The Geopolitics in the Global Compacts: Sovereignty, Emerging Norms, and Hypocrisy in Global Migration Governance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) and the Global Compact on Refugees (GCM) were adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2018. After nearly five years, it is time for a critical reflection on the geopolitical interests that motivated the negotiations, agreements, and implementation. The purpose of this special issue was to critically examine how states used the Global Compacts to achieve their strategic interests using migration diplomacy. Each article attempts to question and problematise the assumptions, logics, and rhetoric put forward in the Global Compacts and resulting implementation by states and international organisations. The special issue also highlights the emerging norm of state responsibility for well-managed migration within the Global Compacts, and the notable silences around non-refoulement, internal displacement, and climate migration. The authors in this special issue worked to understand the gaps, hypocrisy, and contradictions in the implementation, now five years after the adoption of the Global Compacts. This introduction article lays out the driving questions for the special issue, along with our main themes, concepts, and contributions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it