From Supporting States to Steering their Actions: The UN Network on Migration and the Global Compact for Migration’s Implementation
Based on:
Journal Article (2026)
Investigates how the United Nations Network on Migration has institutionalised the Global Compact for Migration’s implementation mechanism and the resulting impact on its expert authority over states.
Brief by:
.jpg)
The Global Compact for Migration (GCM), adopted in 2018, marked a significant step in global migration governance by establishing a non-binding international cooperation framework on migration. Despite its ambitious objectives, the GCM faces challenges in bridging the gap between its goals and existing migration policies, as well as reconciling the conflicting interests of migrant-sending, receiving, and transit states. The GCM’s implementation mechanism comprises a deliberative dimension, which includes the International Migration Review Forum (IMRF) for periodic progress discussions, and a bureaucratic dimension, involving the creation of texts and policy instruments to mobilise resources and knowledge. The United Nations Network on Migration, which comprises more than 30 UN agencies, is tasked with supporting these dimensions by leveraging its expert knowledge to shape state actions. To fulfil this task, the Network established the implementation mechanism’s mandate, created procedures, pooled resources, and gained state support to avoid contestation of the mechanism and ensure its legitimacy. The Network’s efforts are examined through a critical discourse analysis of texts from 2019 to 2022, revealing its role in creating the GCM’s implementation mechanism as an experimentalist institution that fosters deliberation and information exchange among states.
Key findings
The Network has expanded the GCM implementation mechanism's mandate to correct states tendency to favour unilateral migration policies as illustrated by their actions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Evidence
The UN Secretary General's report on the GCM's implementation in 2020 criticised state-imposed border closures for exacerbating inequalities and eroding migrants' rights, arguing for multilateral action and highlighting the GCM's role in fostering cooperation. The report emphasised the necessity for the implementation mechanism to go beyond merely responding to states' implementation needs to actively correcting their actions through deliberation and information exchange.
What it means
The Network's expanded mandate aims to address the negative impacts of states' unilateral actions, promoting a multilateral approach to migration governance.
The Network designed two policy instruments to steer the GCM implementation: the Multi-Partner Trust Fund and the Migration Network Hub.
Evidence
The Fund pools financial resources and sets performance targets to measure and steer donor and recipient states' actions. The Hub pools expert knowledge and mobilises a transnational network of experts to shape national policy practitioners' access to information and expert advice.
What it means
These policy instruments position the Network as an actor that funnels resources and knowledge to influence states' implementation of the GCM.
The Network legitimised the GCM implementation mechanism by aligning it with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Evidence
The second UN Secretary General report on GCM implementation highlighted the interconnectedness between migrants' well-being and societal prosperity, arguing that the GCM promotes the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The report emphasised the GCM's utility for realising tangible development outcomes, which would benefit all states.
What it means
By aligning the GCM with the 2030 Agenda, the Network gains broader state support and shields the implementation mechanism from contestation.
The Network's efforts have led to the creation of over 70 country networks to support GCM implementation.
Evidence
These country networks guide states in implementing the GCM, connect them to the Fund, and are integrated into one-third of UN country teams globally. The country networks align with the UN development system, improving the efficiency of the 2030 Agenda implementation.
What it means
The creation of country networks enhances the Network's institutionalisation and supports the GCM's integration into national planning.
The Network's role in the GCM implementation does not fundamentally challenge state sovereignty in global migration governance.
Evidence
The Network prioritised the non-binding 2030 Agenda over human rights obligations to ensure support from European Union member states and the United States. This choice reinforced state sovereignty and acknowledged the GCM's controversial nature in many migrant receiving states.
What it means
The Network's approach reflects the ongoing politicisation of the GCM and the challenges in balancing state sovereignty with global migration governance.
Comments
You must log in to ask a question
Are you a researcher looking to make a real-world impact? Join Acume and transform your research into a practical summary.
