INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3497
www.rsisinternational.org
The Role of International Law in Shaping National Immigration
Policies.
Uzor Chijioke Esq, Mube Ajuri
Leadcity University Ibadan, Nigeria
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.120800316
Received: 05 Sep 2025; Accepted: 11 Sep 2025; Published: 09 October 2025
ABSTRACT
Immigration law stands at the interface between state sovereignty and international law obligations, creating a
dynamic space where national policy is relentlessly being redefined by evolving global frameworks.
International law, framed in terms of treaties, conventions, customary law, and judicial precedent, has
increasingly influenced how states organize, regulate, and rationalize their immigration policies. Mechanisms
such as the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as regional instruments of the Americas and Africa
have set standards limiting arbitrary exclusion and reiterating protection for basic rights of refugees and
migrants. At the same time, soft law instruments like the 2018 Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular
Migration encouraged cooperative responses to address contemporary issues like climate-induced displacement
and irregular migration. This paper critically examines how much international law affects national
immigration policy, balancing state interests in controlling borders with obligations to maintain human dignity.
By analysing seminal court decisions, new controversies, and significant legal doctrines, the study frames the
tension between universality and sovereignty, asymmetrical enforcement across regions, and growing calls for
greater international solidarity. The study concludes that international law provides normative guidance of
great value but depends on political will, enforcement strategies, and the capacity of states to reconcile national
interests and international obligations.
Keywords: International law; immigration policy; sovereignty; refugee protection; human rights; Global
Compact for Migration; asylum; displacement.
INTRODUCTION
Immigration has become one of the defining features of the 21st century, and it has provoked pressing concerns
regarding sovereignty, human rights, and international cooperation. Governments are at pains to balance their
sovereign prerogative to control entry and residence within their territories against international law
obligations. Even though immigration policy is articulated at the national level, there are global legal norms
and bodies that provide principal guidelines, limits, and normative norms that shape home country policies
towards migration. These impacts are strongest in areas of refugee protection, migrants' rights, and preventing
human trafficking (Betts, 2011).
The role of international law in the governance of migration has its foundations in a series of fundamental legal
instruments. Leading among these is the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, which remain to this
day the cornerstone of the international refugee protection regime. The Convention embodies the principle of
non-refoulement, which prohibits states from returning individuals to a place where their life or freedom will
be threatened (Goodwin-Gill & McAdam, 2021). This standard, which has become customary international
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3498
www.rsisinternational.org
law, has been enshrined in many nation asylum laws and thus contributes to demonstrating the direct influence
of international law on domestic immigration systems. Similarly, global human rights conventions such as the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR, 1966) articulate rights to apply to migrants like freedom from arbitrary detention, the right to
family life, and protection against discrimination (Hathaway, 2021).
Regional systems also inform the development of immigration policies. In the European Union, CEAS and
Schengen regulation construction has harmonized asylum procedures and ideals of free movement between
members, creating a supranational level of migration governance (Guild, Costello, & Moreno-Lax, 2017). At
the African level, the 1969 OAU Refugee Convention extended protection to refugees by giving protection to
individuals who were fleeing mass violence and foreign aggression, constituting a regional application of
international refugee law to internal situations (Okoth-Obbo, 2001). The Inter-American Court of Human
Rights has also made landmark rulings confirming the protection of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers in
the Americas (Arboleda, 2006).
Despite these international and regional regimes, the influence of international law on national immigration
policies remains questionable. Sovereignty is still exercised by states as the underlying principle of managing
immigration, with international obligations being selectively taken up to accommodate domestic political
agendas. For instance, while Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act articulates the country's global
commitments pursuant to the 1951 Refugee Convention, other nations such as the United States have been
faulted for restrictive readings of asylum obligations (Aleinikoff, 2003). This variability highlights the conflict
between global norms and domestic policymaking, which illustrates international law providing counsel and
legitimacy rather than fully determining immigration outcomes.
There has also existed a fierce academic debate over this interrelationship between sovereignty and
international law. There are those who believe that states possess absolute autonomy in choosing migration,
considering international obligations secondary to self-interest at the national level (Wellman, 2011). There are
others who assume that globalization and increasing international organizations have increasingly constrained
state power unilaterally to control migration (Hollifield, Martin, & Orrenius, 2014). Outside scholarly
controversy, the pragmatic challenges—namely, scarce resources, national populism, and security issues—
further hinder states' willingness and capacity to integrate completely with international law.
International institutions also contribute to shaping national immigration systems. The United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) aids states with technical and legal advice in implementing
international refugee law in national systems, and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) works
with governments to influence migration policy consistent with international standards (Betts & Milner, 2017).
These institutions exhibit how international engagement encourages, but does not coerce, harmonization in
various legal and political contexts.
Briefly, immigration policy is situated at the intersection of state authority and international obligation.
International law, through treaties, conventions, and institutions, establishes structures that affect national
legislations and practices, most significantly in refugee protection and the safeguarding of migrants' rights.
However, the extent of influence depends on regional forces, domestic politics, and the commitment of states
to comply with international standards. This essay will thus analyze the role of international law not as a
determinant but as a shaping framework that informs, advises, and even constrains national immigration policy.
