developed" withoutmentioning the work of ILO. Further, it should be stated in 5(e) that"accelerated and facilitated visa processing for employers with a track

record of compliance" should be open not onlyfor large (international)companiesbut alsobeaccessible formediumand small firms.Clause5(f)on temporary and permanent protection does not belong here but in theother Compact. Clause 5(g) on family reunification sounds good but ismeagre,since itonlymentions removing barriers to the realisation of therighttofamilylifeandfamilyunity(thustheabsoluteminimum),notaboutremovingbarrierstofamilyreunification.Moreover,itshouldbeaddedthatwork authorisation and access to social services/security is for admittedfamily members. Such wording would better reflect the human right tofamilylifecontainedinArticles17and22ICCPR.

Commentary

PathwaystolegalmigrationareakeyobjectivefortheCompact.Stateshavethe first responsibility for their immigration laws but not an exclusivemonopoly. The right to non-refoulement is the most well recognised ofexampleswhichshowthatanystate’sclaimtoanexclusiverighttoadmitornot admit foreigners is confounded. It is not only border control but alsomigrationwhichisasharedresponsibilityoftheinternationalcommunity.This isbecauseallstateshaveastakeinthetreatmentoftheircitizensbyothercountriesandmusttakeintoaccountthelegitimateconcernsofotherstatesabouthowtheytreatthenationalsofthosecountries.Responsibilityforpathwaysnotonlyrequiresarethinkingofinterstaterelationsascentraltobordercontrolandmigrationbutalsothepositionoftheprivatesector.Companiesplayakeyroleindemandingsafepathwaysfortheiremployeestoenter,reside,enjoyfamilyreunificationandbeprotectedfromexpulsionirrespectiveof theirnationality.Theprivate sectorhas taken its concernsaboutmovingitspersonnelsafelyandlegallyaroundtheworldtoanotherinternationalvenue–theWorldTradeOrganisation–throughthewideningoftherulesoftheGeneralAgreementonTradeinServices.Onceagain,thechoice of the private sector to encourage and actively participate in theadoption of legally binding solutions to new pathways throughinternationalcommitmentsofstatesadoptedcooperativelyrevealsthefactthatmigrationpathwaysarepartofinternationalrelationsnotanexclusivemonopolyofeachstate.

Pathwaysformigrationneedtomeettheactualpracticeswithinallstates.Iftheydonot, the result is thatpeople fall into irregularity.Wherenationalimmigration rules fail to respect the reality on the ground and, mostspecifically, theneedsof employers and the legitimatedemandsof familyreunification, the result is not thatmigrants do not come but rather thatthey live in irregularity with all the negative consequences thereof.Exploitation of migrants is often made possible because of the irregular

statusofthosemigrants.Familymembers,whosereasonabledesiretolivewith their families in a host state butwhose applications are rejected bythat state’s authorities for reasons unrelated to the genuine wish to livetogether,suchasincomerequirements, languagetests,visasrequirementsetc.,frequentlybecomeirregularlypresent.ThenegotiationoftheCompactneeds to take seriously the human rights of migrants as employers,employees,familymembersandartistsandinvestorsandencouragestatestowidenthepathwaysforregularmigrationtomeetthesesharedconcernsoftheinternationalcommunityandtheprivatesector.

OBJECTIVE7:AddressandreducevulnerabilitiesinmigrationProfessor Delphine Nakache (University of Ottawa) and Professor Idil Atak(RyersonUniversity)Positive Elements: The recognition that migrants face multiple andintersecting forms of vulnerability; the placement of human rights at thecentre of states’ action, in particular through the commitment to adopt achild-specific and gender-specific approach in their actions. A positiveelement is also the acknowledgment that there are “legal and practicalimpediments” in destination states that are conducive to irregularmigration and that there needs to be policies in place to prevent suchsituations.Finally,theemphasisontheroleoflocalauthoritiesinassistingmigrants ina situationof vulnerability ismostwelcome. So is the call forstates to establish firewalls between immigration enforcement andpublicservices.Negativeelements:Althoughitisapositivedevelopmentthathumanrightsarerecognizedasanessentialpartofstates’actions,thereisnoneedforthecreationofanew,bindingprotocoltoaddresstheprotectionofvulnerablemigrantsbecausetherelevantnormsalreadyexistandstateshavealreadysigned/ratified the relevant international and regional human rightsinstruments.Whatisneeded,however,isacommitmentbystatestoensuretheprotectionofvulnerablemigrantsbasedontheseexisting instrumentsas well as effective mechanisms of accountability and oversight. On thatnote,itisdisappointingtoseethatmostofthecommitmentsareformulatedwithreferencetobroadhumanrightsprotections:theydonotidentifywhoarevulnerablemigrants,whataretheirspecificprotectionneedsandwhichapproach to be used to fulfill their most pressing needs. In fact, underObjective 7, only children are identified explicitly as a vulnerable group.The situation of many other groups of vulnerable migrants- such aspregnantwomen,migrantswithadisability,mentalillnessoracute/chronicillness, elderly migrants, LGBTQ migrants and migrants subjected to

extremeviolence,trafficking,tortureetc.-isunacknowledged.Aswell,thewording of Objective 7 omits the fact that the vulnerability in whichmigrants find themselves ismostly constructedby states throughpoliciesand practices, such as border controls, interceptionmeasures, restrictivemigrationandasylumrules.Awordofcautionregardingthebestinterestsofthechild.Thecommitmentto “uphold the principle of the best interest of the child as a primaryconsideration” insituationsconcerningmigrantchildren isapositivestepintherightdirection.Indeed,Art.3.1oftheConventionontheRightsoftheChild, which is themost globally ratified UN human rights treaty, clearlystatestherightofchildrentohavetheirbest interestsassessedandtakeninto account as a primary consideration in all actions or decisions thataffectthem.However,Art.3.1hasalsobeeninterpretedasmeaningthatthebest interests of the child must always prevail over any otherconsiderations.Thispointshouldbespecifiedsoas toavoidanysituationwhere the interest of a child is seen as an important element to beconsidered,butnotasonethatshouldoutweighotherconsiderations.CommentaryVulnerabilityisaverycomplexterm,whichcanbeunderstoodinavarietyof ways and hence can give rise to different kinds of responses. In thecontext of the Global Compact, the term “vulnerability” focuses on theinherentvulnerabilityofmigrantsthatstemsfromsuchfactorsasageandgender.Thisoftenservestoportraymigrantsashelplessvictims.However,migrants’ vulnerability is also policy-induced and mostly constructed bystates and other actors. The non-acknowledgment of this fact effectivelyshifts the responsibility for the problems faced by migrants away fromstates.Abetterunderstandingofvulnerabilityisthuscrucialinfocusingthedebate on states’ legal obligations towards migrants. It is essential todevelopaframeworkwherethepolicy-inducedorconstructedvulnerabilityofmigrants is identified and acted upon. This framework should be builtuponexistinghumanrights instrumentsandshouldaccount for themanycircumstances inwhich migrants’ vulnerability is created or exacerbatedbystatesandotheractors.OBJECTIVE 8: Save lives and establish coordinated internationaleffortsonmissingmigrantsSydBoltonandCatrionaJarvisCo-Conveners,LastRightsProject

