The International Labour Organization and the North–South divide over global migration governance (1971–1975)
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 24030228 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Simone Paoli (University of Pisa, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Pages | 1-20 |
| Publication date | 2026-08-13 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Third World Quarterly (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0143-6597 • E-ISSN: 1360-2241 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/01436597.2026.2708896 |
| OpenAlex | W7112224165 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 10 |
Drawing primarily on primary sources, this article applies the policy cycle framework to examine the debates within the International Labour Organization (ILO) from the early to the mid-1970s on the regulation of international labour migration. It argues that these discussions crystallised a profound North–South divide: immigration countries in the North prioritised control of irregular flows and resisted binding commitments on migrants’ rights, while emigration countries in the South sought far-reaching guarantees of equality of opportunity and treatment for migrant workers and linked migration to the broader structural imbalances of the global economy in the post-colonial era. The confrontation was further sharpened by Cold War dynamics, as both Western and Socialist countries instrumentalised migration for ideological purposes. The compromise eventually reached in the mid-1970s, with the adoption of the Convention Concerning Migrations in Abusive Conditions and the Promotion of Equality of Opportunity and Treatment of Migrant Workers, represented both an unprecedented attempt to combine control with rights and a reflection of the enduring asymmetry of conditions and interests between sending and receiving countries. The Convention’s limited support among major immigration states underscored the fragility of that compromise and anticipated the difficulties of constructing a truly global governance of migration.
Corporate governance · Global governance · Globalization · Government (linguistics) · Labor relations · Global trade, sustainability, and social impact · International Labor and Employment Law · Migration, Racism, and Human Rights
| Highly cited | No |
|---|