Conceptual Framework
Immigration is a multifaceted concept that has attracted the attention of policymakers, scholars, and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3499
www.rsisinternational.org
international organizations. Effectively, immigration refers to the movement of individuals across state borders
in search of settlement, temporary or permanent, in a host country. Unlike internal migration, immigration
always gives rise to questions of jurisdiction, sovereignty, and belonging since it refers to the intrusion of
foreigners into a sovereign state (Castles, de Haas, & Miller, 2014). Immigration motives differ. Voluntary
migrants migrate for work, study, or reunions with family members, whereas forced migrants migrate under the
duress of persecution, conflict, or environmental emergencies (Betts, 2013). Immigration policy, therefore,
constitutes the set of rules, laws, and administrative regimes that determine who can enter a country, on what
conditions they may stay, how they must integrate into society, and under what conditions or grounds they can
be sent back. These policies are generally thought of as the expression of state sovereignty, but also as
dependent on external norms, particularly those provided by international law.
Sovereignty tends to be thought of as an international politics and law organising principle. Sovereignty grants
states sovereign authority over their land, inhabitants, and decision-making processes. For immigration,
sovereignty is reflected in the power of states to control their borders and determine entry and exit of aliens
(Jackson, 2007). Historically, the authority here is nearly absolute and allows states to exclude foreigners for
purposes ranging from security to protectionism for economic purposes (Krasner, 1999). Christopher Wellman
(2011) has argued that immigration control should be understood as an extension of the state's freedom of
association, in the same way that people are free to decide whom they want to invite into their homes. This is
an argument about political communities' sovereignty to decide membership. Other critics, such as Carens
(2013), argue against this proposition based on the truth that sovereignty cannot subvert the human
fundamental rights as well as the dignity of human beings. For them, borders should not function as unbending
walls but regulated in the spirit of human rights duties calling for the context of universality of justice.
International law enters the picture as an architecture that both legitimates state action and imposes
responsibilities that curb full discretion in the governance of migration. International law is also widely
described as the aggregate of rules governing state-state relations and other international participants pursuant
to sources embedded in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. They include treaties,
customary international law, general principles of law, and judicial opinions (Shaw, 2021). Among them, some
treaties have had far-reaching effects in the realm of immigration. The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status
of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol continue to be the pillars of international refugee protection. The Convention
codifies the principle of non-refoulement, an act that renders states illegal to send refugees back to places
where their life or freedom is in danger (Goodwin-Gill & McAdam, 2021). Aside from refugee law, human
rights treaties such as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1966 International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights establish rights that apply to migrants and asylum seekers, including protection
against arbitrary detention and family reunification (Hathaway, 2021). The 1990 International Convention on
the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families is another instance of the
expanding body of international law to regulating migration, even though it is not widely ratified by major
countries receiving migrants.
Regional legal instruments have also impacted immigration law. In the European Union, the Common
European Asylum System (CEAS) attempts to harmonize asylum practice and establish minimum standards
among member states. The Schengen Agreement, by eliminating internal borders, has enhanced the complexity
of controlling migration by adding a supranational level of accountability (Guild, Costello, & Moreno-Lax,
2017). African nations, in the 1969 Organization of African Unity Convention on Refugees, extended the
definition of refugees to encompass persons fleeing general violence and external aggression, thereby making
international law more sensitive to local situations (Okoth-Obbo, 2001). The same applies to the Americas,
where the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has issued landmark rulings strengthening protections for
migrants as well as for refugees (Arboleda, 2006).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3500
www.rsisinternational.org
Though, the relationship between sovereignty and international law remains very contentious. While
international law provides normative standards, implementation at the national level remains disorganized and
often subject to political will. States may sign treaties but intentionally neglect to internalize their provisions or
interpret them narrowly in order to limit their obligations (Aleinikoff, 2003). Immigration detention reflects
this tension: international law prohibits arbitrary detention, but many states justify restrictive detention practice
on grounds of national security or deterrence. The efforts of the European Union to introduce burden-sharing
instruments for asylum seekers have also been rejected by some member states that want to preserve discretion
in immigration policy at the national level (Boswell & Geddes, 2011). These tensions capture the long-standing
reality of sovereignty as an organizing principle that persists despite international law's effort to establish a
system of cooperation and accountability. What are the prospects therefore for a conceptual ordering in which
immigration, sovereignty, and international law are interdependent but never harmonious at every instance.
Immigration policy is domesticity-led, but states cannot operate in complete autonomy from the international
sphere. Sovereignty entitles them to dominate borders, yet international law imposes obligations on them that
seek to safeguard the rights of individuals and further consistency in how states regulate immigration. An
understanding of this tension is critical to describing how international law constructs national immigration
policy, since it emphasizes the tensions between state preference and international norms, and the empirical
challenges of implementing world standards across various domestic contexts.
Key Legal International Instruments on Immigration
International legal instruments have played a crucial role in establishing how states manage immigration and
respond to cross-border movement. Although immigration is a field in which sovereignty is strongly practiced,
international law has increasingly set standards and obligations that impact national policies. These instruments
span various issues of migration governance, from refugee protection to labor migration as well as the human
rights protection. As a whole, they provide a legal climate that is acceptable to the limits under which states can
exercise discretion while reminding governments of their commitments to international cooperation and human
dignity.