PositiveElements: In general, theproposalsoutlined in8(d) and8(e) arewelcome. Confidence in the obtaining and analysis of data and inthesubsequent data-handling, storage and sharing procedures is essentialtotheefficientandtimelyinvestigationandidentificationofallmissinganddeceasedpersons.Itisaprerequisiteofjusticethatrelativesofthemissingand the deceased must have the trust and confidence to engage withinvestigationsandthatpersonaldata ishandledandmaintained insuchawayastopreventitsdegradationandmisuse.Negative Elements: Without essential procedural and technologicalsafeguardsofthedatacollected,thereisaseriousriskthat1)familieswillrefusetoengagewithsuchproceduresand/or2)familiesandtheirmissingrelativesmay be seriously prejudiced by engagement or non-engagementwiththem.Inappropriateandinadequatehandlingandsharingofdatamayundermineitsevidentialvalueandalsoexposethemissingandtheirfamiliestoharmwithin the host country and/or their countries of origin. Itmay delay oreven defeat the identification of a person and cause unnecessary andprolonged suffering to their families. It may lead to refoulement or thecreationofrefugeesurplaceclaims.Itmayharmtheinterestsofchildrenasmissing or family members of missing relatives and prevent recovery,rehabilitationandredress.CommentaryThe situation of the missing, the bereaved and the dead is of growingconcerngloballyandalthoughsomeofthoseconcernsarenowreflectedinObjective8ofthedraftCompact,themanyotherissuesofconcernwehaveidentified should necessarily inform a number of other Objectives to agreater or lesser extent. Whilst for the purpose of this note we haveconfinedourbriefcommentstospecificaspectsofObjective8,theyarenotexhaustive.Objectives1,4,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,and21arealsoof importancetothetreatmentofthebereaved,missingandthedeadandshouldbeseenasinter-related.Ourcommentsshouldbereadinthatlight.ItisclearfromourobservationsintheMediterraneanandtheUSA/Mexicanborder regions, with families and with those assisting families of themissing and the dead that one of their principle concerns is that theinformationtheysupplywillbeusedagainstthemortheirmissingrelativesby the police, border officials or other government departments and as aresulttheyareoftenveryreluctanttoshareinformationanddataeitherat

all, or beyond trusted individuals. This slows down, inhibits and evenprevents investigations. Whether states do or do not misuse data, theconfidenceoffamiliesneededtoengageintracingprocessesisunderminedbytheirlackoftrustinhowitmaybeused.WheneverStatesgatherDNA,ante-mortemandpost-mortemdata,orothermaterialevidence,suchcollection,storage,data-interrogationandmatchingproceduresshouldonlybeusedforthesolepurposeofidentificationofthatindividualmissingperson.Thefullyinformedconsentofrelevantfamilymembersmustbeobtainedinwriting setting out the extent andpurposeof thedata collection anduse.Anyproposedvariationofusemustrequirestepbystepadditionalwrittenconsents.Where it is necessary for suchdata tobe cross-referencedwithother data systems, that data must be anonymous or encrypted andhandled in such away that it is not open tomisuse, for example for thepurposeof taking immigration enforcement actions, criminal prosecution,exclusionfromcivilregistrations,health,welfare,educationoremploymentorwheresharedwithaforeignstate,usedtopersecuteorotherwiseharm,discriminateagainstorinterferewithrelativesinthecountryoforigin.Both public and private owned data storage systems and handlingproceduresmustbedesigned in suchaway that there areno ‘back-door’routes into the data, nor any overriding authorisation procedures whichmay interfere with the basis on which the data was provided by thefamilies. This should be amatter of explicit legislation aswell as systemdesignsforanonymisation,firewalls,encryptionandauthorisedusers.Datashouldnotbeshared internationallyunless thestateororganisationwithwhomthedata is intended tobeshareddemonstrates that itmeets theserequirements.Breachesof thesemeasuresshouldbetreatedasacriminaloffence.TheseproposalsareconsistentwiththeInternationalCommitteeoftheRedCross2017recommendationsonmissingmigrantsandtheir families2, the2017 Joint General Comments of the Committee on the Protection of theRights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and theCommittee on theRights of the Child on the general principles regardingthehumanrightsofchildreninthecontextofinternationalmigration3and2https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/document/file_list/missing-migrants-and-their-families.pdf3CMW/C/GC/3-CRC/C/GC/22*,para17,http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CRC/Shared%20Documents/1_Global/CMW_C_GC_3_CRC_C_GC_22_8363_E.pdf

the 2009 International Standards on the Protection of Personal Data andPrivacy (The Madrid Resolution)4 with which the Last Rights Projectconcurs.OBJECTIVE9:Strengthening the transnationalresponse tosmugglingofmigrantsDrJean-PierreGauci,BritishInstituteofInternationalandComparativeLawPositive elements: A key strength under Objective 9 is the implicitacknowledgementoftherisksinherentintheconflationofsmugglingwithtrafficking, but at the same time the highlighting of the need to addresssituations of smuggling under aggravated circumstances. This recognisesthe risks experienced by smuggled migrants and moves away from theassumptionofconsent.Negativeelements:theobjectivefailstomovetheneedleforwardineffortsto deal with migrant smuggling and, instead, re-affirms the existingobligationsmost notably those establishedunder the SmugglingProtocol.Thisincludescriminalisationofsmuggling,cooperationandtheprotectionoftherightsofsmuggledmigrants.As a standalone, Objective 9 does not effectively address the real issuebehindmigrantsmugglingandthatisthelackofotherpathwaysforpeopletomigrate. Some commitments in this regard are set out throughout theDraft, but itwould be important to acknowledge that smuggling happensbecause itremainstheonlyviableoption formostpeople.Thiseffectivelychallenges the notion that smuggling happens with the ‘consent’ of thesmuggledmigrant.CommentaryTheemphasisoncollaboration,whichisofcoursetheunderpinningoftheentire compact, is critically important and anti-smuggling effortswill notsucceedwithoutit.Thatsaid,anyfocusoncooperationmustacknowledgethe limitation of that cooperation especiallywhen such cooperation risksresultinginhumanrightsviolations,includingviolationsoftheprincipleofnon-refoulementorthereturnofpeopletosituationsofharm.Internationalhuman rights law builds inherent limitations to the possibility ofcooperation.

