Abstract
The Convention is examined from the triple perspective of its conclusions, the content of its provisions and their likely effects on protections proffered migrants and their families. It is argued that the Convention is unlikely to improve substantially upon protection over and beyond that offered by existing instruments, particularly those of the International Labour Organization (ILO). The major reasons for this are the retention of a wide scope of discretion by sovereign states in immigration policy matters and a world order generally poorly suited to protection of the weak and disinherited.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