One of the most important legal instruments is the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees,
complemented by its 1967 Protocol. These instruments created the modern international system for protecting
refugees and remain the pillars of global responses to forced displacement. The 1951 Convention defines a
refugee as a person who, fearing persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership of a
specific social group or political opinion, is unable or unwilling to return to his or her country of origin. The
1967 Protocol removed the original temporal and territorial limitations of the Convention, thereby
universalizing refugee protection. One central principle codified in this regime is non-refoulement, which
prohibits states from expelling or returning individuals to territories where their lives or liberties would be
threatened. This is now widely regarded as customary international law that binds even non-states parties to the
Convention (Goodwin-Gill & McAdam, 2021). In practice, the majority of national asylum law codifies the
refugee definition and non-refoulement obligation, thereby demonstrating how an international legal norm
affects domestic law.
Outside of refugee law, international human rights instruments also influenced the rights and protection
extended to migrants. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), although not binding in law, laid a
normative foundation on the basis of claiming rights to all human beings, including a right to seek asylum. The
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (1966) provide enforcable rights that are applicable to migrants. These include
rights to liberty, security, family life, and nondiscrimination. They also establish minimum standards for the
treatment of migrants in detention, access to justice, and cultural and social rights (Hathaway, 2021). The
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3501
www.rsisinternational.org
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) also expands protection further by insisting that children,
whether they are documented or not, have a right to special care and protection. These instruments describe the
manner in which human rights covenants have an indirect impact on immigration policies by compelling states
to respect universal norms for dealing with immigrants.
Another foundational convention is the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant
Workers and Members of Their Families adopted in 1990. The convention seeks to protect the fundamental
rights of migrant workers regardless of whether they are in a country lawfully or unlawfully, and to ensure
them rights such as equality before the law, protection against arbitrary expulsion, and access to basic services.
Despite, its impact has been curtailed because the majority of prominent migrant-receiving countries have not
ratified it, a reflection of powerful states' resistance to limit their sovereignty over labor migration (Pécoud &
de Guchteneire, 2007). Yet, for ratifying states, particularly migrant-sending states, the convention enhances
the protection of their nationals abroad and forces governments to pursue policies in accordance with
international workers' rights.
Apart from such global conventions, regional legal systems have played a crucial role in building migration
governance. The most intricate supranational system has developed in the European Union, with the Common
European Asylum System establishing a floor of standards for asylum procedures, reception, and qualification
conditions. Regulations such as the Dublin Regulation determine which member state would process an
application for asylum and thereby limit the chances of asylum shopping (Guild, Costello, & Moreno-Lax,
2017). The Schengen Agreement has also transformed the administration of migration by removing the
requirement for internal frontier controls within member states, though it has exerted pressure on frontiers
outside of membership territory and created controversy around burden-sharing. These instruments
significantly constrain national autonomy by harmonizing the policies and deriving a common approach to
dealing with migration in the EU.
In Africa, the 1969 Organization of African Unity Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee
Problems in Africa extended the definition of a refugee beyond the 1951 Convention to include those fleeing
external aggression, occupation, foreign domination, or serious disturbance of public order. This broader
strategy was formulated in recognition of the mass displacement dynamics on the continent and has been
incorporated into asylum policies of many African countries (Okoth-Obbo, 2001). The African Union recently
promoted the Protocol on Free Movement of Persons, which, though not yet in operation, aims to facilitate
intra-African migration in the integration agenda of the continent. These local instruments exhibit international
law's adaptability to the local and temporal conditions while forcing states to modify their domestic policies in
turn.
In the Americas, the Inter-American system of human rights has made a significant difference in the protection
of migrants. The Inter-American Convention on Human Rights (1969) and the jurisprudence of the Inter-
American Court of Human Rights have enriched the principle of non-refoulement and interpreted due process
guarantees for migrants and asylum seekers (Arboleda, 2006). The Court has produced landmark decisions
recognizing irregular migrants' right to equal treatment as well as the right to access justice, against restricting
national policies in Mexico and the Dominican Republic. This shows how domestic courts can influence
national legal regimes directly by interpreting international obligations in language that supports migrant
protection.
International activity has also extended beyond legally binding treaties to the employment of soft law
measures. The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (2018) and the Global Compact on
Refugees (2018) are political commitments rather than legally binding treaties, but they possess significant
normative power. They encourage states to cooperate on issues such as responsibility-sharing, safe migration
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3502
www.rsisinternational.org
channels, and protecting vulnerable groups. Although their enforcement lies in the hands of states, they set
policy agendas that shape national discourse and encourage convergence among immigration policies (Betts &
Milner, 2017).
Together, these instruments show the growing role of international law in managing migration. They establish
minimum standards, facilitate regional harmonization, and construct normative blueprints that guide national
immigration policy. Yet their effectiveness is dependent on the generosity of states to ratify, enact, and comply
with them. The treaties on refugee and human rights have continued to be relatively influential, while the
convention on migrant workers has struggled to gain membership from destination countries. Regional
instruments have most effectively functioned in Europe, Africa, and the Americas, where shared history and
institutions allow for more intensive cooperation. These instruments of law illustrate the dynamic and complex
relationship between sovereignty and international norms in the regulation of immigration.
The Influence Of International Law On National Immigration Policies
The influence of international law on national immigration policies is indirect and works on legal, political,
and institutional planes. Although immigration has been portrayed as an area where states have unlimited
sovereignty, international law has infused binding rules, normative expectations, and institutional pressures that
significantly shape how states design and implement policies. These effects can be particularly observed in
areas of refugee protection, human rights standards, anti-smuggling and anti-trafficking, family reunification,
and labor migration. States may be irregular in implementing these standards, but their presence within
national legal systems is evidence of the reality that international law has emerged as a defining force in
immigration control.