4ICDPPCRD3(5November2009),http://www.privacyconference2011.org/htmls/adoptedResolutions/2009_Madrid/2009_M1.pdf

Thede-criminalisationof irregularbordercrossings issomething thathasbeen achieved in various countries although it ought to be noted thatallowing for it to be considered as an administrative offence withoutsufficient safeguards can still result in restrictive measures, includingdetentionanddifficultiesinaccessingprocedures.The shift away from the conflation between smuggling and traffickingremainscriticallyimportant.Overtheyears,theconflationhasbeenusedtogive counter-smugglingmeasures (intended tokeeppeople fromcrossingborders generally) the legitimacy enjoyed by anti-trafficking efforts. Thissaid, it must be acknowledged that there are, in some cases, overlapsbetweenthe twocrimeswhichmustbeaddressed inorder toensure thatindividualsreceivedthecareandprotectiontheyareentitledto.The text of the Zero Draft manifests a change in the way that smuggledmigrantsare framed.Theyarenotanymore ‘objects’of smuggling (as theSmuggling Protocol frames them), but rather ‘victims of aggravatedsmuggling’. This builds ondevelopments in the human rights field,whichhave recognized the human rights risks faced by smuggled migrants,includingtheirrighttolifeanddignity,butalsotherisksofexploitationbysmugglersenroute.Italsobuildsontherequirementtoconsiderthecrimeofsmugglingtobeaggravatedifandwhenitisundertakenincircumstancesthatendangertheliveandsafetyofthesmuggledmigrants.OBJECTIVE 11: Manage borders in an integrated, secure andcoordinatedmannerElifMendosKuşkonmaz,QueenMaryUniversityofLondonPositive elements: Understanding border governance as collaborationamongststatesratherthantheexecutionofstatesovereignty isapositiveelement included in Objective 11. This will transform borders asdevelopmentratherthanabarrier,andencouragebetterrelationsbetweenneighbouring states. Also, placing the respect of human rights of allmigrantsasanaspectofbordermanagement is a goodmotionbecause itwilllimitstates’sovereignexerciseoverbordermanagement.Negative elements: Despite the reference to human rights, Objective 11does not explicitly mention the respect to the right to privacy andprotection of personal data. This is worrying because, if the inclusion ofpre-screening measures and the use of modern technology are readtogether,itisclearthatObjective11acknowledgesthepossibleuseofdata

miningplatformsinrelationtoriskassessmentandbiometricsaspartsofborder controls. These means are particularly serious interferences withtherighttoprivacyandpersonaldataprotectionbecausetheyinvolveuseofawide-ranginginformationonindividualswhichcanbeusedtoidentifythem. Moreover, it is disappointing that Objective 11 does not include aprohibition against discrimination even though it introduces dataminingplatforms.CommentaryIn general, border management has been seen as an aspect of nationalsecurity,and,thus,theexerciseofstatesovereignty.Therefore,stateshavereliedontheprotectionofnationalsecurityandtheirsovereigntyinorderto dodge claims against human rights violations by their measures ofbordergovernance.Objective11,whichreferstothecross-borderco-operationandtherespectofhumanrights,iswelcomebecauseittransformsbordersintointer-stategovernance rather thana sovereignexercise; amove that ensureshumanrightsinbordermanagement.However,itdoesnotpayparticularattentionto the right to privacy and personal data protection when putting newtechnologyatthecentreofbordergovernancemeasures(11(c)).Althoughthereferenceto‘moderntechnology’iswideenoughtocoverallmeasuresthatcanemergeinthefuture,thecurrenttrendisthecollectionandstorageof information on individuals crossing the borders and mining thesedatabasetodetectthosewhomightposeathreattonationalsecurity.Thisinformationdoesnothave toderive from the state-controlleddocuments,andasObjective11mentions,canbeoutsourcedtoprivateauthoritiessuchasaircarriers.Such informationgatheringandstorageencroachupontherighttoprivacyandpersonaldataprotectionofindividuals,and,thus,itisdisappointingthatObjective11doesnotexplicitlyrefertotheserights.ThisisnottosaythatthementionedrightsarenotrecognisedintheUNGlobalCompactonMigrationatall.Objectives1,3,8,and22refertotheserightsas they concern the use of information on individuals, albeit for differentreasons.Nevertheless,despitetheseobjectives,itisstillnotclearwhattherules on using personal informationwould be. TheUNGuidelines for theRegulation of Computerized Personal Data (A/Res/45/95) can provideguidanceonthematter.Anotherpointof concern is the lackofprohibitionagainstdiscrimination.Thisprohibition isparticularly importantwhendataminingplatformsareatstakebecausesystemicbiascouldbeembeddedintheseplatforms.The

issue becomes all the more troubling due to the lack of transparencyinvolvedinthedataminingplatformsandthequestionontheaccuracyoftheinformationobtainedfromprivateauthorities(i.e.aircarriers),becausemostofthetimetheacquisitionofthisinformationfromindividualsisnotregulated. OHCHR Recommended Principles and Guidelines on HumanRights at International Borders to which Objective 11 refers, provides anon-discriminationclause.SodootherobjectivesintheUNGlobalCompactonMigration (forexample,Objective15).According to the concernsas tothe datamining platformsmentioned above, such a clause should not beexcludedfromObjective11.Finally,otherquestionsensue inrelation to therulesonhow informationobtainedwillbeused.Willthisbesharedwithlawenforcementauthoritiesof the state for which individual seeks to enter? What will be the dueprocessrightsofindividualsagainstborderofficials’decisionsonthebasisoftheuseoftechnology?Objective11(e)referstothestrengtheningofdueprocess and of procedures’ oversightwith regards to the border officials’assessment, but it is important to overtly acknowledge due process andoversightoftheuseoftechnology.Thisisparticularlyimportantgiventhatthelevelofprotectionaffordedtopersonalinformationvariesincountries.OBJECTIVE 12: Strengthen procedures and mechanisms for statusdeterminationBoldizsárNagy,CentralEuropeanUniversityPositive elements: The intention to demand every state to have an“effective, human rights based and protection-sensitive mechanism andprocedure” in order to identify allmigrants anddetermine their status isvery positive. That entails the welcomed preservation of the differencebetween those in need of (international) protection and those not, adifferentiation needed as long as a qualitatively freer global migrationregimedoes not take shape. The text definitely extends to thosewho aredisplaced by “disasters and crisis”, which suggests that people fleeingnaturaldisasters,includingthe(forced)migrationinducedbyslowonsetorrapid environmental changes, is also subject to a “status determination”,whatever that statusmaybe.Theattention to certaingroupswith special(procedural) needs, like victims of trafficking, children, persons withgender-sensitivities,isexemplary.Negativeelements:Thelanguageoftheobjectiveisnotbasedonaclearuseof terms. Admitting that everything can not be jam-packed into fiveparagraphs, a short reference to other procedural needs of the migrants

(like suffering from PTSD) and to the cross-cultural communicationcapacities of the first responders and government officials in 12(b) and12(c)wouldbewellplaced.Itisunclearwhetheronlythefirst“referral”phaseofstatusdeterminationisgovernedbythisobjectiveoritsintentionistofixthebasicprinciplesofall status determination procedures, including those ending in removalfrom the territory or the opposite, namely the granting of refugee status.Theobjectiveremainssilentonthepossibilitytobelegallyrepresentedatall stages of the status determination procedures, including those notraisingissuesofinternationalprotection.TheobjectivesoftheCompactaspresently formulated do not contain cross-references either to otherobjectivesoftheCompactortotheGlobalCompactonRefugees(letalonetorelevanttreaties).Inthecontextofstatusdetermination,vulnerabilitiesaddressed in objective 7, detention discussed in objective 13 and thepreparation of the Global Compact on Refugees are of particularimportance,andperhapsshouldbementionedinobjective12.CommentaryGroupsofhumansarrivingattheborderaremixedandtheirentitlementsare different, depending on their life facts, whichmust be ascertained assoon as possible. Therefore, the intention of the objective to retain thedifferencebetweenrefugeesandothermigrantsiswelcomed.Similarly,thehumanrights-basedapproachcallingforaneffectiveprocedureandtimelyreferral isvital in lightof thepracticeofextremely longand,occasionally,meaninglessproceduresinsomejurisdictions.However,twotypesofuncertaintiesblurtheperimetersoftheobjective:(a) Does the objective only address the first encounter, the “bordermoment”when thoseapplying forprotectionand thosenotapplyingmaybe separated and referred to two different types of status determinationprocedures, or is the objective covering the substantive statusdeterminationprocedures aswell.Muchof the text suggests the first, butthe chapeau of the text and the reference to “all stages of the migrationcycle” suggest otherwise, as well as 12(c) which speaks of statusdeterminationmechanisms“including”-butthennotlimitedto-measuresattheborderandplacesoffirstarrival.(b) The other type of uncertainty relates to the terms used. The chapeauoncerefersto“allmigrants”,onceto“migrantsandrefugees”.Arerefugeesmigrantsornotinthiscontext?12(a)addsasylumseekerstorefugeesandmigrants and also those “displaced in the context of disasters and crisis”.

