9:00 AM - 1:00 PM
[1Z110] Comparative Research on the Function of United Nations Organizations in the International Migration
Keywords:Labour Migration , The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration , Indonesia, ILO, IOM
The establishment of "safe and orderly" migration corridors has been emphasized in international labor migration research from a human security perspective. This study conducts a systematic literature review of official documents of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) for the period 2014-2023, before and after the adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM), focusing on the initiatives in Indonesia. The following questions are explored:(i) How do the ILO and IOM approach the establishment of "safe and secure" labor migration corridors in Indonesia from a human security perspective?(ii) What changes have occurred in policy approaches to worker protection and capacity building before and after the adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) (2018)?(iii) How are specific recommendations and outcomes at the national, regional and community levels described in terms of individual protection and rights guarantees?
The differences between the founding backgrounds and mandates of the ILO and IOM were clear. First, the ILO took the approach of making recommendations as a common global agenda, while the IOM took a more diverse approach through individual program activities. Second, in terms of the ideal approach to recruitment, the ILO's "fair recruitment" was based on workers' rights, while the IOM's "ethical recruitment" took into account the concomitant fairness from the respective perspectives of employers, migrant workers and recruiters. Third, with regard to the implementation of the recommendations, the ILO provides expertise resulting from monitoring based on international standards, while the IOM works with the government to implement them through the implementation of program activities.The ILO claims that it already meets the objectives of the GCM, which were formulated later and have not changed since the adoption of the GCM. IOM, on the other hand, claims that it has been actively adapting to the GCM since its adoption.
In summary, although both organizations are working towards the common goal of achieving "safe, orderly and regular migration", the normative approach of the ILO and the empirical approach of the IOM suggest a difference and cooperation between the two organizations is important.
The differences between the founding backgrounds and mandates of the ILO and IOM were clear. First, the ILO took the approach of making recommendations as a common global agenda, while the IOM took a more diverse approach through individual program activities. Second, in terms of the ideal approach to recruitment, the ILO's "fair recruitment" was based on workers' rights, while the IOM's "ethical recruitment" took into account the concomitant fairness from the respective perspectives of employers, migrant workers and recruiters. Third, with regard to the implementation of the recommendations, the ILO provides expertise resulting from monitoring based on international standards, while the IOM works with the government to implement them through the implementation of program activities.The ILO claims that it already meets the objectives of the GCM, which were formulated later and have not changed since the adoption of the GCM. IOM, on the other hand, claims that it has been actively adapting to the GCM since its adoption.
In summary, although both organizations are working towards the common goal of achieving "safe, orderly and regular migration", the normative approach of the ILO and the empirical approach of the IOM suggest a difference and cooperation between the two organizations is important.
Password authentication.
Password is required to view the papers. Please enter a password to authenticate.