Abstract
Chapters 4 and 5 are the core analysis chapters of this book. The analysis is split into the role and influence of NSAs (chapter 4) and the role and influence of local authorities (chapter 5), as the author argues and finds that local authorities form a similar but different case than NSAs. Both chapters are based on the alter- and ego-perspective of actors (data gathered through an online survey and interviews), as well as primary and secondary data. The combination of this gathered data provides evidence for both the broader context about the various types of NSAs and local authorities involvement as well as arguing for them as similar but different in their ways of operating and exerting influence. In addition, the author also sheds light on their respective limitations in influencing the outcome of the GCM. In chapter 5 the author first looks at the access, activities, and opportunities for local authorities to transmit information during the process (section 5.1), finding that local authorities form a similar but different case than NSAs as they only visibly joined the process during the stocktaking (phase II). In their joining, they organized in a lean and agile way throughout the negotiations. Second, the author identifies the main leverage points but also limitations of local authorities in the process (section 5.2), finding that local authorities had important advocates for their inclusion in the UN system and amongst the co-facilitators. Through formal and informal city networks they were able to organize quickly. With their particular role, they could present themselves to the negotiators as pragmatic actors with an important local perspective. The author also finds limitations – especially in comparison to how cities are organized regarding migration today. Third, the author analyzes the goal attainment of local authorities in the process (section 5.3), finding that the main achievement of local authorities was their recognition as particular actors in the implementation, review, and follow up of the GCM. Local authorities also contributed ideas, such as the municipal I.D. card that is independent from their status for all city residents. They also advocated for keeping certain commitments in the draft document during the negotiations, such as the objective on access to basic services for migrants.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For an understanding of global urban governance and the emergence of global structures for cities to engage in the multilateral system, see e.g., Pejic and Acuto (2022).
- 2.
Therefore, representatives from local authorities did not participate in the survey. However, NSAs who pushed for city participation did participate in the survey. Further, this chapter relies on interviews with city representatives and alter-perspective on cities during the process, both from NSAs and governmental/IOs, as well as primary data.
- 3.
Listed actors include non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations, academic institutions, the private sector, diaspora communities and migrant organizations.
- 4.
This is also reflected in the GCM stakeholder guidelines: “The co-facilitators for the intergovernmental negotiations will invite relevant stakeholders, including civil society, scientific and knowledge-based institutions, parliaments, local authorities, the private sector and migrants themselves to contribute views on the global compact, in particular by holding informal dialogues. When possible, such dialogues will be held at the margins of the informal thematic sessions” (#GCM-Stakeholder-Guidelines).
- 5.
According to the invitation, this event was led by the following speakers: H.E. Mr. Jürg Lauber Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the United Nations, H.E. Mr. Juan José Gómez Camacho Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Permanent Representative of Mexico to the United Nations, H.E. Ms. Louise Arbour, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on International Migration and Secretary-General of the International Conference on Migration and H.E. Mr. Maurizio Enrico Serra, Permanent Representative of Italy to the International Organizations in Geneva (#TS1–2017-SE-UN).
- 6.
The engagement was building on both, existing city networks, like Metropolis and UCLG, as well as European city networks, since 2015, bringing migration onto the agenda and positioning themselves.
- 7.
The Mayoral Forum on Human Mobility, Migration and Development was set up in 2013 on the margins of the High-Level Dialogue on Migration and Development. SRSG Peter Sutherland was the main driver behind the 2013 HLD, and thus also helped bring forward the Mayoral Forum (INT-GOV #18; INT-CIT #34).
- 8.
Mayoral Declaration on Migrants and Refugees: Meeting Needs, Protecting Rights and Fostering Empowerment (June 2017).
- 9.
Cities that are not members of Metropolis, endorsing the position paper, were: New York, Chicago, Washington, Philadelphia, Pittsburg, Sacramento, Madison, Buffalo, Milwaukee, St. Louis City, Richmond, San José, Montgomery County (#Metropolis-2017-GCM-GCR-News).
- 10.