Areasylumseekersnotrefugees,andthereforearetheynotcoveredbythechapeau?Unlikely.InlightoftheEUacquis,onemayask:arebeneficiariesof subsidiary protection included in the term ‘refugees’? The choice ispainful:monotonoususeofterms,unattractivetotheeverydayreader,butlegallyintelligibleorflexibleuseofthewordswhichdonotallowclaimsoflegalcharactertobebasedontheobjective.The reference to those “displaced” in the context of disaster elegantlycircumvents the bitter debates on whether environmental or climaterefugees exist and points to the efforts of the Platform on Disaster Displacement5whichalsotranscendedthosedebates.Keepingthetextsuccinctisimportantbutafewfurtherguaranteesperhapsshouldbeprovided.Areferencetointerculturaleducationmaybesimilarlyimportant as the human rights training, as the humane treatment ofmigrants is preconditioned on the capability of those encountering thearrivingmigrants to understand theirmotivations, fears and behaviouralpatterns.Sincethisisanasymmetricsituation,thesamecannotbeexpectedfrom the migrant, meeting is not at halfway, the authorities and othersreceivingthemigrantsmustshowproactivenessandpreparedness.Accessto a lawyer in refugee status determination and foreign policingprocedures, which could possibly lead to expulsion and removal, isessential.Thisguaranteecouldfinditswaytothetext.If the objectives will not have cross-references to each other, then thesuggestiontorefertoatleastobjectives7and13ismoot.However,inlightofthefactthatstatusdeterminationisajuncturebetweenthisCompactandtheGlobalCompactonRefugees, thisrelationshipshouldbeclarifiedbothinthe languageusedand intheallocationofguaranteesbetweenthis textandtheotherCompact.OBJECTIVE13:UsemigrationdetentiononlyasalastresortandworktowardsalternativesDrJustineStefanelli,BritishInstituteofInternationalandComparativeLawPositiveelements:individualization.Thisisanexcellentandimportantpartof detention regulation. Making the decision to detain on a case-by-casebasis which takes into account the individual’s specific circumstancesforeclosesstates’abilitytodetaingroupsofpeoplebasedonmembershipinacategory,suchas‘foreignnationaloffender’,apracticethatiscarriedoutinmanystatestoday.Itensuresthatonlypeoplewhoabsolutelyneedtobe5https://disasterdisplacement.org

detainedaredetained,andcontributestotheoverallreductionoftheuseofdetention.Negativeelements:ThoughObjective13referstotheneedfordetentiontobe “for the shortest period of time”, it is disappointing to see that amaximum period of detention is not part of the Objective. This isexacerbatedbythelackofaduediligencerequirement,whichwouldensurethat states undertake migration processes with the utmost diligence,whether they be decisions to admit or to deport/remove. Without amaximum,people face indefinitedetentionandareoften reliantupon thewillofthestatetocarryouttherelevantprocess.CommentaryThe use of detention as a tool of immigration enforcement has become aroutinepartof immigrationcontrol,despiteevidenceofhumanrightsanddueprocessviolationsinmanystates.Objective13,whichseekstoensurethatdetentionisusedasalastresortandthatthefeasibilityofalternativesis fully explored, is a welcome addition to the UN Global Compact onMigration.Wheredetentionisused,Objective13requiresofficialstomakedetention determinations on an individual basis, taking into accountwhether detention is proportionate and necessary. The inclusion of anecessity requirement is particularly welcome and is absent from manylegal frameworks, such as that of theCouncil of Europe and itsEuropeanConventiononHumanRights.Therequirementofnecessityhelpstoreducethe use of detention by ensuring that alternatives are employed unless aspecific case necessarily merits the use of detention, for example, if theindividualposesahighriskofflight,orisagenuineandpresentdangertothecommunity.Objective 13 also requires states to take detention decisions “in fullcompliancewithdueprocessandproceduralsafeguards”,anotherwelcomeaddition, considering that so many states apply an inferior level of dueprocessprotections to immigrationdetainees.Detaineesshouldhave,asaminimum, the right to written reasons for detention, an opportunity torespondtoanyallegationsagainstthemandrightsofappealorreview.Despite these positives, Objective 13 lacks a few key provisions ondetentioninadditiontothelackofamaximumperiodnotedabove.Perhapsmost importantly, Objective 13 does not require states to establish amaximumperiodofdetention,but insteadstates thatdetentionshouldbe“fortheshortestperiodoftime”.Inaddition,animportantpartofensuringthatdetention fully complieswithdueprocess is the right toanattorney,

namelytolegalaid.Finally,arighttoautomaticjudicialreviewoftheordertodetainwouldhelptoensurethatdetentionisusedonlywhennecessary,thatitisproportionate,andthatdueprocessrequirementsarerespected.OBJECTIVE15:ProvideaccesstobasicsocialservicesformigrantsDr. Bethany Hastie, Peter A. Allard School of Law University of BritishColumbia,CanadaPositiveelements: Incorporationof firewalls.Objective15 includes,underparagraph (c), a recommendation that “firewalls” are set up betweenservice providers and immigration enforcement agencies. The concept of“firewalls”protects irregularlypresentmigrants,whomaydesireorneedaccess to public services, by prohibiting the sharing of client informationwith other public bodies, notably immigration enforcement authorities.Firewalls may be achieved through policies that prohibit informationsharingbetweenpublicbodies,prohibitreportingtoimmigrationorrelatedauthorities, or prohibit access to client information by immigration orrelatedauthorities.“Firewalls”areessentialinorderforirregularlypresentmigrants toseekoutandusenecessaryserviceswithout theever-presentthreat of denunciation and deportation, a threatwhich is a widely notedbarrierformigrantsaccessingservices.Negativeelements:Whileobjective15commitstoensuringtheaccessibilityofbasicsocialservices,includinghealthcare,education,housingandsocialprotection,theactionablecommentsfocusmostprominentlyonhealthcareand education, with no substantive commentary on housing, and nomentionofothernecessarypublicservices,suchas legalaid.Migrantsareknowntofacediscriminationinaccessinghousingandshelter,andtheyareoftenexcludedfromeligibilityforpubliclegalservicesandrepresentation.While Objective 15 includes recommendations to ensure non-discriminatoryaccesstoanddeliveryofbasicsocialservices,whichmightinclude housing and legal aid, the lack of specific commentary directedtowards these services establishes a failure to appreciate theinterconnectedneedsofmigrants,andprioritizesverybasicservicesoveraholistic approach to managing migrants’ needs experiences in a hostcountry.CommentaryObjective15,whichcommitsStatestodevelop“non-discriminatorypoliciesinordertoprovidemigrants,regardlessoftheirmigrationstatus,accesstoand ensure delivery of basic social services, including health care,

