| Abstract: | Migrant workers are less protected than nationals against the actions of states and employers. These workers therefore require special global protection of their rights while employed in countries other than their own. Accordingly, the UN International Labor Organization (ILO) is constitutionally charged with developing international measures to protect the interests of migrant workers from developing countries. The ILO, however, had little involvement in molding the International Convention on the protection of the Rights of All Migrants Workers and Members of their Families, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1990. Instead, final adoption of the Convention stems largely from developing state dissatisfaction with the former 1975 ILO Migrant Workers Convention No. 143, and Mexican and Moroccan government machinations outside of the ILO in support of modifications. Convention No. 143 threatened to sever employment opportunities and hard foreign exchange remittances in North America and western Europe from illegally employed immigrant workers from developing countries. By working in the UN outside of the ILO, developing nations would enjoy automatic majority, and greater potential for success in reforming the Convention. Soon, developing nations squelched a delay tactic proffered by the Swedes, and succeeded in bringing the UN General Assembly to adopt resolution 34/172 in December 1979, which led to the establishment of an Open-Ended Working Group. This group then elaborated the 1990 Convention over 19 sessions. At the expense of the ILO and more developed nations, developing nations successfully challenged and changed the international order to benefit their peoples and national economies. Finally, the paper considers the interests of immigrant businesspeople and asylum seekers during or immediately upon entry to a foreign country, who are not specifically covered by the Convention. While the university of international humanitarian law suggests that businesspeople be included in the Convention, changes to the Convention will probably not be forthcoming. As for asylum seekers waiting for either refugee status or an interim-term engagement for work, the sensitive nature of this topic in certain countries precludes the adoption of inclusive documentation. |