The most obvious area of international influence is perhaps refugee and asylum seeker protection. The 1951
Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol are the cornerstone instruments that have influenced asylum policy
globally. The doctrine of non-refoulement, codified in Article 33 of the Convention, has been enshrined in most
signatory states' domestic law so that people cannot be sent back to places where they would be persecuted or
where their life would be threatened (Goodwin-Gill & McAdam, 2021). To illustrate, Canada's Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act explicitly reflects its obligations under the Refugee Convention, codifying
procedures to assess asylum claims in accordance with international standards. Within the European Union,
asylum regimes are established on the basis of obligations under both the Refugee Convention and EU
directives, including the Qualification Directive and the Asylum Procedures Directive, which harmonize
standards for the granting of protection (Guild, Costello, & Moreno-Lax, 2017). Even where political
opposition to immigration is intense, courts frequently use international refugee law to hold governments to
account for illegal removals or exclusory asylum measures, thus underpinning the impact of international
norms on national systems. International human rights law also limits national discretion in immigration policy
by setting out minimum standards of treatment for migrants. Treaties such as the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Against Torture prohibit arbitrary detention, cruel or degrading
treatment, and discrimination, each of which has relevance in immigration enforcement contexts (Hathaway,
2021). National courts routinely apply these obligations to review immigration detention policies or
deportation practices. For example, the European Court of Human Rights has regularly ruled states in violation
of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights in immigration detention cases, requiring
governments to amend domestic practice (Mole & Meredith, 2010). Similarly, in Latin America, the
jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has reinforced guarantees for irregular migrants,
affirming their due process and non-discrimination rights, prompting reforms in states such as Mexico and
Argentina (Arboleda, 2006). All of these developments demonstrate that international human rights law has
become a key point of reference in balancing state sovereignty with the protection of migrants' rights.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3503
www.rsisinternational.org
One other field in which international law has influenced domestic policies is the combat against human
trafficking and migrant smuggling. The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime
(2000) and its supplementary protocols on trafficking in persons and smuggling of migrants compel states to
criminalize trafficking and smuggling and also to take measures to safeguard victims. These obligations have
led to extensive reforms of domestic criminal codes and immigration regimes, with the majority of states
passing special anti-trafficking units and victim protection mechanisms consistent with international standards
(Gallagher, 2010). In West Africa, for example, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)
has approved action plans for harmonizing anti-trafficking activities, demonstrating how regional cooperation
complements global treaties in shaping national responses. The focus on victim protection within international
instruments has prompted states to move away from dealing with trafficked individuals as irregular migrants
who could be deported to treating them as victims who are deserving of assistance and legal redress.
Family reunification is a further area of policy that has been affected by international law, specifically through
human rights standards. The right to family life, enshrined in Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, was found by many courts to
apply to migrants and their families. This has led to judgments from the courts compelling states to amend
restrictive family reunification policies. In the European Union, the Family Reunification Directive sets out
minimum standards for the member states, demonstrating how international and regional norms shape national
legal frameworks (Groenendijk, 2006). Although discretion in terms of eligibility criteria and conditions is left
to the states, international law has ensured family unity as a legitimate ground for migration, limiting the
freedom of states to deny entry to family members of legal residents or refugees.
Labour migration policies have similarly, though sporadically, been informed by international legal
frameworks. The International Labour Organization (ILO) has adopted several conventions touching on the
treatment of migrant workers, including protection against exploitation, the right to equal treatment, and
protection regarding working conditions. While ratification levels are low within major receiving states, these
instruments have influenced national labor standards and have prompted civil society efforts to promote
protections for migrant workers (Pécoud & de Guchteneire, 2007). The 1990 International Convention on the
Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, despite its poor ratification by
receiving states, has been significant for migrant-sending states, which use it to urge more humane treatment of
their nationals abroad. Its indirect impact has been in focusing international attention on the rights of migrant
workers, pushing states to harmonize their policies with international labor norms even without formal
ratification.
International law has also influenced immigration enforcement strategies, particularly in the context of
deportations and removals. The principle of non-refoulement prohibits states from deporting individuals to
countries where they would be tortured, persecuted, or exposed to inhuman treatment. This has led courts to
halt deportations where real risks of harm are substantiated, despite governments' insistence on implementing
firm immigration controls. In the United Kingdom, for example, removals to countries with poor human rights
records have been successfully appealed against under the European Convention on Human Rights,
demonstrating how national enforcement policy is directly shaped by international legal obligations (Mole &
Meredith, 2010).
The influence of international law is not limited to binding treaties but extends to soft law and international
policy initiatives. The 2018 Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration is a non-binding treaty
that encourages states to adopt policies allowing safe migration, Xenophobia prevention, and enhanced
collaboration on return and reintegration. Although lacking legal power, the Compact has shaped policy
debates in the majority of states and been referred to in the development of migration strategies, particularly in
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3504
www.rsisinternational.org
Asia and Africa (Betts & Milner, 2017). The Global Compact on Refugees, adopted in 2018, has promoted
responsibility-sharing arrangements and stimulated reforms in national asylum systems. These instruments
reflect the increasing role of soft law in informing national policy through political commitment and normative
guidance.
