移徙工人权利委员会举行活动纪念《公约》通过二十五周年（部分翻译）

移徙工人权利委员会

2015年9月8日

讨论保护移徙工人人权、地中海非正规移徙潮、海湾移徙工人和美洲无证儿童面临的当前挑战

保护所有移徙工人及其家庭成员权利委员会今日下午举行小组讨论，纪念《保护所有移徙工人及其家庭成员权利国际公约》通过二十五周年。

移徙工人委员会主席弗朗西斯科•卡里翁•梅纳（Francisco Carrion Mena）为讨论开幕，他表示，人类历史融汇了移徙和混合移徙潮。在最近发生的难民危机中，一些发达国家未能铭记自己的过去，未能铭记它们自己的公民也曾经是其他国家的移徙者。我们需要政治意愿确保移徙者的权利，而现在正是时候。

联合国人权事务高级专员扎伊德•拉阿德•侯赛因表示，移徙是这个时代最具决定性的人权问题之一。他指出，《公约》当前比以往任何时候都更有意义，但他也对这一重要文书的批准国家之少表示担忧。仅有48个国家批准了《公约》——仅为所有人权条约的倒数第二。并无主要目的国批准了《公约》。目的国需要清晰、诚实地看到其对移徙劳工的需求，并为所有技术水平建立与之匹配的正规移徙渠道，这将极大地有助于避免这些寻求有尊严地生活的人们面临剥削和其他危险。

弗里德里希•艾伯特基金会（Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung）日内瓦办事处主任休伯特•雷内•席林格（Hubert Rene Schillinger）表示，虽然《公约》自2003年开始生效，但其从未受到过应有的重视。我们必须提醒所有国家遵循国际认可的标准，提醒其有遵守这些标准的道德义务。

国际慈善社（Caritas Internationalis）代表团团长兼教廷常驻联合国日内瓦办事处观察团随员罗伯特•J•维蒂洛（Robert J. Vitillo）表示，他们今天关注的《公约》源自多年的发展过程。为了正视移徙工人及其家人目前的经历，需要有更多的公正、平等、非歧视和对人类尊严的尊重。

在开场发言后，开展了两项小组讨论。第一项小组讨论的重点是“侵犯移徙工人权利的当前趋势”，由无证移徙者问题国际合作平台（PICUM）主任米歇尔•勒沃伊（Michele Levoy）、国际特赦组织海湾移徙者权利研究员穆斯塔法•卡德里（Mustafa Qadri）、亚洲移徙者论坛区域协调员威廉•戈伊斯（William Gois）以及墨西哥的弗雷•马蒂亚斯人权中心（Centro Derechos Humanos Fray matias de Cordova）主任迭戈•洛伦特•佩雷斯•欧拉特（Diego Lorente Perez de Eulate）发表了讲话，他们都谈到了解决全世界不同地区移徙工人需求的紧迫性。在随后的讨论中，厄瓜多尔、孟加拉国、阿拉伯人权委员会、移徙工人委员会和阿根廷代表做了发言。

第二项小组讨论主要关注“各国面临的挑战以及应对这些趋势的积极发展”。欧盟驻联合国日内瓦办事处代表团团长兼大使彼得•索伦森（Peter Sorensen）、菲律宾常驻联合国日内瓦办事处代表兼大使塞西莉亚•瑞邦（Cecilia Rebong）、墨西哥常驻联合国日内瓦办事处代表兼大使豪尔赫•罗莫纳克（Jorge Lomonaco）以及国际劳工组织工作条件和平等部部长曼努埃拉•托梅（Manuela Tomei）发表了讲话。作为移徙工人委员会成员之一的中国以及非政府组织法律与社会研究中心（Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales）代表随后发言。