education, housing and social protection” is awelcome andmuch-neededrecommendationintheUNGlobalCompactonMigration.Migrants areoften, either formallyorpractically, excluded fromaccess topublic services, including health care, education, housing, legal aid, socialbenefits such as employment insurance, protection of law enforcementbodies,labourorganizations,andothers.Insomecases,migrants,especiallyirregularly present migrants, are formally excluded from entitlement tosuch services under law. In other cases, migrants who pay into publicschemes, such as temporary foreign workers, are later deprived of theability toaccess thosebenefits. Inmanycases,practicalbarriers toaccessanddeliveryofpublicservicesarisefromdiscriminatorytreatmentand,forirregularly presentmigrants, a fear of denunciation and deportation. It isimportanttorememberthat,underinternationallaw,migrantshaverightsthat correlate to an entitlement topublic services in areas such ashealthcare,education,non-discriminationinemployment,andothers.Objective15seekstoaddressthelegalandsocialbarriersmigrantsfaceinaccessing public services by recommending that States develop non-discriminatorypolicies to ensure access to anddeliveryof these services,andimportantly,byencouragingStatestoadopt“firewalls”betweenserviceproviders and immigration enforcement authorities. Firewalls operate toprohibit information sharing between service providers and immigrationenforcement authorities, in order to alleviate the fears that migrants,especially irregularly presentmigrants,may have in seeking out servicestheymay need. Firewalls can be achieved by prohibiting access to clientinformationbyimmigrationauthorities,prohibitingserviceprovidersfromreporting client information and immigration status to immigrationauthorities, and other measures. This is a significant step forward inalleviating the practical barriers migrants may face in accessing publicservices.However,Objective15doesnotdefinetheconceptof“firewalls”orprovidedetailedguidanceonhowStates canoperationalize firewalls, nor towhatbodies they should attach. This diminishes the potential impact that thisrecommendationmighthave,consideringthattherearemanymeasuresofvarying effectiveness that could be encompassed within the concept of“firewalls”, given also the many different kinds of public services thatmigrantsmayneedaccessto.Forexample,whilea“firewall”measuremightprohibit mandatory reporting on client immigration status by serviceproviders, a more effective measure would prohibit both voluntary andmandatory reporting. In addition, while objective 15 focuses on pressing

publicserviceneeds,suchashealthcareandeducation, firewallsoughttobe in place for a broad array of service providers, including in respect oflegal aid, housing, labour inspectors, and others. Finally, “firewalls”contemplate theprior collectionof immigration status information,whichmaynotbenecessaryinallcircumstances,andwhichcouldhavebeensetout in a complementary actionable comment to bolster the underlyingpurposeoftherecommendation.Objective15provides specific guidanceon issuesof access tohealth careand education, which undoubtedly represent pressing needs for manymigrants. However, by prioritizing these services, and failing to mentionotherimportantservices,suchasaccesstolegalcounsel,Objective15failstofullyappreciatetheinterconnectedneedsandexperiencesthatmigrantshavewhich couldbe addressed throughaccess to abroadarrayofpublicservices. Practical barriers for migrants accessing public services aredocumentedinrelationtolegalaid,protectionoflawenforcement,housing,social assistance andpublic insurance schemes, and labour organizations,among others. Needs related to these service areas may also beinterconnected; for example, a temporary migrant worker who isexperiencingabusivetreatmentmayrequireassistancefromlegalcounsel,temporary social assistance benefits, and potentially even shelter if theylive in employer-provided housing. A holistic approach to ensuring non-discriminatory and safe access to public services would highlight theinterconnectedandmyriadneedsmigrantshave, andemphasize theneedfor a response that acknowledges and accounts for the array of publicservices that might, together, provide an effective response to migrants’needs.Finally,Objective15prescribes that States shouldenact laws to explicitlyprohibitdiscriminationon “allgrounds, includingrace, colour,descent,ornationalorethnicorigin”.Whilethisisanimportantrecommendation,andmigrants are often subject to discriminationbased on these grounds, thisrecommendation would have been strengthened by prohibitingdiscrimination on the grounds of citizenship status, in at least areas offundamental and emergent need, such as access to basic or emergencyhealth care, primary education, emergency shelter, immediate policeassistance,andothers.Althoughmigrants’accesstopublicservicesshouldavoidaprioritizationorhierarchy,asnotedabove,excludingmigrantsfromfundamental and emergency services on the basis of citizenship statusproducesparticularly serious consequences. In relation to, at aminimum,services that are reflective of fundamental and universal rights under

internationallaw,non-discriminationoughttoincludecitizenshipstatusasaprotectedground.Objective17:Eliminateall formsofdiscriminationandpromotefact-basedpublicdiscoursetoshapeperceptionsofmigrationKathrynAllinson,PhDCandidateQueenMary,UniversityofLondonPositive elements: ‘Eliminating all forms of discrimination and promotingfact-based discourse’. The language is positive and highlights theabhorrence of discrimination, whether it be ‘expressions, acts ormanifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia or relatedintolerance against all migrants’. Moreover, encouraging States to ensurethat they have adequate legal frameworks in place in order to prevent,punishandremedysuchactsisanimportantstep.TakingforwardtheNewYork Declaration’s commitment to eradicating xenophobia and racism isalso essential in promoting a positive dialogue around migration. Theattentiontotheroleofthemedia,especiallythroughhonestandfact-basedreporting, is important in the current climate of populism and right-wingrhetoric.Thefocusonlocallevel,community-basedapproachtopreventingdiscriminationisalsoimportantasitisatthegrassrootswhererealchangeinperceptionscanbegin.Negativeelements:Theproposedaction isquitecoerciveandengages theprivate sector in particular. The focus on ‘shaping perceptions in publicdiscourse’ can be a positive step but it is only one part of eliminatingdiscrimination.ItisworryingthatObjective17doesnothighlightthelegalprinciple of non-discrimination, by which States are bound to treatmigrants equally to citizens, as the starting point of eliminatingdiscrimination. While the first sentence of para 31 could relate toobligationsonStatestoeliminatediscriminationintheirpolicies,and17(e)proposes regional complaint mechanisms, the principle of non-discrimination and its centrality in this issue is not made clear. Thecommitmenttoeliminatingdiscriminationmuststarthere.CommentaryOn the one hand, the objective aspires to be ‘in conformity withinternational human rights law’ (IHRL) but, on the other hand, it fails toaddress the role of the State in applying its laws non-discriminatorilytowards migrants. Nowhere else in the Zero Draft is discriminationexplicitly addressed, although it is mentioned in Objective 13 relating todetention, in Objective 15 in relation to access to social services and