Together, these examples show how international law affects immigration policies in various areas. Refugee
law creates binding standards for asylum regimes, human rights law constrains arbitrary state action, anti-
trafficking treaties revolutionize enforcement and victim protection, family reunification agreements strengthen
migrant rights to reunify, labor standards heighten protections for migrant workers, and soft law agreements
shape global migration policy debates. While the degree of influence varies by treaty, state, and regional
situation, the overall trend is one of growing interdependence between national immigration regimes and
international legal frameworks.
Case Studies
Case studies provide a useful lens through which to examine how international law interacts with national
political contexts to shape immigration policies. Through comparing different jurisdictions, it emerges that the
influence of international law is neither consistent nor automatic, but is instead filtered through national
agendas, regional politics, and judicial interpretation. Three illustrative examples are the European Union, the
United States, and African nations, which reveal the different ways that international norms are integrated into
national immigration regimes.
The European Union represents one of the most advanced examples of regional integration in migration
control, with international and supranational legal orders co-existing alongside national policies. EU member
states are parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights, both of
which have shaped asylum policy. To these undertakings, the EU has added a supranational legal order in the
shape of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), whereby asylum laws are harmonized across the
region. Initiatives such as the Qualification Directive and the Dublin Regulation set standards for refugee
recognition and responsibility-sharing between member states (Guild, Costello, & Moreno-Lax, 2017). The
European Court of Human Rights has reaffirmed the binding nature of human rights protection for migrants, as
in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (2011), when it held that asylum seekers could not be returned to conditions
of inhuman treatment. The Court of Justice of the European Union has also handed down judgments holding
states to their commitments under EU directives even where national politics favor exclusionary policies. At
the same time, national governments, particularly Hungary, Poland, and Italy, have resisted EU-level
commitments, most prominently during the 2015 migration crisis. This tension underscores the degree to
which international and supranational norms shape policy but are challenged in practice. Despite such
resistance, the EU context presents the strongest example of international and regional law consolidating
immigration governance as a multilevel system in which state sovereignty is moderated by legal obligations.
The United States provides a counter example, whereby international law has a lesser but still significant
influence on immigration policy. Although the U.S. is a signatory to the 1967 Refugee Protocol, it is not a
signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention itself, although significant provisions of international refugee law,
like the principle of non-refoulement, are included in domestic asylum law. The Refugee Act of 1980 aligned
U.S. asylum procedures with international standards, freeing the domestic law from the grip of discretionary
sua sponte power, and demonstrating the influence of treaty commitments on national law (Aleinikoff, 2003).
However, subsequent administrations have at times adopted constrained interpretations of such commitments.
For instance, U.S. courts have been frequently required to interpret the limits of asylum eligibility, with rulings
on gender-based persecution or gang violence reflecting persistent tensions between international norms and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3505
www.rsisinternational.org
national discretion (Hathaway, 2021). The Trump administration's "Remain in Mexico" policy was widely
criticized abroad for violating non-refoulement principles, yet courts habitually balanced such interests against
executive authority. The U.S. has also declined to ratify other migration-specific agreements, such as the
Migrant Workers Convention, demonstrating its selective acceptance of international agreements. Advocacy
organizations and international agencies such as the UNHCR indirectly influence U.S. policy by providing
legal advice, overseeing implementation, and shaping debates around refugee resettlement. So while
sovereignty is the dominant narrative of American immigration policy, international law still has an important
role in shaping asylum policy and providing a rights-based agenda for challenges. In Africa, the confluence of
global and regional law has produced unique innovations in refugee protection and migration management.
The 1969 Organization of African Unity (OAU) Refugee Convention significantly expanded the refugee
definition from that of the 1951 Convention, covering those fleeing external aggression, occupation, and events
seriously disturbing public order. This wider criterion has been included in national law around the continent,
providing protection to massive groups of people displaced by wars in countries like Sudan, Somalia, and the
Democratic Republic of Congo (Okoth-Obbo, 2001). Uganda, for instance, has received international acclaim
for its liberal refugee policies, with refugees being accorded the right to work, freedom of movement, and the
right to land, in adherence to its international and regional commitments (Betts, 2011). Kenya, for example, has
internalized refugee protection norms into its Refugees Act, albeit its implementation has continued to be
uneven, especially for Somali refugees in Dadaab camps. West African states, via the Economic Community of
West African States (ECOWAS), have also developed protocols on free movement, residence, and
establishment, one of the most advanced regional migration systems beyond Europe (Adepoju, 2007). These
measures, while not exempt from enforcement challenges, are indicative of the ways that international law has
shaped African national immigration regimes, in some cases going beyond standards set in other regions of the
globe. However, xenophobia, institutional weakness, and security concerns habitually delimit the de facto
implementation of such international commitments. In the European Union, binding regional and international
agreements have made asylum and migration control a supranational realm, even if contested in practice. In the
United States, international law provides a foundation for asylum but remains subject to sovereignty and
domestic politics. In Africa, international and regional law has extended refugee protections and promoted free
movement regimes, even if faced with difficulties in practice. These divergences underline the point that while
international law establishes shared standards and norms, national contexts mediate the extent and form of
compliance, producing a mosaic of immigration control that is variegated.