保护所有移徙工人及其家庭成员权利委员会将于9月9日（周三）结束第二十三届会议，会上将通过其关于佛得角、几内亚、塞舌尔和东帝汶的结论性意见和建议。

开场发言

移徙工人委员会主席弗朗西斯科•卡里翁•梅纳（FRANCISCO CARRION MENA）向所有参与《保护所有移徙工人及其家庭成员权利国际公约》通过25周年纪念活动的参与者表示了热烈欢迎。人类的历史就是移民和混合移徙流动的历史，起因或是战争、饥饿、不宽容、宗教狂热、不尊重权利，抑或是自然灾害、渴求权力或缺乏经济权利。人类不断地从一个地区迁移到另一个地区，这些移徙移动不可避免。在过去几周里，成千上万人为了逃避暴力和饥饿而丧生，所有人对之感到惭愧。这些人仅仅为了自己和家人的生存而不断迁移，政治家和政府（尤其是在欧洲）对之却无能为力。一些发达国家未能铭记过去。墨西哥曾收留了成千上万名逃离弗朗科独裁的西班牙国民。美国、巴西、秘鲁和非洲国家曾向成千上万名来自欧洲国家的移民敞开大门。奥巴马、萨科齐、巴切莱特、柯克纳、鲁瑟夫的名望都是这些移民和混合移徙流动的成果。他们都身处这艘名叫地球的船上，不得不确保地球是每一个人更好的栖息地。解决移民相关问题的最佳方案便是批准《公约》。这需要政治意愿，而现在正是时候。

联合国人权高级专员扎伊德•拉阿德•侯赛因表示，移徙是我们这一时代的决定性人权问题之一。也有反对的声音，他们用不同的眼光看待移徙者的权利。正是在这些情况下，国际人权框架才显示出了其相关性。商定的国际规范和标准为那些通常困难而又令人担忧的讨论规定了框架和限制。条约机构——这里显然就是移徙工人委员会——的专家意见和分析为他这样倡导移徙者权利的人提供了开展工作的坚实基础。他感谢了委员会在移徙工人权利问题方面的智力领导，并举了两个例子。在他们解读《公约》时，委员会成员尤其强调了在国家劳动法下保护移徙家庭佣工的要求并拒绝对非正规移徙刑罪化——这是十分重要的两个领域，更深思熟虑的政策将让数百万弱势群体深受裨益。

即使能够清楚地看到移徙工人在国际法中享有的权利，要确保移民及其家人在路途中、在全球的学校以及工作场所中完全享有人权，仍面临着巨大挑战。移徙者的权利经常，而且是常规性地被侵犯。当移徙者的移民身份为非正规时，对移徙者的这些虐待就会加剧。当前的全球移民危机，从东南亚和澳大利亚的海域到地中海，再到美国和墨西哥的沙漠，都凸显了《公约》的根本意义，它是面向来源国、过境国和目的国所有移徙工人及其家人权利的一个强有力且得到公认的国际法律框架。四分之一个世纪过后，《公约》比以往任何时候都更加相关。但批准这一重要案文的国家数量极少——只有48个，在人权条约中位列倒数第二。没有一个主要的目的国批准了该《公约》。获得新的批准仍是一项优先事项。这一具有重大意义的25周年适逢如今不断加速的严重移民危机，这凸显了就批准《公约》的障碍开展更为真诚的讨论的紧迫性。如能清晰而坦诚地看待目的国所需劳动力，并为所有技术层次开辟与之匹配的正规移徙渠道以及家庭团圆的渠道，将大大有助于防止许多寻求过上有尊严生活的人面临剥削和其他危险。

艾伯特基金会日内瓦办事处主任休伯特•雷内•席林格（HUBERT RENE SCHILLINGER）表示，尽管《公约》自2003年起就生效，却并未获得应有关注，尤其是在目标移民国，例如他自己的祖国德国。国家担心，该公约将在移民政策方面对政府施加限制。似乎有这样一种看法认为，一旦《公约》被批准，将更难、甚至无法采取适当对策阻止非法移民。所以此次25周年纪念应被用来积极反对这一错误看法。相反，尤其当世界正面临主要的（若非史无前例）移民热潮时，他们不得不强调这项国际认可的法律文书的重要性，它能够为所有移民提供特定基本权利保障。许多观察者将目前的欧洲移民危机看作一个分水岭。似乎几乎所有人都同意，在移民政策方面采取“一切照旧”的方法不够。但也就仅此而已。重要的是要提醒所有国家国际认可的标准以及遵照这些标准的道德义务，即便这些国家并未正式批准某一特定条约。