Objective16(d)topromoteinclusion.Thecentralityoftheprincipleofnon-discriminationintheapplicationofIHRLandineliminatingdiscriminationisundisputed,yetinadequatelyaddressedinObjective17.The focus appears to be on how State’s can reduce discriminationwithintheir society. It fails to address the centrality of non-discrimination ofmigrants in the application of the law and protection of their rights asoutlinedinArticle2ofICCPRandHRCGeneralCommentNo15(1986). IfState’s stopped undermining the principle of non-discrimination in theirapplication of the law towards migrants, then public discourse andperceptions would follow. States cannot just ‘talk the talk’ of non-discrimination,theymustalsostopusingamigrant’sstatusasamechanismfordenyingorlimitingtheiraccesstohumanrightsandprotection.Discriminationisthebasisofmigrantvulnerability,as itunderminestheiraccess to human rights protection and pushes them into a position ofvulnerability.Amigrant’svulnerabilitytorefusalofadmissionorremoval,basedupontheirstatus,iskeytojustificationsfordiscrimination.Itisthisvulnerabilitythatleadsthemtoacceptlimitationsontheirwidergamutofrights.Statesjustifythisdenialofrightsbyclassifyingadifferencebetweenmigrants and citizens, where no such difference is permitted underinternationallaw.Asaresult,whileObjective17takesanimportantsteptowardseliminatingdiscrimination vis-a-vis migrants within society, this cannot be donewithout firstly a change in the practises of States in ensuring theircompliancewith international legal standards relating to the principle ofnon-discrimination. Only then can real change start to happen in publicpolicyanddiscourse.OBJECTIVE18:Investinskillsdevelopmentandfacilitaterecognitionofskills,qualificationsandcompetencesE. Fornalé, F. Cristani, A. Yildiz, World Trade Institute, University of Bern,SwitzerlandPositive elements: It is very positive that the draft includes reference tomigrantworkersatallskillslevel.Thiscanmakeasignificantcontributionto prevent the so-called de-skilled phenomenon and to fill existingprotection gaps between highly skilled and low skilled migrant workers,and it can open up possibilities for cross-border employment to anincreasednumberofmigrantworkers. Similarly, the recognitionof globalstandardsandstandardizeddocumentationiscrucialformigrantworkers.

Negative elements: It could be dangerous if it is not made clear that allmigrant workers, regular or irregular, have access to recognitionprocedures. In none of the Objective’s clauses is any reference made toincluding regulated/not-regulated professions. There seems also that theZeroDraftlacksareferenceaboutwhatkindofrecognitionitisaddressing,whether professional or academic or other. Treating them all the samecouldaddtoconfusionratherthanclarity.Moreover,thepresentObjectivedoesnot seem topayattention to thedistinctionbetween temporaryandpermanentmigrationwhendealingwithskillsrecognition.CommentarySubstantiallevel:themajorityofrecognitionapproachesortechniquesaimto ensure the equivalence among different regulatory systems. Severalattemptstoputinplaceharmonizationhavefailed.Amoregradualprocessneedstobeestablishedwhichwillaimatharmonisationinthefuturesincethis is more realistic. The focus on “innovative instruments” is veryrelevant.Thiscanpromotethedevelopmentofnewstrategiesandre-newtheattentionon thecurrentquiteproblematic implementationofexistinginstruments.Procedural level: The instruments mentioned are very well suited forensuring the recognitionofhighly skilledmigrantworkers. It is less clearunder which agreement low-skilled migrants workers can be reallyincluded. The potential of MRAs can be more beneficial if there is aconnectionwithmigrationmeasures.What appears very positive is the clear recognition of the need to put inplaceanormativeframeworkattheinternationallevelthatcansupporttherecognition process in a structural way. The reference to existinginstruments, such as bilateral labour mobility and mutual recognitionagreements,ornewapproaches,suchasglobalskillspartnership,isagoodsign in this direction. In fact, these instruments, with their ‘mutualcomponent’, have the potential to promote a progressive reallocation ofregulatoryauthorityfromthehostcountrytothecountryofdestinationinrecognitionofthequalificationsandskillsofmigrantworkers.Tobemoreinclusive,therecognitionprocessneedstoincludeabroadersetof participants. The identification of the ‘relevant stakeholders’, whichnational governments should engage with, is not very clear. There is acompleteabsenceofanyreference toprofessionalorganizations: itwould

be extremely difficult to implement any kind of agreement/procedure iftheywerenotinvolvedintheestablishmentoftheprocedureforregulatedprofessions.Employersneedtobetrainedandinvolvedtoo,andtobereadytorecognizeacquiredcompetencesinunregulatedsectors,inparticular.Skills recognition and skills matching: Increasing data collection throughmeticulous analysis of market needs to be emphasized, since it is notpossibletofullyassesswhatskills,atwhatlevelareneededatthemoment.Thisisimportantinordertomitigateskillsshortagesandtocreateaglobalplatformonskills.Atthemoment,theoverallskillsmatchingsystemseemstostandabitinthebackground.Inparticular,itisnotveryclearwhetheritalso includes the improvement of local training (in host countries) formigrantswith foreignqualifications inorder tomake themmeet the localprofessionalstandards.BestPractices:Itisofgreatrelevancetoincreasedatacollectionofexistingapproachesinordertogetanoverviewonwhatisreallyworkingandwhataffects their implementation. In the same vein, it is important that thepotential implicationsof adoptinga top-downorbottom-upapproachareexplored. Moreover, one should carefully consider the role forcompensatory measures. These instruments can fill potential gaps andallowmigrantworkerstoacquiremissingcompetences.Additionaldataonexistingpracticesisneeded.Education:TheObjectivelackscoordinationwiththetrainingandeducationsystem; differences in education systems at the national level should beaddressed as a first step. ‘Building global skills partnerships amongstcountriesthatstrengthentrainingcapacities’ isyetnotveryclearwhetherthisincludesalsotheissueofeducation,andwhoshouldparticipateinthe‘skillspartnership.’Financial mechanisms are needed to increase partnerships in skillsdevelopment, trainingandcertificateprogrammes. Inaddition, the roleofrecruitment agencies, especially the fact that they receive payments frommigrant workers rather than from employers, seems to be inadequatelyaddressed.Thispracticegiveslabourrecruitersanincentivetoplacethoseworkerswhopaythelargestfeeratherthantheworkerswiththebestskillsforthejob.Overall,thetopicofrecognitionseemstobealittlefragmentedintheZeroDraft. Specifically, we can find some hints also in Objective 19, namelyactionablecommitment(c)and(h)asregardsknowledgeandskillstransfer