One interviewee pinpointed the SDG process and US cities supporting SDG implementation as contributing factors to organizing cities: “When it was clear that nothing much was happening […] in the US at the federal level. And, you know, it was linked also to the implementation of the SDGs that some cities with Democrat administrations were already very active on the SDGs, like New York and with the same liberal sentiments they wanted to show what they could do in relation to migrants and migration issues. So that’s why that agenda sort of was probably more active in 2018 than in 2017” (INT-GOV #18). Local authorities from the US submitted Voluntary Local Reviews to the SDG process, amongst them were Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, and Orlando (UN DESA, 2022).
- 11.
On these developments, see also Bendel and Stürner (2019), where they discuss the “Two-way ‘Glocalisation’ of Human Rights or: How Cities Become International Agents in Migration Governance”.
- 12.
The submission was signed by 41 mayors or local authority departments, many of the from the United States. The list of cities includes: Mohammed Adjei Sowah, Mayor, Accra, Ghana; Dr. Andreas Hollstein, Mayor, Altena, Germany; Giorgos Kaminis, Mayor, Athens, Greece; Keisha Lance Bottoms, Mayor, Atlanta, USA; Steve Adler, Mayor, Austin, USA; Ada Colau Ballano, Mayor, Barcelona, Spain; Jesse Arreguin, Mayor, Berkeley, USA; Marvin Rees, Mayor, Bristol, United Kingdom; Office of Immigrant Affairs, Cambridge, USA; Pam Hemminger, Mayor, Chapel Hill, USA; Rahm Emanuel, Mayor, Chicago, USA; Michael B. Hancock, Mayor, Denver City and County, USA; Riley H. Rogers, Mayor, Dolton, USA; Ann-Sofie Hermansson, Mayor, Gothenburg, Sweden; Peter Muldoon, Mayor, Jackson, USA; Bobby J. Hopewell, Mayor, Kalamazoo, USA; Jennifer S. Musisi, Executive Director, Kampala City, Uganda; Eric Garcetti, Mayor, Los Angeles, USA; Paul R. Soglin, Mayor, Madison, USA; Manuela Carmena, Mayor, Madrid, Spain; Francisco de la Torre Prados, Mayor, Mâlaga, Spain; Giuseppe Sala, Mayor, Milano, Italy; Jacob Frey, Mayor, Minneapolis, USA; Francoise Schepmans, Mayor, Molenbeek, Belgium; Isiah Leggett, County Executive, Montgomery County, USA; International Relations Office, Montreal, Canada; David Briley, Mayor, Nashville-Davidson, USA; Toni N. Harp, Mayor, New Haven, USA; Bill de Blasio, Mayor, New York City, USA; Libby Schaaf, Mayor, Oakland, USA; James Kenney, Mayor, Philadelphia, USA; William Peduto, Mayor, Pittsburgh, USA; Adrian O. Mapp, Mayor, Plainfield, USA; Jorge Elorza, Mayor, Providence, USA; Melvin Carter III, Mayor, Saint Paul, USA; Immigrant Rights Commission, San Francisco, USA; Pauline Russo Cutter, Mayor, San Leandro, USA; George Van Dusen, Mayor, Skokie, USA; Joseph A. Curtatone, Mayor, Somerville, USA; Pete Buttigieg, Mayor, South Bend, USA; Giorgos Dimarelos, Deputy Mayor, Thessaloniki, Greece (#GCM-2018-CitiesSubmission, Pos. 23–63).
- 13.
Other regional city networks, such as European ones, were interested and engaged in the process (INT-GOV #14). Nevertheless, I argue that the actual influence that was there was channeled through the small coalition of cities from around the world who coordinated closely around the negotiation process.
- 14.
In addition, both, the Mechelen Declaration from November 2017 by UCLG as well as the declaration from the 4th Mayoral Forum in June 2017 form relevant documents submitted by cities to the process—however, during the consultation phase. Major asks were to be heard and included in the negotiation process. This has been achieved, e.g., by the speech of Mayor Rees of Bristol and other municipal engagements. In addition, local authorities participated in informal sessions with stakeholders and Multi-Stakeholder Hearings during the process (see above).
- 15.
