Sovereignty and the U.N. Compact

By Medicine Hat News Opinon on December 24, 2018.

Sovereignty. A single word teeming with power, influence and meaning. A legal concept that can lead to much confusion and misinformation.

This is the case with people’s understanding of the United Nations Global Compact for Migration. Across Facebook and around the world, misinformation about the U.N. Global Compact has spread, with claims of its attack on sovereignty bolstering nationalist and populist movements. In an era of fake news, the outcry against the U.N. Global Compact for Migration is the next chapter.

The following analysis is not political, it is not aligned with any partisan opinion, election campaigns or political parties. It is a factual examination of the document from an individual with expertise in international law. This analysis serves to inform, not influence.

In its entirety, the Compact is a non-legally binding agreement which accounts for all aspects of international migration with the goal of safe, orderly, and regular migration. The fact this it is non-legally binding is important; it means that in no way does it undermine any country’s sovereignty because each country maintains their sovereign right to govern and legislate. It also means there is no legal repercussions for a country acting in contradiction to the document. Instead, it is a set of best practices, goals that countries aim to achieve.

If it’s not legally binding, then you may ask what is the point of it? The United Nations employs a variety of mechanisms, both binding and nonbinding, to accomplish its objectives. Having a non-binding document gives countries the freedom to legislate how they see fit, with the touchstone of global consensus and expert analysis. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was written 70 years ago and has been the cornerstone of human rights internationally, is also a non-binding document. On the international stage, non-binding documents have the benefit of being a powerful norm without overstepping sovereignty. It acts like peer pressure between countries.

While there are claims that the document undermines and breaches sovereignty, there is clear evidence that it does not. Besides being a non-legally binding document, there are sections of the Compact which directly address sovereignty. The first section states that it rests on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, a document which itself promotes and protects national sovereignty. If that is still not sufficient evidence to believe the document protects sovereignty, in section 15 the guiding principles of the document are examined, one of which being national sovereignty. It states that the Compact ‘reaffirms the sovereign right of states to determine national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction’. It goes on to state that countries maintain the right to legally distinguish between regular and irregular migration status. Sovereignty means the authority of a state to govern itself and its subject, which has not been infringed by the UN Global Compact for Migration.

I implore those who develop opinions on these issues to read the original document, whether it be a United Nations mechanism or a legislative bill in Canada. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but an opinion comes with a responsibility to be properly informed. Read, research, ask questions, listen to others, otherwise you risk appearing ignorant. The original text of the UN Global Compact on Migration can be found at https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/migration-compact

Elizabeth Thomson is a Hatter with expertise in human rights, law, and international law. She has a BA in human rights and women’s studies, a LLB in law, and an LLM (masters) in international criminal law and international human rights law.

9
-8