INTRODUCTION

The previous chapter traced the development of cooperative migration control and its impact on the socio-economic rights of people on the move. It showed that sponsor States in the Global North increasingly cooperate with partner States in the Global South to stem migration flows without triggering their obligations towards people on the move. This raises the question to what extent this endeavour is successful. Therefore, the first research question that this study seeks to answer is: what is the scope of States’ international obligations as regards the socio-economic rights of people on the move in the context of cooperative migration control? This and the following two chapters address this issue. This chapter proposes a conceptualisation of State obligations which provides the background for the next two chapters, which will examine the obligations of partner States and sponsor States respectively. In other words, while Chapter III analyses various concepts and principles that serve to delimit the scope of States’ obligations at a general level, Chapters IV and V apply its findings to partner and sponsor States in the context of cooperative migration control.

As this chapter proposes a general conceptualisation of State obligations regarding socio-economic rights under international human rights law, it takes the ICESCR as its starting point. As the following analysis will show, the guidance provided by the CESCR is an important but not determining factor in interpreting States’ obligations. Other international and regional human rights treaties, especially the ICCPR, as well as the interpretations off ered by their respective monitoring bodies, also play an important role. Where relevant, the analysis further takes into account the New York Declaration and Global Compacts and examines the publications of leading experts in the field to help clarify the scope of States’ obligations.

Section 2 starts by discussing the preliminary issue of the relation between economic, social and cultural rights on the one hand and civil and political rights on the other. It seeks to transcend the traditional dichotomy between the two categories of rights by showing the relevance of each category for the other.