Already have an account? Log in
Discover more
Sponsored links
From Supporting States to Steering their Actions: The UN Network on Migration and the Global Compact for Migration’s Implementation
Cite this brief: Ahouga, Younes. 'From Supporting States to Steering their Actions: The UN Network on Migration and the Global Compact for Migration’s Implementation'. Acume. https://www.acume.org/r/from-supporting-states-to-steering-their-actions-the-un-network-on-migration-and-the-global-compact-for-migrations-implementation/
Brief created by: Dr Younes Ahouga | Year brief made: 2026
Original research:
- Ahouga, Y., (2026) ‘From Supporting States to Steering their Actions: The UN Network on Migration and the Global Compact for Migration’s Implementation’ 31(1), pp. 402–425 https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2025.2510316. – https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14650045.2025.2510316
Research brief:
Investigates how the United Nations Network on Migration has institutionalised the Global Compact for Migration’s implementation mechanism and the resulting impact on its expert authority over states.
The Global Compact for Migration (GCM), adopted in 2018, marked a significant step in global migration governance by establishing a non-binding international cooperation framework on migration. Despite its ambitious objectives, the GCM faces challenges in bridging the gap between its goals and existing migration policies, as well as reconciling the conflicting interests of migrant-sending, receiving, and transit states. The GCM’s implementation mechanism comprises a deliberative dimension, which includes the International Migration Review Forum (IMRF) for periodic progress discussions, and a bureaucratic dimension, involving the creation of texts and policy instruments to mobilise resources and knowledge. The United Nations Network on Migration, which comprises more than 30 UN agencies, is tasked with supporting these dimensions by leveraging its expert knowledge to shape state actions. To fulfil this task, the Network established the implementation mechanism’s mandate, created procedures, pooled resources, and gained state support to avoid contestation of the mechanism and ensure its legitimacy. The Network’s efforts are examined through a critical discourse analysis of texts from 2019 to 2022, revealing its role in creating the GCM’s implementation mechanism as an experimentalist institution that fosters deliberation and information exchange among states.
Findings:
The Network has expanded the GCM implementation mechanism’s mandate to correct states tendency to favour unilateral migration policies as illustrated by their actions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The UN Secretary General’s report on the GCM’s implementation in 2020 criticised state-imposed border closures for exacerbating inequalities and eroding migrants’ rights, arguing for multilateral action and highlighting the GCM’s role in fostering cooperation. The report emphasised the necessity for the implementation mechanism to go beyond merely responding to states’ implementation needs to actively correcting their actions through deliberation and information exchange.
The Network’s expanded mandate aims to address the negative impacts of states’ unilateral actions, promoting a multilateral approach to migration governance.
The Network designed two policy instruments to steer the GCM implementation: the Multi-Partner Trust Fund and the Migration Network Hub.
The Fund pools financial resources and sets performance targets to measure and steer donor and recipient states’ actions. The Hub pools expert knowledge and mobilises a transnational network of experts to shape national policy practitioners’ access to information and expert advice.
These policy instruments position the Network as an actor that funnels resources and knowledge to influence states’ implementation of the GCM.
The Network legitimised the GCM implementation mechanism by aligning it with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
The second UN Secretary General report on GCM implementation highlighted the interconnectedness between migrants’ well-being and societal prosperity, arguing that the GCM promotes the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The report emphasised the GCM’s utility for realising tangible development outcomes, which would benefit all states.
By aligning the GCM with the 2030 Agenda, the Network gains broader state support and shields the implementation mechanism from contestation.
The Network’s efforts have led to the creation of over 70 country networks to support GCM implementation.
These country networks guide states in implementing the GCM, connect them to the Fund, and are integrated into one-third of UN country teams globally. The country networks align with the UN development system, improving the efficiency of the 2030 Agenda implementation.
The creation of country networks enhances the Network’s institutionalisation and supports the GCM’s integration into national planning.
The Network’s role in the GCM implementation does not fundamentally challenge state sovereignty in global migration governance.
The Network prioritised the non-binding 2030 Agenda over human rights obligations to ensure support from European Union member states and the United States. This choice reinforced state sovereignty and acknowledged the GCM’s controversial nature in many migrant receiving states.
The Network’s approach reflects the ongoing politicisation of the GCM and the challenges in balancing state sovereignty with global migration governance.