From Supporting States to Steering their Actions: The UN Network on Migration and the Global Compact for Migration’s Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Global Compact for Migration (GCM) involves the establishment of an implementation mechanism that combines the periodic organisation of deliberation and information exchange between states with the routine drafting of texts and the design of governmental technologies. The GCM also tasked the UN Network on Migration (Network) with supporting the implementation mechanism in response to the needs of states. To achieve this task, the Network aimed to play a role in creating and maintaining the implementation mechanism and to leverage its expert knowledge to shape the states’ implementation efforts. This article asks how the Network has institutionalised the implementation mechanism and with what consequences for its expert authority vis-à-vis states. Drawing on insights from discursive institutionalism, the article conducts a critical discourse analysis of texts that communicate and describe the Network’s institutional work between 2019 and 2022. It demonstrates that the Network institutionalised the implementation mechanism as an experimentalist institution to bolster its expert authority and position itself as a central unit in the GCM implementation that monitors and steers the actions of states. However, the Network’s position as a central unit does not fundamentally challenge the centrality of state sovereignty in global migration governance.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".