Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights

This article maps the global governance processes on migration and assesses whether the human rights of migrants are effectively included and mainstreamed therein. It is argued that the lack of a comprehensive framework for migration governance and the insufficient focus on the human rights dimension in migration management have led to serious human rights violations in the treatment of migrants and asylum seekers, and to a lack of oversight and accountability when these violations occur. The article commences with an examination of the legal and normative framework related to the three areas that have been the main objects of global migration governance: the refugee regime, international labour standards and transnational criminal law regarding human trafficking. It goes on to explore the complex institutional framework of global migration governance and how it has been mostly informal, ad hoc, non-binding and State-led. The article concludes with a discussion on the future perspectives for a human rights-centred approach in global migration governance. It is contended that there is a need to bring the migration dialogue inside the United Nations, as it already plays a key role in international cooperation, with human rights as one of its pillars.

Although Transnational Corporations (TNCs) enjoy rights alongside sovereign States, such as the right to arbitrate in international investment disputes, the idea of holding them to account for alleged human violations has been elusive. While there are renewed efforts at the UN Human Rights Council towards an international legally binding instrument aimed at holding TNCs accountable for violations of international human rights standards, this article explores and analyses the usefulness of a Multi-Stakeholder Initiative (MSI) approach in this process. Accordingly, it seeks to reformulate the debate on the accountability of TNCs by affirming a MSI engagement as a workable complementary process, which – although it is being downgraded in most literature on TNCs and human rights accountability – might nevertheless provide best possible outcomes for such a heated subject. Drawing on examples from the Kimberley Process and the global fight against conflict diamonds, it will be argued that despite that fact that MSIs are not an entire replacement of hard-law solutions to global regulatory challenges, they do in principle offer a legitimate and useful approach to the human rights accountability of TNCs.

The innovative use of the general doctrines and the nature of the European Convention on Human Rights as a living instrument have enabled the progressive protection of immigrants. This research illustrates how the immigration case law of the European Court of Human Rights has been evolving in the past years. The development of the immigration jurisprudence of the ECtHR has connection to EU law and general concepts of international law, such as the best interest of child. In addition, the recent case law on positive obligations is contributing to discussion over the reception conditions of asylum seekers. The Strasbourg jurisprudence sets a minimum standard for the European immigration policy that should be taken into account even in exceptional circumstances.