国际慈善社代表团团长兼常驻联合国日内瓦办事处梵蒂冈访问观察员罗伯特•J•维蒂洛表示，他们今天聚焦的公约是多年来的成果，它始于1972年，当时的联合国经济及社会理事会发出警告，指出了向一些欧洲国家非法运输工人和在“类似于奴隶和强迫劳动的条件下”剥削一些非洲国家的工人的问题。该公约起草于1990年，然而在1990到1998年间，只有九个国家批准。2005年，教科文组织指出，该公约并未提出任何专门面向移民的新权利。维蒂洛先生强调了与公约相关的近期发展和障碍，提醒参与者该条约对于当下的相关性，并注意到即使有再多富有远见的想法和计划，也无法对最近每天发生的复杂而日益加剧的移民相关问题和挑战做出预测。

Panel I: Current Trends in Violations of Migrant Workers’ Human Rights

IBRAHIM SALAMA, Director of the Human Rights Treaties Division of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, opened the floor.

MICHELE LEVOY, Director of PICUM – Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, said that over the past 16 years, in the European Union’s common migration policy a gradual shift from the initial goal of “equality for all residents” to a security approach to migration had taken place. Highlighting the picture of the three-year old boy washed upon the shore that had alarmed the world, she stated that the lack of regular channels for migration led to increased risks and loss of lives. Regular migration possibilities needed to be looked into. The second issue that Ms. LeVoy focused on was that the security focus on migration was leading to multiple human rights violations, including the detention of children. The severe psychological impacts on detained children, even if for short periods of time, were dire. This was an opportunity to have a clear definition of what these child rights were. Lastly, she said that when there was a security approach to migration, this translated into restricting social services, especially for irregular migrants. This was also one of the main reasons why there were no ratifications – because the Convention granted emergency health care to migrants. A move was needed from a security-dominated to a more rights based approach. Terminology was crucial.

MUSTAFA QADRI, Gulf Migrant Rights Researcher from Amnesty International, said that migrant workers across the Gulf States remained inadequately protected. Perhaps worst of all were the thousands of women, mostly from Asia, who were subjected to labour and sexual abuse without any remedy. Real action had not occurred. Much of the global attention of migrant workers had focused on Qatar. The United Arab Emirates had also received attention. Today marked an opportunity to highlight these abuses and enact change. He concluded by reflecting that they should all pause today to think about the Convention, but also about the need for continued energy and cooperation to ensure that migrant workers in Gulf Cooperation Council countries and across the world were given the human rights protection they deserved.

WILLIAM GOIS, Regional Coordinator of the Migrant Forum in Asia, said it was time to act – they could no longer keep having discussions. Bilateral agreements had to be done away with. Contracts of migrant workers traveling to the Gulf Cooperation Council countries had to be recognized within the countries of destination. A full understanding of what was in the contract was something that migrant workers had to fully understand. Domestic workers needed a day off. It was not accepted that the time off was when they travelled with their employers. With the ILO Convention C189 it had to be recognized that domestic work was work. It was imperative on countries to ratify this Convention. It was important that this practice stopped. Where was the sovereignty of a State when private individuals could determine when migrant workers could come and leave, and where private actors could hold migrant workers hostage?

DIEGO LORENTE PEREZ DE EULATE, Director of the Centro Derechos Humanos Fray matias de Cordova, Mexico, spoke about the situation of migrant children from the northern triangle area (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras), stating that this was a real crisis affecting children. This was an area in which poor legal systems, poverty, lack of education, school dropout rates, high murder rates, and a high level of abuse of the rights of children, all contributed to the reasons why there was a high level of migration by children. There were also high levels of abuse by receiving countries, such as the United States and Mexico, where the numbers of arrested and deported children without a due process of law were in the tens of thousands.

