Introduction

Throughout the twentieth century, international migration policies and principles have been dominated by the nationalist/consequentialist paradigm (Piché, forthcoming; Ruhs and Chang, 2004). This paradigm is based on two fundamental principles: first, international migration policies are the exclusive prerogative of national states (national sovereignty); and second, they are geared towards national interests (immigration must thus have positive economic consequences). One notable breach with respect to national sovereignty is the Geneva Convention (1950) whereby States Parties have accepted international standards and multilateral management of refugee protection.

Although ‘virtually all migration policies affect the enjoyment of recognized human rights’ (Fitzpatrick, 2003, p. 169), the connection between international migration and human rights is relatively recent and can be traced back to the early work of the ILO and, in particular, the 1949 Migration for Employment Convention. However, the basic instrument in human rights of migrants is the ICRMW, which was adopted by the UN in 1990 and came into force thirteen years later, on 1 July 2003, after ratification by twenty signatory countries. As was the case with women and children, the adoption of this specific convention by the international community targeted the human rights protection of a particularly vulnerable group: non-citizens (workers and members of their families). Since the Convention came into force, twenty-one other states have ratified it (bringing the number of ratifications to forty-one as of June 2009) and campaigns geared towards ratification are under way in several countries.