Introduction
The issue of transnational migration was particularly acute after the tragedy in 2015, when estimated 800 migrants drowned in a single day. That massive migration was provoked by a range of factors: the Syrian civil war, the disintegration of Iraq, and instabilities in the Horn of Africa and its Great Lakes region. It turned out to be a global challenge for international relations, as there were no binding treaties nor a global institutional structure to face the problem. This particular case showed the constraints of national regulatory capacities and the urgency of better governance in the field. The aim of this paper is to question the sufficiency of the UN according to transnational crisis in the world.
What is the Actual Governance of Migration?
Considering the United Nations as a primarily responsible on the migration policy, there should be given a close view of its system. It runs such institutions as the International Organization for Migration’s, the formal establishment of the Office of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for International Migration, and the institutionalization of the UN High-Level Dialogue on Migration and Development. Still further, in the field of transnational migration there are such instruments as the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, the associated UN refugee agency, regional agreements and nation¬al-level asylum laws, and a set of non¬governmental organizations committed to humanitarian assistance and refugee resettlement. Although the International Organi-zation for Migration was established about the same time as the UN Refugee Agency, it remained outside the United Nations system.
Is that enough?
In order to resolve the problem and give an adequate response, it is essential to establish an interaction between States, inter-governmental organisations, local governments and non-state actors . This could be achieved only by creating a binding legal agreement not based on the “willing factor”, but by forcing countries to cooperate on the global, supranational, national and regional levels. The concept of multi-level governance was first formulated by Marks to explain the increasing prominence of subnational authorities in the decision-making and implementation processes. (Panizzon) Complex interaction, one in which local authorities and non-state actors are in some instances bypassing State-led interventions. Even the EU Member States create alliances outside the constraint of the EU legal and institutional framework, preferring intergovernmental cooperation. This is evident in the Turkey deal, the EU Compacts and EU mobility partnerships.
127 our experts are availableright now
Conclusion
While the UN centralizes and strengthens its institutional capacities to handle the growing challenges of global mobility, its focus should be on supporting a new client. The UN’s function is not to lead but to support, and to do so through ‘facilitative orchestration’ based on a web of relationships ‘convening, facilitating, legitimating, negotiating…and otherwise interacting’ with States and other stakeholders (Abbott and Snidal 2010, 573). Multi-level governance is thus revealing for the future handling of migration governance, because the global migration policy arena is increasingly capable of serving as a seed bank of policy ideas that can be drawn upon for national and regional policy innovations.
