The International Organization for Migration (IOM): “Competent Structure” and “Inevitable Choice” for Russia and China to Affect Global Migration Governance?

This article focuses on IOM and its place in global migration governance. China’s and Russia’s memberships were considered overdue, considering the relevance of both countries for the global migration system and their respective weight on the international stage. We aim to contribute to advancing research on IOM as an organization of increasing global relevance and on its engagement with member states, moving beyond the “usual” focus on the European Union (EU) member states, African, North American, and South American immigration and sending countries. Our analysis draws upon recent research, which conceptualizes intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) as “world organizations” and which we fi nd interesting and applicable to our empirical inquiry and discussion of IOM. We regard IOM as a “world organization” that could be examined along four interrelated components: (1) its “internal world” (e.g., establishment, relations with states, internal decisions); (2) its self-image and self-reference as an organization integrated into and referring to world society, hence as the “world of migration governance”; (3) its external relations, integration into wider environments, and responses to external events; and (4) its contribution to the world order, i.e., global migration governance. Our analysis shows that due to its new status as a related organization of the UN, its leading role in the Global Compact on Migration, and China and Russia becoming its new members, IOM will likely play an increasingly signifi cant role in global migration governance. The main reason for this is the need to reactivate the existing modes of migration governance and adapt them to a drastically changed global political and migration-related situation following the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior to their memberships in IOM, China and Russia have already been able to benefi t from the IOM assistance. Provided that both countries continue to engage with IOM and provide more substantial funding to it, IOM’s assistance to both China and Russia could be expanded. Meanwhile, both countries may take a position, which would allow them to exert a more signifi cant infl uence on IOM and global migration governance.

1. Albert, Mathias, and Lena Hilkermeier. “Organizations in/and World Society.” In Observing International Relations: Niklas Luhmann and World Politics, edited by Albert, Mathias, and Lena Hilkermeier, 177–195. London: Routledge, 2004.

2. Elie, Jé rome. “The Historical Roots of Cooperation Between the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organization for Migration.” Global Governance 16, no. 3 (2010): 345–360.

3. Garnier, Adèle. “Arrested Development? UNHCR, ILO and the Refugees’ Right to Work.” Refuge 30, no. 2 (2014): 15–25.

4. Geiger, Martin. “Managing Eurasia’s borders: The European Union and International Organizations in Russia’s ‘Near abroad’.” In Eurasia on the Edge: Managing Complexity, edited by Piotr Dutkiewicz et al., 213–228. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefi eld, 2018.

5. Geiger, Martin, and Martin Koch. “World Organization in Migration Politics: The International Organization for Migration.” Journal of International Organizations Studies 9, no. 1 (2018): 25–44.

6. Georgi, Fabian. “For the Benefi t of Some: The International Organization for Migration and its Global Migration Management.” In The Politics of International Migration Management, edited by Martin Geiger, and Antoine Pécoud, 45–72. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

7. Greve, Jens, and Bettina Heintz. “Die ‘Entdeckung’ der Weltgesellschaft. Entstehung und Grenzen der Weltgesellschaftstheorie” (“The “Discovery” of World Society. Origin and Limits of the Theory of World Society”). In: Weltgesellschaft (International Community), edited by Bettina Heintz et al., 89–119. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius, 2005.

8. Grugel, Jean, and Nicola Piper. Critical Perspectives on Global Governance: Rights and Regulation in Governing Regimes. London: Routledge, 2007.

9. IOM. Regional Overview: Survey on the Socioeconomic Eff ects of COVID-19 on Returnees and Stranded Migrants in Central Asia and the Russian Federation. Geneva: IOM, 2021.

10. Karns, Margaret, and Karen Mingst. International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2010.

11. Kessler, Oliver. “World Society, Social Diff erentiation and Time.” International Political Sociology 6, no. 1 (2012): 77–94.

12. Koch, Anne. “The Politics and Discourse of Migrant Return: The Role of UNHCR and IOM in the Governance of Return.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 40, no. 6 (2014): 905–923.

13. Koch, Martin. “From International to World Organizations.” In: From Globalization(s) to World Society: Comparing Neo-Institutionalist and Systems Theoretical Contributions to World Society Research, edited by Holzer, Boris et al., 279–300. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015a.

14. Koch, Martin. “World Organizations. (Re-) Conceptualizing International Organizations.” World Political Science 11, no. 1 (2015b): 97–131.

15. Koch, Martin. Internationale Organisationen in der Weltgesellschaft (International Organizations in International Community). Frankfurt: Campus, 2017.

16. Koch, Martin, and Stephan Stetter. “Sociological Perspectives on International Organizations and the Construction of Global Political Order.” Journal of International Organizations Studies 4 (2013): 4–13.

17. Korneev, Oleg. “Exchanging Knowledge, Enhancing Capacities, Developing Mechanisms: IOM’s Role in the Implementation of the EU–Russia Readmission Agreement.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 40, no. 6 (2014): 888–904.

18. Rother, Stephan. “A Tale of Two Tactics. Civil Society and Competing Visions of Global Migration Governance from Below.” In: Disciplining the Transnational Mobility of People, edited by Geiger, Martin, and Antoine Pécoud, 41–62. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

19. Scott, William Richard. Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Englewood Cliff s: Prentice-Hall, 1992.

20. Tallberg, Jonas, and Christer Jö nsson. “Transnational Actor Participation in International Institutions.” In Transnational Actors in Global Governance: Patterns, Explanations, and Implications, edited by Jö nsson, Christer, and Jonas Tallberg, 1–21. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

21. Weng, Li, and Li Xuan. “China joining the International Organization for Migration: Choices, Opportunities, and Challenges” (“中国加入国际移民组 织:选择、机遇与挑战”). Journal of Shantou University 12 (2017): 67–75.

22. Zhang, Yadi, and Martin Geiger. “Building and Supporting Migration Management in China.” In The International Organisation for Migration. The New ‘UN Migration Agency’ in Critical Perspective, edited by Geiger, Martin, and Antoine Pé coud, 145–171, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.

23. Zhang, Yadi, and Martin Geiger. “Migration Research and Policy Consultancy in the People’s Republic of China.” Journal of Migration Studies 1, no. 2 (2021): 183–202.