Interactive Discussion

Ecuador said that in its region, it was the first country to accept refugees. Ecuador stressed the need that States sign and ratify the Convention and blamed the lack thereof on the lack of political will. Bangladesh said that there was a need for a sustainable institutional platform in order to ensure that the current situation they faced and the needs of migrants were not addressed in an ad-hoc basis. The Arab Commission for Human Rights called upon other events to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Convention, in order to step up ratification, and asked what would be the best way to act from a strategic level.

PABLO CERIANI CERNADAS, Member of the Committee on Migrant Workers, said that it was impossible to fully implement the Convention of the Rights of the Child unless the provisions of the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families were fully implemented, as they were inextricably linked. There was a need for a holistic approach, as all human rights were interlinked. PRASAD KARIYAWASAM, Member of the Committee on Migrant Workers, stated that the death penalty was the biggest threat that migrant workers faced today. Argentina said that it was vital that migratory policy provided respect for migrants: policies based on border control and restrictions were not effective and condemned thousands of migrants to marginalization and fed into the business of trafficking.

MICHELE LEVOY, Director of PICUM – Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, in response to the question on the ratification of the Convention, stated that a study had found that there were no legal obstacles to ratification in the European Union. It was mainly a lack of political will. All European Union countries had ratified all the human rights treaties except the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. So there was no legal argument in the European Union, it was political. This was a political and not a migrants’ crisis. A good strategy for trying to influence this was that many other actors were involved, including from civil society. The main statements were that “we apologize” or “we are ashamed.” It was also unrealistic not to take into consideration that there was a need for labour workers, and that Europe was an aging continent. Both of these factors should fuel support for migrant workers’ rights. Finally the role of the media had to be acknowledged. The use by the media of the word refugees and their refusal to use the word migrants was not a good trend. Finally, they needed to look into regional schemes.

DIEGO LORENTE PEREZ DE EULATE, Director of the Centro Derechos Humanos Fray matias de Cordova, Mexico, appealed for greater ratification of the Convention as well as follow-up procedures. There was no point in ratifying a treaty if a State did not follow up on it and if it did not integrate the treaty into its legislation. Thus a follow up procedure and procedures for holding States accountable were needed. He also drew attention to the use of the word “crisis.” He concluded by congratulating the Committee and all those involved in it.

Panel II: Challenges for States and Promising Developments in Responding to these Trends

PETER SORENSEN, Ambassador and Head of the Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva, focusing on the challenges, said that the crisis gripping Europe was less about migrant workers than about people in need of protection. This raised certain different obligations, but it never removed the obligation to uphold human rights. The European Union policies and actions were rooted in the European Union’s commitment to the promotion and protection of the human rights of migrants. The challenges faced in the unprecedented crises were huge. In August, over 80,000 migrants, refugees and asylum seekers arrived in Greece. Fewer than 6,000 arrived in the same month in 2014. Each day, about 3,000 reached Greece by sea. It was the sudden sharp increase that marked the crisis. Mr. Sorensen assured the participants that there was no absence of activity and preparation of new, operational actions and proposals. He reminded that the European Union leaders had committed themselves to mobilize all efforts at their disposal.

CECILIA REBONG, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Philippines to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that the Philippines, as a major country of origin, and as one of the first State parties to the Convention, reaffirmed the distinct importance of Convention and expressed her frustration that its ratification was moving so slowly by other countries. She focused on the particular area of responses to challenges, and promising developments adopted by the Philippines. These included the belief that possession of appropriate and proficient skills for the work abroad was the best protection against labour exploitation at the individual level; pre-departure and post-arrival human rights orientation; the requirement of all departing overseas Filipino workers to participate in an Overseas Workers Welfare Administration Fund; the requirement of local recruitment agencies to secure medical insurance prior to deployment; the active engagement of bilateral partners in negotiations and conclusions of bilateral labour agreements; and other developments.