ofmigrantsanddiasporas,inObjective21,namelyactionablecommitment(i) as regards the issue of skills recognition in case of readmission andreintegration and inObjective 5, namely actionable commitments (e) and(h)asregardsthepossibilitytoreducevisaprocessingtimeframesinordertofosterefficientandeffectiveskills-matchingprogrammesandtheexplicitinvolvement of the ‘private sector and trade unions’ in skills-matchingprocedures.However,inObjective18thesetopicsareeithernotmentionedornotfullyaddressed.Objective 19: Create conditions for migrants and diasporas to fullycontributetosustainabledevelopmentinallcountries.TugbaBasaran,CentredEtudessurlesconflits,laliberteetlasecurite,Paris;visitingscholarHarvardUniversityPositiveelements:ItisimportanttoempowermigrantsanddiasporasandharnesstheirbenefitsfortheSustainableDevelopmentGoals.Negativeelements: Migrantsanddiaspora financialcontributionsaccountalready tomore than three times the official development assistance andmore foreign direct investments to almost every developing country. Thecontributionsofmigrantsanddiasporasshouldnotbeusedasasubstitutefor other forms of assistance and investments or as a way to diminishresponsibilities of international cooperation. Further, it needs to beunderlinedthatdiasporasarecitizensoftheirrespectivecountries,apointof contestation in public and popular discourse, particularly in times ofsecuritization.Hence,itisusefultoemployawordingthatemphasizesthecitizencomponent,suchasmigrantandcitizens(withdiasporiclinks).CommentaryInmanycountrieswhichperceivethemselvesasdestinationsformigrants,in particular for migrants from less wealthy countries, the issue ofintegration is vivid. The underlying assumption of the public policy ofintegrationofmigrantsisthatmigrantsshouldbecomepartofcivilsocietyin the countrywhere they live and shouldnot only complywith the laws(criminal,civilandadministrative)butalsoadapttothesocialnormswhichare dominant in their ‘host’ country. Yet, a definition of integration is aselusiveas thedefinitionofdiaspora.Whatdoes itmean tobe integrated?Howisthismeasured?Whatdoesamigrantneedtodotobeintegrated?Allof these questions depend onwhat the definition of integration is. Therehavebeensomeeffortstodesigntoolstomeasure integrationwhichhavebeenwellfundedbyinstitutionsbutnonethelesshavebeenmuchcriticised

by the academic community. At the crux of the debate is the elusivedefinition of integration – the lack of clear content to definitions usedmeansthatthemeasurementsareflawed.Oneapproachadoptedbysomeresearchers is to carry out surveys of whether citizens consider thatmigrantsare integratedbut thisapproach isequally flawedas thepersoninterviewedineffectbecomesthearbiterofwhatintegrationmeans.6Objective 20: Promote faster, safer and cheaper transfer ofremittancesandfosterfinancialinclusionofmigrantsTugbaBasaran,CentredEtudessurlesconflits,laliberteetlasecurite,Paris;visitingscholarHarvardUniversityPositive elements: The Zero Draft correctly underlines that the cost ofremittancesistoohighandneedstomeetthe3percenttarget,setfortheSDGs. It rightly emphasizes how the reduction of the cost of remittancesrequires ‘removing obstacles to non-bank remittance providers’ andensuring that measures ‘to combat illicit financial flows do not impedemigrantremittances’.Negative elements: It needs to be stressed that the cost of remittancesshouldnotbedependentofthelegalstatusoftheperson,whethercitizenormigrant,regularorirregular.Fullfinancialinclusioninbothoriginandhostcountry should be promoted. This includes the inclusion of non-bankremittanceand/oralternativeregulationsaswellas theavailabilityof therequireddocumentationforaccessingformalchannelsforremittances.Further, family remittances should be understood as person-to-persontransfers: sender and receivers of personal remittances should not bedisadvantaged as ‘representatives’ of a country. Particularly recentpropositions to tax remittances, to collect taxes for a border wall, toenhance sanctions or to show other forms of disagreement with thegovernmentand/orpoliciesofaremittance-receivingstateareoffensivetoindividualneeds.Personalremittancesshouldbeexemptedfrominter-statepoliticalfactorsandreasons.Commentary:In spite of progress, the cost of remittances remains above the 3 percenttargetsetintheSustainableDevelopmentGoals,withsubstantialvariancesacross the globe. The average cost of remittances is close to 8 percent,6Paas,Tiiu,andVivikaHalapuu."Attitudestowardsimmigrantsandtheintegrationofethnicallydiversesocieties."EasternJournalofEuropeanStudies3.2(2012).

ranging toup to20percent in someof thehighest cost corridors in Sub-Saharan Africa and Pacific Islands (World Bank2016). These areunnecessary losses, particularly for low-income migrants. Fosteringfinancial inclusionofmigrants,bothincountriesoforiginanddestination,expanding the outreach of financial markets, reducing regulatory andsecurityobstaclesandenhancing technological innovationsare crucial forfaster,saferandcheapertransferorremittances.OBJECTIVE 21: Cooperate in facilitating dignified and sustainablereturn,readmissionandreintegrationDr.IzabellaMajcher,GlobalDetentionProject,GenevaPositiveelements:Thereiterationoftheprohibitionofcollectiveexpulsion;the prioritization of the voluntary return over forced return; agreementsforreturntotheperson’scountryoforigin;guardianshipforchildren.Negative elements: The lack of explicit reference to the principle of non-refoulement(21(e)isnotsufficientlyclear);silenceontherighttorespectforfamilyorprivatelifedevelopedinthehostcountry;possibilitytoreturnchildrento“receptionandcarearrangement”inthirdcountriesratherthantotheirfamilies;enhancedcooperationonidentificationwiththecountriesoforiginwithoutadequatesafeguards.CommentaryObjective21enshrinesseveral laudableprinciplesyet, inoverall, itplacesdisproportionatelymoreattentionontheprocessofreturnandpost-returnreintegration than the legal safeguards preventing return. Besides, theRefugee Convention’s scheme of protection addressed in the GlobalCompact on Refugees, international human rights law provides for anumber of safeguards precluding return. As the recently appointed UNSpecialRapporteurontheHumanRightsofMigrantsstressedinfrontoftheGeneral Assembly in October 2017, while “refugees need protectionaccording to the 1951 refugee convention […] all migrants need theprotectionoftheirrightsaccordingtointernationalhumanrightslaw.”Thisbriefcommentaryaddressesthesethreestagesofreturn.Firstofall,returncannotbecarriedoutifitwouldviolatetheprohibitionofnon-refoulement.UnderArticles3oftheCATand7oftheICCPR,nopersoncanbe sent to a countrywherehe faces a riskof tortureor ill-treatment.Thisprohibition is absolute.Everyperson is afforded theprotection fromnon-refoulement principle, irrespective of theperson’s conduct. Secondly,