See for example, Objective 4, para. 20 g of Draft 3 and the Final Draft [Obj. 4, para. 19 g in Draft 1 and Draft 2; Obj. 4, para. 19 g in the Zero Draft and Zero Draft Plus]: Until Draft 2, the documents refer to the ‘city’ level, whereas from Draft 3 onwards, both the ‘local level’, as well as the role of the ‘municipality’ is clearly distinguished: “Build upon existing practices at the local level that facilitate participation in community life, such as interaction with authorities and access to relevant services, through the issuance of registration cards to all persons living in a municipality, including migrants, that contain basic personal information, while not constituting entitlements to citizenship or residency” (#GCM-2018-Draft-Rev3, Objective 4, para. 20 g).
Another example is the implementation section: Until Draft 1 it is referred to the ‘subnational levels’, whereas from Draft 2 onwards, the document refers to the ‘local levels’ (#GCM-2018-Draft-Rev1, para. 38; #GCM-2018-Draft-Rev2, para. 40).
- 16.
Para. 41 of the Zero Draft Plus does not yet exist in the Zero Draft.
- 17.
See versions of the GCM: #GCM-2018-ZeroDraft-Plus, para. 41; #GCM-2018-Draft-Rev1, para. 42; #GCM-2018-Draft-Rev2, para. 43; #GCM-2018-Draft-Rev3, para. 44; #GCM-2018-FinalDraft, para. 44; #GCM-2018-AgreedOutcome, para. 44.
- 18.
The system is called IDNYC and “is a card for all New Yorkers, from all backgrounds, and from all five boroughs. […] immigration status does not matter. The free, municipal identification card for New York City residents, ages 10 and up, provides access to a wide variety of services and programs offered by the City” (City of New York, 2021).
- 19.
Objective 7 in the agreed outcome of the reads as follows: “We commit to respond to the needs of migrants who face situations of vulnerability, which may arise from the circumstances in which they travel or the conditions they face in countries of origin, transit and destination, by assisting them and protecting their human rights, in accordance with our obligations under international law. We further commit to uphold the best interests of the child at all times, as a primary consideration in situations where children are concerned, and to apply a gender-responsive approach in addressing vulnerabilities, including in responses to mixed movements” (#GCM-2018-AgreedOutcome, Obj. 7, para 23).
- 20.
“Involve local authorities and stakeholders in the identification, referral and assistance of migrants in a situation of vulnerability, including through agreements with national protection bodies, legal aid and service providers, as well as the engagement of mobile response teams, where they exist” (#GCM-2018-Draft-Rev1, Obj. 7, para 22i).
- 21.
Throughout the process, minimal edits were made to this paragraph, namely in Draft 1 and Draft 3, that are however not relevant to the role of local authorities.
- 22.
“Enact laws and take measures to ensure that service delivery does not amount to discrimination against migrants on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, disability or other grounds irrespective of cases where differential provision of services based on migration status might apply” (#GCM-2018-AgreedOutcome, Objective 15, Para 31a).
- 23.
4. “We commit to mobilize, advocate, and lobby governments to bridge the gap between regular and irregular migrants at the local and national levels. We also commit to provide services to all migrants regardless of status and with a special attention to the most vulnerable migrants.” One survey participant also criticized about Objective 15: “Separation between access to public services, including labor law enforcement mechanisms, and immigration control has been diluted and weakened” (Online Survey #Q11).
- 24.
However, as one interviewee noted: “I do think that the non-discriminatory language, for instance, would have definitely been on the table with the US involved. It might not have made its way into the final draft. I don’t I don’t know that. I can’t tell you” (INT-NSA #12).
- 25.
No objective 23 in the Zero Draft, Zero Draft Plus and Draft 1 of the GCM.
- 26.
“For the effective implementation of the Global Compact, we require concerted efforts at global, regional, national and local levels, including a coherent United Nations system” (#GCM-2018-FinalDraft, P. 32: 26).
- 27.
As of 2022, the Mayors Mechanism also works beyond the GFMD and is active, amongst other, in the process leading to the International Migration Review Forum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
5.1 Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schweiger, R. (2023). Local Authorities in the GCM Process: A Similar but Different Case. In: Beyond states. Studien zur Migrations- und Integrationspolitik. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40690-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40690-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-40689-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-40690-5
eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)