JORGE LOMONACO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Mexico to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that one seventh of humanity were migrants. Over 40 per cent of these were women. International migration played an important role for some countries. Between 2030 and 2040, developed countries would lose their populations and migration would not be enough to offset this loss of population. Fortunately the international community had made a number of efforts. Some of Mexico’s practices, which had had positive outcomes, included the following: Constitutional reform as well as reform of other laws; the development of a National Development Plan; family reunification and unaccompanied minors were priority areas; a multidisciplinary approach to the protection of human rights of children and adolescents; a strategy for the care and prevention of migration of minors with the aim to coordinate various shelters; and a joint programme on the protection of migrants in transit, with the joint participation of the International Organization for Migration, six European agencies, non-governmental organizations, and other participants.

MANUELA TOMEI, Director of Conditions of Work and Equality Department of the International Labour Organization, said that all had been deeply affected by the recent distressing images that appeared in the media of migrant workers, refugees, asylum seekers and others who were driven across borders due to conflict, economic strife or natural disasters. The scale of mixed migration flows towards Europe was growing. UNHCR’s latest report for 2014 said that almost 60 million people were forcibly displaced, which made it the largest number ever recorded. The crisis was more about lack of solidarity, and lack of cooperation as well as basic human compassion. At present, migration governance was highly fragmented and this situation had to be addressed. Factors that would help address this were working together more effectively. It was also important to adopt global standards such as the 2030 Development Agenda, in order to bring about fairness. It was not enough to ratify the standards, but to see what the obstacles were towards ratification. There was incompatibility between national legislation and obligations arising from international standards. There was also weak enforcement capacity and lack of clear guidance. The world was facing global crises, which required a common response and shared responsibility. They could no longer focus on short-term measures, but needed to engage in long-term solutions that tackled the root causes. The way forward was a comprehensive approach to governance, based on three pillars: creating decent work at home; multilateral responses needed to be grounded on international standards and common values; and fair, safe and regular channels of migration that met real labour market needs at all skill levels.

Interactive Discussion

ABDELHAMID EL JAMRI, Member of the Committee on Migrant Workers, inquired with regards to the figure that had been announced yesterday, that the European Union would host 120,000 refugees. How was this number established? There were 4 million refugees, so could the European Union do more in face of the drama? Second, with regards to the ratification of the Convention, various debates had been sparked over the past few years, which led to conclude that rights were already acquired by migrants in Europe, so that did not need to be an obstacle. Third, during the situation prior to the massive number of migrants seen today, there had been talk of a hermetic border at the Mediterranean, meaning that once a migrant crossed the Mediterranean, he or she would never go back. However now it was known that there were possibilities of development in home countries. So could there be more tolerance in light of this? Finally, regarding the issue of migration on the international agenda, it seemed like a catalogue of recommendations that could be cherry-picked by States. This was not conducive to cohesive approach.

China said that all were watching the present crisis in Europe. The root causes needed to be found. The rights of these people had to be respected. Open inclusive thinking was needed to maintain the rights of these workers. Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales said that key measures in formulating policies were ratification of the Convention.

PETER SORENSEN, Ambassador and Head of the Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva, in response to questions, said that migration was a global issue. Regarding the refugee crisis happening currently, he could not state why the number that would be accepted by the European Union was as it was. It had to be recognized that the European Union was still being built and it had the right to have its guarded system. There was increasing cooperation with the United Nations.

CECILIA REBONG, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Philippines to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that the debate should be reignited. The post-2015 Development Agenda would tackle the issue of migration, but would the targets be enough? Was migration a security, economic or humanitarian issue, or a human rights issue, or a combination of all these? In the United Nations they say mainstreaming, but was this really a problem or an issue? Which United Nations agency should handle this?

JORGE LOMONACO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Mexico to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that there were the three c’s in Spanish: knowledge, trust, and understanding and awareness of the phenomenon. It was true to say that migration had a positive contribution to make to the countries involved. Solidarity needed to be shown.

IBRAHIM SALAMA, Director of the Human Rights Treaties Division of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, concluded the discussion by thanking all participants.

___________
For use of the information media; not an official record

Follow UNIS Geneva on: Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube |Flickr