The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families reflects a compromise between guaranteeing migrants international human rights and acknowledging state sovereignty. Notwithstanding a laudable attempt to provide in the Convention a comprehensive international regime for the protection of the migrant workers, the Convention is not an unmixed blessing. To illustrate, while the Convention creates new rights, it also limits some rights migrant workers already had under existing international human rights instruments. Also, the Convention's terminology and language suffer from ambiguities and are likely to cause uncertainty due to varying interpretations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AddisonJohnSiebertW. Stanley1991“The Social Charter of the European Community: Evolution and Controversies,”Industrial and Labor Relations Law Review, 44: 597.
2.
AnsayTugrul1991“The New UN Convention in Light of the German and Turkish Experience,”International Migration Review, 25 (4): 831–847.
3.
BohningRoger1991“The ILO and the New UN Convention on Migrant Workers: The Past and Future,”International Migration Review, 25 (4): 698–709.
4.
BosniakLinda1991“Human Rights, State Sovereignty and the Protection of Undocumented Migrants under the International Migrant Workers Convention,”International Migration Review, 25 (4): 737–770.
5.
BrubakerRogers1991“Conference Report — International Migration: A Challenge for Humanity,”International Migration Review, 25 (4): 946–957.
6.
HasenauMichael1991“ILO Standards on Migrant Workers: The Fundamentals of the UN Convention and Their Genesis,”International Migration Review, 25 (4): 687–697.
7.
HeislerBarbara1992“The Future of Immigrant Incorporation: Which Model? Which Concepts?”, International Migration Review, 26 (2): 633.
8.
HeltonArthur C.1991“The New Convention from the Perspective of a Country of Asylum: The U.S. Case,”International Migration Review, 25(4): 848–858.
9.
HuneShirley1991“Migrant Women in the Context of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families,”International Migration Review, 25(4): 800–817.
10.
International Labour Organisation1980aMigrant Workers: General Survey by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations. International Labour Conference, 66th Session, Report III, Part 4B. Geneva: ILO.
11.
International Labour Organisation1980bRole and Place of the ILO in the Restructured UN System, Governing Body, 212th Session, ILO document GB. 212/IO/1/8. Geneva: ILO.
12.
International Labour Organisation1971Record of Proceedings of the Fifty-Sixth Session of the International Labour Conference 1971. Geneva: ILO.
13.
International Labour Organisation1966Conventions and Recommendations Adopted by the International Labour Conference 1919–1966. Geneva: ILO.
14.
International Labour Organisation1919“The First Session of the International Labour Conference.”ILO Official Bulletin, 1:408–50.
15.
KojanecGiovanni1991“The UN Convention and the European Instruments for the Protection of Migrants,”International Migration Review, 25(4):818–830.
16.
Layton-HenryZig, ed. 1990The Political Rights of Migrant Workers in Western Europe. London: Sage.
17.
LillichRichard1984The Human Rights of Aliens in Contemporary International Law. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
18.
LonnrothJuhani1991“The International Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families in the Context of International Migration Policies: An Analysis of Ten Years of Negotiation,”International Migration Review, 25 (4): 710–736.
19.
NafzigerJamesBartelBarry1991“The Migrant Workers Convention: Its Place in Human Rights Law.”International Migration Review, 25(4):687–697.
20.
SchermersHenry1984“The Second Generation of Immigrants,”Michigan Law Review, 82:1415.
