Conclusion

Abstract

By definition, IMN call for change. They would be pointless if they were to approve existing patterns of migration governance. They therefore need to criticise current political orientations and to propose alternatives. There are many reasons for which this is difficult: the legitimacy of IOs and other international entities is low; migration is a sensitive issue closely associated with sovereignty, and it is delicate to openly criticise states in an intergovernmental setting. The strategy of IMN is to present their recommendations as the result of technical and neutral expertise. On the other hand, IMN also ground their message in far-reaching values and ambitious objectives (like freedom or human rights) — hence the contrast between the potentially radical criticism of current migration realities and the modesty of IMN’s tone.