pursuanttoarticle17oftheICCPR,migrantsshouldnotbereturnedifthiswould constitute a disproportionate interference with their family andprivate life developed in the host state. If children are involved, theprincipleof thebest interestsof the childunderArticle3of theCRCmayweighagainstexpulsionofoneofhisparents.Paragraph(e)fallsthusshortof states’ international human rights obligations. The mentioning of dueprocess guarantees in the same paragraph is welcome. Indeed, Article 2para3of the ICCPR laysdown the right toeffective remedy,which in thecontext of return entails the provision of sufficient information aboutfactual and legal reasons for one’s return, possibility to challenge returndecision,andsuspensiveeffectofappeal.Dependingonthecase, therightto effective remedy may also require granting legal and linguisticassistance.In terms of the process of return, it is very welcome that paragraph (d)prioritizes voluntary return over forced removal. Yet, it is not merelyethicallysoundbutimpliedfromtheprincipleofproportionality,premisedupon the very rule of law, to allow the person leavewithout escort. It islaudablethatObjective21requiressafe,humanrights-basedanddignifiedreturn. Inthecontextof forcedreturn,theseprinciplesaretranslatedintothecompliancewithstrictnecessityandproportionalitytest inrelationtothe use and amount of restraint methods and force. Prohibition of ill-treatment and unlawful deprivation of life under Articles 6 and 7 of theICCPRimpliesalsoeffectiveinvestigationintoallegationsofunlawfulforcedapplied during deportation. Cooperation on identification, focused on inparagraph (b), raises several protection concerns and should never besought in relation to rejected asylum seekers. Readmission agreements,dealtwith inparagraph(a),shouldbeapplicableonlybasedon individualassessmentofanyrisksawaitingthepersonuponreturn.Theprohibitionofnon-refoulementprincipleprecludesanygeneralizedlistsofsafecountries.It is welcome that paragraph (a) speaks about agreements on return toone’s own country. Yet, the termsof paragraph (g) tend topoint that thereturn toa thirdcountry isnotprecluded inObjective21.Return toaso-calledsafethirdcountryposesariskofchainrefoulementandmayonlybecarriedout followingacase-by-caseassessmentofsafetyof theparticularcountry for the particular person. In terms of return of children, it isregrettable that paragraph (g) reflects the language of the EU ReturnsDirectiveandallowsreturnofchildren tobroadlyphrased“receptionandcare arrangement.” Objective 21 rightly underscores the prohibition ofcollectiveexpulsion.Indeed,byvirtueofArticle13oftheICCPR,statesareboundtoassesstheindividualcircumstancesofeverymigrantreturnedinagroup.Monitoring,addressedinparagraph(f),isacrucialsafeguardagainst

ill-treatmentandshouldbecarriedoutduringremovalanduponarrivaltothedestinationcountry.Finally, the post-return reintegration phase is properly developed inObjective 21. In fact, half of the paragraphs emphasize sustainablereintegration. It is commendable that Objective 21 highlights that safetyupon return, economic empowerment, and inclusion are necessary forsustainable reintegration and calls for provision of legal, social, andfinancial support to returnees. Likewise, addressing the needs ofcommunitiestowhichmigrantreturnsisverywelcome.EffectiveImplementationFollowUpandReviewProfessor Elspeth Guild, Queen Mary University of London, Stefanie Grant,LondonSchoolofEconomicsandSandraLavenex,UniversityofGenevaFollowingtheobjectives,theZeroDraftturnstoimplementationandfollowup.TheZeroDraftacknowledgesfromtheoutsetthattheCompactwillbeanon-legally binding, cooperative frameworkwhich builds on theMemberStates commitments in the New York Declaration. So, within thisframework of non-legally binding commitments, the follow up isnecessarily framed in terms of the undertaking of states to comply withtheir voluntarily given commitments. Still, the Draft uses the language ofactionablecommitmentswhichindicatesthattheUNanditsMemberStatesdepend on all states carrying out their duties as set out in the Compact.Highlightingcapacitybuildingisusefulfromoneperspectiveinthatitisanindicationoftheimportanceofimplementation.However,capacitybuildingmustnotbeanexcusetocriticizecountriesandregionsforestablishingfreemovementregionswithoutborderandpassportcontrolsonmovementofpersons. Where countries and regions implement such passport controlfree regimes, this must be accepted as compatible with the Compact.Pressureshouldnotbeplacedonanystatetohardenitsbordercontrolsonthe movement of persons merely because some other country, often noteven sharing a border with it, is reluctant to admit people entering orsuspectedofenteringtheirterritoryfromthatcountry.ThecommitmentofallstatestoupholdtheUDHRandtheICCPRincludesdeliveringtherightofall persons to leave a state irrespective of the nationality of the personleavingorwhetherthedestinationstatehasagreedaprioritotheperson’sentrythere(Article12(2)ICCPR).The Zero Draft also recognizes the need to form partnerships with civilsociety,migrantsanddiasporagroups.Thisisveryimportanttoensurethatthereisconsensuswithinsocietyontherightsofmigrants.Notinfrequently

someinteriorministriesbecomedistancedfromtheday-to-dayrealitiesofmovement of persons – both their own citizens and the citizens of othercountries.Civil society canbeausefulpartner inassessing theneedsandprioritiesofmigrants.TheDraftrecognizesthattheCompactwillprovidesubstantial impetustotheUNtoengagewithmigrationandcallsfortheinvestmentofresourcesinthearea.ThisincludesstrengtheningtheroleofIOMbutwiththeprovisothat it is fullywithin theUN system,whichmustmean that IOM formallyundertakes to respect UN human rights standards and ensure its actionsare fully compliant. Further, the Draft calls for a State-led process foradvancing international dialogue on migration with specific reference tosomeexistingUN institutions.Peer-to-peerassessmentof implementationofUNobjectivescanbeaveryeffectivewaytoencouragecompliancewithStates’ voluntarily made commitments. The Human Rights Council’sUniversal Periodic Review is an excellent example of how valuable suchpeer-to-peerapproachescanbe;evenacursorylookatthelatestreviewofcountries in January 2018 reveals that the issue of migration and statecompliance with human rights standards in respect of migration is arecurring theme. States pose probing questions to one another aboutcompliance with human rights standards, which permit the airing ofconcerns,thereiterationofstandardsandreviewofnationalpracticesinapositive and State-ledprocess.Utilising the findings of theUPR to informstate-to-statereviewofmigrationcommitmentscontained in theCompactandhumanrightsstandardsmightbeuseful;itwouldalsoavoidtheriskofduplication between the Compact and the work of the Human RightsCouncil. It might include adding an additional reporting function to themandateofsomeCouncilexperts–forexample,theSpecialRapporteursonmigrants,on the right tohealth, to food, toeducation,onviolenceagainstwomen,andontrafficking-toenablethemtocontributetotheCompact’sfollowupandreviewprocess.Further, regarding follow up and review, the Zero Draft proposes a roadmapof institutionsanddeadlines for reviewof theCompact.This ismostwelcome.The choiceof venue isone for theUN todetermine,however itseems appropriate to develop existing venues and extend their capacitiesandresponsibilities.Also,theinclusionofaplaceforregionaldevelopmentsisveryimportant.Itisclearthattheliberalisationofmigrationandbordercontrols on the movement of persons seems to benefit from regionalagreementswhichmaybemoreeasilyachieved thanat theUN level.Thepossibilityofknitting together regionalmigrationandborder control free(or light) regimes is tantalising and possibly very fruitful. In this respect,

greater coordination of existing regional institutions regulating freemovement,bordercooperation,butalsoregionalhumanrightsandrefugeeprotection frameworks would be welcome. As the cases of the EuropeanUnion and of ECOWAS show, regional integration framework, with theirconsolidated institutional base, broad mandate and genuine regionalownership may provide fertile anchors for comprehensive regionalmigration governance –more than the relatively loosely institutionalized,frequentlyexternallydrivenRegionalConsultationProcesseshighlightedinthefinalsectionoftheZeroDraft.These comments are initial and do not cover the full extent of the ZeroDraft. The contributors, in their personal capacities, have provided asnapshot of their preliminary views. We welcome the debate andnegotiation of the Compact in the months to come and remain at thedisposal of the international community to provide more analysis andcomment.11February2018