Challenges In Aligning National Immigration Policies with International Law
While it plays an important part in the construction of national immigration systems, international law
confronts severe challenges and constraints to shaping state policy. The underlying tension is that immigration
is inevitably linked with sovereignty, and states are typically reluctant to accept outside restraint when they
perceive it as conflicting with national security, political interests, or domestic imperatives. While international
treaties, customary international law, and soft law tools have accumulated norms on the treatment of asylum
seekers, migrants, and refugees, enforcement remains unequal and frequently undermined by weak measures to
secure compliance. The dynamic between international law and immigration policy is therefore characterized
not only by norm diffusion and legal convergence but by selective enforcement, resistance, and blatant
violations.
The most consequential of these is the tug between international responsibility and state sovereignty.
Immigration has traditionally been seen as one of the remaining bastions of state authority, bestowing on states
the ability to decide who can enter, reside, and naturalize in their countries. As much as tools such as the
Refugee Convention impose duties on states, governments appeal to sovereignty in order to justify coercive
immigration policy. For instance, the 2015 European migration crisis highlighted the difficulty in
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3506
www.rsisinternational.org
implementing international commitments when several states, like Hungary and Poland, refused to accept EU
relocation quotas or asylum seekers regardless of their EU and international refugee commitments (Guild,
Costello, & Moreno-Lax, 2017). In the U.S., claims of sovereignty are usually made in resistance to wider
internationalizing of international norms, as suggested by its inability to ratify the International Convention on
the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Sovereignty is then a
strong deterrent to the global application of international law, as states weigh their perceived national interests
against burdens of compliance imposed by others.
Another limitation is the weak enforcement mechanisms of international migration law. As opposed to
international trade or investment law, which has strong constraints of dispute resolution mechanisms, treaties
regarding migration do not generally have binding institutions for enforcement. The Refugee Convention, for
example, does not have a standing tribunal or court to decide on violations and is left mainly to the discretion
of domestic courts and political will (Hathaway, 2021). Although there are institutions such as the European
Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union that have been able to enforce
obligations in Europe, such structures do not exist in a majority of regions. Even when international overseeing
bodies are present, such as the UN Human Rights Committee or the UNHCR supervisory mandate, their
recommendations are not binding, and states do not pay heed to them. This institutional weakness explains
why non-refoulement disregards, prolonged immigration detention, and curtailment of asylum practice
continue with very little consequences for non-cooperative states.
Domestic politics and rising populism also limit the effectiveness of international law. In recent decades, the
majority of countries have experienced growing nationalist and populist parties raising concerns about
immigration as a threat to cultural identity, economic security, or stability. Leaders use anti-immigrant rhetoric
in order to mobilize electoral support, and in these cases, international legal obligations are defined as demands
originating from outside. As one example, the pull-out in 2017 by the Trump administration from engagement
in the talks in the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration was justified on grounds of
protecting American sovereignty, whereas the Compact is not binding (Betts & Milner, 2017). Similarly, in the
United Kingdom, Brexit arguments became entangled with resistance to EU migration law and free movement
obligations, demonstrating the political backlash international migration law might generate. Populism has
therefore jeopardized political adherence to international law as governments opt for short-term political gains
over long-term legal obligations. Resource constraints similarly compromise adherence to international
obligations, particularly within the Global South. A number of African and Asian countries hosting large
refugee populations struggle to implement international standards due to limited financial and institutional
capacities. Uganda's liberal policies that grant rights to work and land are undermined by failure to follow up
due to chronic underfunding of humanitarian interventions (Betts, 2011). Similarly, in Lebanon and Jordan,
with millions of Syrian refugees hosted there, the gap between international obligations and actuality is
exacerbated by strained infrastructures and deficient international burden-sharing. This represents another
major deficiency of international law: while it creates rules, it most frequently does not ensure adequate
international cooperation and funding to enable compliance, which unreasonably burdens frontline states.
Ambiguities as well as loopholes in international law further make it less effective. For example, the 1951
Refugee Convention was negotiated during the post-World War II era and is not precisely aimed at current
causes of displacement such as climate change, environmental disasters, or mass violence. Accordingly, several
individuals who are under serious threat are not covered by the legal definition of "refugee" and thus do not
receive adequate protection (McAdam, 2012). Although instruments like the 1969 OAU Refugee Convention
have expanded the definition of refugees, there is no global consensus to modernize international refugee law.
Even the Migrant Workers Convention, as extensive in scope as it is, has not been ratified by major migrant
destination states and therefore its global application is limited. These deficits leave major categories of
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3507
www.rsisinternational.org
migrants vulnerable to lack of protection, demonstrating the need to reform and modernize international legal
regimes.
Politicization of burden-sharing is also weakening the effects of international law. The Refugee Convention
recognizes the principle of international cooperation but does not have binding measures to ensure equal
sharing of responsibility. This has created uneven burdens on certain states, particularly those with borders
adjacent to conflict areas. In the Syrian refugee crisis, Lebanon, Turkey, and Jordan got most of the displaced
individuals, while wealthier nations in Europe and North America absorbed relatively fewer refugees (Crawley
& Skleparis, 2018). Such imbalances not only impose upon host states but also create resentment and thus
governments adopt restrictive measures despite being under international obligation. Lack of enforceable
burden-sharing, international law is open to accusations of unfairness and selective application.
Eventually, the rise of security interests and counterterror policies has led numerous states to turn to restrictive
immigration policies that undercut international safeguards. After September 11, 2001, states increasingly
prioritized immigration control as a matter of national security and consequently have detained, monitored, and
expanded border controls. These restrictions generally work in contravention to international obligations, such
as the prohibition on arbitrary detention under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Mole
& Meredith, 2010). Governments have been able to justify such action in the wake of international criticism,
basing it on security threats, even going to an extent to comment on the frailty of international law with
existing domestic imperatives.
Overall, the constraints and limitations of international law in shaping immigration policy are rooted in
sovereignty, deficient mechanisms for enforcement, domestic politics, resource limits, legal uncertainties,
burden-sharing debates, security, and global disparities. Though international law has developed an important
normative framework, its ability to enforce cooperation remains limited by the nature of state action and global
disparities. These limitations underscore the needs for more robust enforcement measures, more equitable
cooperation, and responsive reforms attuned to contemporary migration issues.
Emerging Trends and Future Directions
International law for the subject matter of migration is still developing according to emerging global concerns,
shifting politics, and new emerging laws. While the 20th century was marked by the codification of refugee
law and the evolution of human rights regimes binding migrants, the 21st century is witnessing newer
controversies emerging, particularly in relation to global governance, climate change displacement, and greater
prospects for international cooperation. These developments both react to the inadequacies of existing
frameworks and recognize that migration is a transnational process no single country can expect to control on
its own.
The most powerful recent development is the adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular
Migration (GCM) in 2018. The GCM was endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly as the first-ever
universal international agreement on migration management. Though non-obligatory, it represents a historic
attempt at encouraging collective approaches towards migration, prioritizing values of human dignity,
responsibility-sharing, and protecting migrant rights (UN General Assembly, 2018). Its 23 targets provide a
roadmap for action aimed at addressing a wide range of migration-related issues, such as reducing migration
vulnerabilities, increasing legal access, and pushing back against human trafficking. While opponents cite the
non-binding nature of the Compact as evidence of its poor enforceability, its political strength lies in the fact
that it sets out a model for consultation and cooperation between states.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3508
www.rsisinternational.org
Also, it has already influenced national policy debates, with other states putting migration policies into practice
aligned to GCM objectives. But the negative critique of the Compact, particularly by countries such as the
United States, Hungary, and Poland, which refused to sign it, highlights the persistent tension between
sovereignty and cooperation at the international level. The Compact remains an important first step toward the
institutionalization of a more reasonable, rights-based conception of migration governance, while its actual
impact in the world remains subject to political will. Another new trend that is redefining global legal discourse
on migration is climate change and environmental displacement.
The current refugee framework, enshrined in the 1951 Convention, does not provide for climate change as a
refugee reason, exposing tens of millions to the threat of displacement with no access to the law. Climate-
related events, such as desertification, sea-level rise, and extreme weather, already are displacing individuals
from their homes in vulnerable regions, particularly the Pacific Islands, sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia
(McAdam, 2012). Jurists and policymakers began thinking about how to cover this protection gap. One course
has been the establishment of regimes of complementary protection at the regional and national levels, under
which protection can be granted on humanitarian grounds even if a person does not fit the refugee definition.
For example, New Zealand has pursued policies for inhabitants of Pacific island states threatened by rising sea
levels, though these are politically charged. Globally, for instance, bodies such as the UN Human Rights
Committee have also recognized that it could constitute a breach of the right to life under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to return individuals to countries where climate change jeopardizes
their lives (Teitiota v. New Zealand, 2020).
Although such decisions are short of creating binding obligations, they represent growing willingness to
transfer human rights instruments into environmental displacement. The future debates will concern whether or
not a new international climate-induced migration treaty is feasible or piecemeal development of existing
refugee and human rights law will suffice. The potential for increased international cooperation in migration
policy is also shaped by broader geopolitical and economic trends. Pressure to migrate is likely to increase due
to continued global inequalities, demographic changes, and conflict, making international cooperation more
urgent.
Regional institutions have become increasingly used to meet governance gaps, as is witnessed in the European
Union's Common European Asylum System and the Economic Community of West African States' free
movement agreements (Adepoju, 2007). Regional architecture demonstrates that it is possible to achieve
cooperation but also defines political solidarity's limits in the face of adversity. The pandemic of COVID-19
further highlighted the vulnerability of cooperative models, with states quickly closing borders and suspending
asylum processes, regularly at the cost of international commitments (Guild, Moreno-Lax, & Garlick, 2021).
However, the pandemic also served to underscore the critical contribution of migrant labor in the maintenance
of economies, leading to renewed demands for more humane and sustainable migration policies. The challenge
facing the test will be balancing legitimate security and public health concerns with respect for international
legal obligations and migrants' human rights. The more widespread employment of soft law and multi-
stakeholder governance will also shape the direction of international law and migration. The Global Compact
for Migration and the Global Compact on Refugees, as non-binding documents, are still useful tools for
dialogue and the transmission of norms.
International actors, civil society, and migrant rights organizations are increasingly involved in shaping
migration governance, often as a result of being able to fill the vacuum left by the absence of binding
enforcement. This pluralization of governance raises important accountability and legitimacy issues but also
simply reflects that state-dominated models cannot come close to addressing the demanding migration
dynamics (Betts, 2011). Last, the future of international law in migration will be with the international
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3509
www.rsisinternational.org
community's capacity to make cooperation firm while transforming legal models to adapt to contemporary
realities. Growing recognition of displacement due to climate change, political support for cooperative
approaches such as the GCM, and the promise of stronger regional models of governance all suggest a slow
but uneven expansion of the role of international law in shaping national immigration policy.
While sovereignty and home country politics will continue to be source of problems, the future will witness
incremental change, new legal questions, and an ongoing balancing act between state discretion and
international norms. The emergence of new questions, particularly those related to environmental change and
global crises, underscores the necessity of re-molding migration governance so as to be legally legitimate but
politically feasible
CONCLUSION
The role of international law in the shaping of national immigration policy is at once deep and contentious,
reflecting the underlying contradiction between state sovereignty and the imperatives of international
governance. International law over the decades has provided a framework for the protection of refugees,
migrants' rights, and the facilitation of cooperative approaches to migration management.
These instruments contribute to shared norms and expectations, albeit unequal in the enforceability, such as the
1951 Refugee Convention, human rights treaties, and now the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular
Migration. The instruments demonstrate how, while states control immigration policy-making chiefly, their
policies are now inevitably decided by international legal standards and global debate. Nevertheless, the
weaknesses of international law are evident. Weakened enforcement tools, political resistance, and resource
constraints undermine habitual compliance.
Populism and nationalism have also undermined the legitimacy of global norms as states are more likely to
prioritize domestic interests over international commitments. Simultaneously, new challenges such as climate
change, pandemics, and protracted displacement accentuate the inadequacy of existing legal regimes and
emphasize the necessity for change. The irregular distribution of burden among states, particularly in refugee
emergencies, demonstrates the necessity of greater burden-sharing and international solidarity mechanisms
(Hathaway, 2021; McAdam, 2012). In the future, the prospects for international law in this area will be
incremental, not transformational. Non-legally binding instruments such as the Global Compact are available
fora for cooperation and norm-setting, as human rights jurisprudence continues to add protective shields for
marginalized populations. Ultimately, international law neither can realistically dictate national immigration
law nor can it be irrelevant, but rather serves as a unifying template that pushes states towards greater
conformity with shared standards of humanity, dignity, and justice.
New Section
Enter your content here...
REFERENCES
1. Adepoju, A. (2007). Creating a borderless West Africa: Constraints and prospects for intra-
regional migration. In A. Pécoud & P. de Guchteneire (Eds.), Migration without borders:
Essays on the free movement of people (pp. 161–174). UNESCO Publishing.
2. Aleinikoff, T. A. (2003). Semblances of sovereignty: The constitution, the state, and American
citizenship. Harvard University Press.
3. Arboleda, E. (2006). Refugee definitions in Africa and Latin America: The lessons of
pragmatism. International Journal of Refugee Law, 3(2), 185–207.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/3.2.185
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3510
www.rsisinternational.org
4. Betts, A. (2011). Global migration governance. Oxford University Press.
5. Betts, A. (2013). Survival migration: Failed governance and the crisis of displacement.
Cornell University Press.
6. Betts, A., & Milner, J. (2017). Governance of the global refugee regime. Refugee Studies
Centre, University of Oxford.
7. Boswell, C., & Geddes, A. (2011). Migration and mobility in the European Union.
Palgrave Macmillan.
8. Carens, J. H. (2013). The ethics of immigration. Oxford University Press.
9. Castles, S., de Haas, H., & Miller, M. J. (2014). The age of migration: International population
movements in the modern world (5th ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
10. Crawley, H., & Skleparis, D. (2018). Refugees, migrants, neither, both: Categorical fetishism
and the politics of bounding in Europe’s ‘migration crisis’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies, 44(1), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1348224
11. Gallagher, A. T. (2010). The international law of human trafficking. Cambridge University
Press.
12. Goodwin-Gill, G. S., & McAdam, J. (2021). The refugee in international law (4th ed.).
Oxford University Press.
13. Groenendijk, K. (2006). Family reunification as a right under community law. European
Journal of Migration and Law, 8(2), 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1163/157181606777882179
14. Guild, E., Costello, C., & Moreno-Lax, V. (2017). The EU asylum acquis: Mapping its
evolution for the CEAS reform. European Parliament Policy Study.
15. Guild, E., Moreno-Lax, V., & Garlick, M. (2021). COVID-19 and migration: A global human
rights crisis. Routledge.
16. Hathaway, J. C. (2021). The rights of refugees under international law (2nd ed.).
Cambridge University Press.
17. Hollifield, J. F., Martin, P. L., & Orrenius, P. M. (2014). Controlling immigration: A
global perspective (3rd ed.). Stanford University Press.
18. Jackson, R. (2007). Sovereignty: Evolution of an idea. Polity Press.
19. Krasner, S. D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized hypocrisy. Princeton University Press.
20. McAdam, J. (2012). Climate change, forced migration, and international law. Oxford
University Press.
21. Mole, N., & Meredith, C. (2010). Asylum and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Council of Europe Publishing.
22. M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, App. No. 30696/09, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2011)
23. Okoth-Obbo, G. (2001). Thirty years on: A legal review of the 1969 OAU Refugee
Convention governing the specific aspects of refugee problems in Africa. Refugee Survey
Quarterly, 20(1), 79–
138. https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/20.1.79
24. Pécoud, A., & de Guchteneire, P. (2007). Migration without borders: An investigation into the
free movement of people. Global Migration Perspectives, 27, 1–38.
25. Shaw, M. N. (2021). International law (9th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
26. UN General Assembly. (2018). Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular
Migration (A/RES/73/195). United Nations.
27. Wellman, C. H. (2011). Immigration and freedom of association. Ethics, 119(1), 109–
141. https://doi.org/10.1086/592415
