Multi-stakeholder humanitarian diplomacy at global and regional levels, including transregional dialogues, are key for mobilising State efforts to address missing migrant cases.

Objective 8 of the 2018 Global Compact for Migration (GCM) is a commitment to ‘Save lives and establish coordinated international efforts on missing migrants. Its inclusion brought missing migrants onto the global agenda by establishing a set of political commitments on how to address their plight. As soon as the GCM moved to the implementation phase, however, this milestone turned into a challenge: how to put these global commitments into effect on the ground to prevent deaths and disappearances and improve search efforts along migratory routes.

The first round of GCM reviews conducted in 2020–21 showed an exceptionally low implementation of Objective 8 as only a few States reported progress on it.[1] It also became evident that there was a risk of misinterpretation of its commitments against the backdrop of prevalent security-centric (as opposed to protection-focused and rights-based) approaches to migration, as preventing migrants’ (dangerous) journeys could be claimed as an obvious way to save their lives.

States’ reluctance to engage in a concrete way on missing migrants should not have come as a surprise. Deaths and disappearances of migrants are often linked (directly or indirectly) to restrictive migration-related policies and practices and, as such, are a sensitive and often politicised issue. Furthermore, the complexities attached to, and the lack of established know-how regarding, transnational search and identification also constitute obstacles. Finally, the lack of an effective lead agency combining political clout with operational presence and the absence of a dedicated UN Network on Migration (UNNM) workstream further hampered implementation during the first years following GCM adoption.

This article examines how a multi-stakeholder and multi-layered humanitarian diplomacy effort carried out since 2022 has managed to reverse this trend. Work done by a growing coalition involving the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the International Organization for Migration (IOM), UNHCR and the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (IFRC), with the support of other actors, has enabled tangible progress in promoting States’ coordinated efforts to address missing migrant cases, providing a promising blueprint for the road ahead.

Engagement at the global level

From the outset a two-pronged approach was pursued: on the one hand, an effort to reinvigorate and strengthen the important framework of commitments provided by the GCM; and on the other hand, a focus (following a route-based logic) on regional and sub-regional organisations and bodies as agents of mobilisation of States. This approach benefitted immensely from a mutually supportive interplay with the work of global and regional human rights bodies, including the Committee against Enforced Disappearances[2] of the UN and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights[3].

Given the sobering reality of early Objective 8 implementation, ICRC and IOM sought to leverage the first International Migration Review Forum (IMRF) (which monitors progress in implementation of the Global Compact on Migration) in 2022 to push for a greater focus on Objective 8 and reemphasise the importance of missing migrants and their families. From the start, cooperation between the ICRC and IOM was key, based on the latter’s data, analysis, reach and influence, coupled with the ICRC’s technical expertise, presence on the ground and long-standing experience working for the missing and their families in situations of armed conflict and violence. The broadening of this alliance through the launch of a joint UNNM–ICRC–IFRC statement on missing migrants in early 2022 increased its ability to inform and influence the outcome of the IMRF process and the next phase in GCM implementation.[4]

Following concerted advocacy efforts, in paragraph 76 of the IMRF Progress Declaration the UN General Assembly requested that the UN Secretary-General provide “actionable recommendations on strengthening cooperation on missing migrants and providing humanitarian assistance to migrants in distress … with the aim of preventing loss of life in transit.” A dedicated UNNM workstream was established to respond to this mandate with IOM and the ICRC leading the work on missing migrants and IOM, UNHCR and IFRC working on the aspect of humanitarian assistance to migrants in distress. Over 18 months the workstream brought in other participants from the UN and civil society, conducted multi-stakeholder consultations, and compiled best practices[5], lessons learned and existing guidelines and tools for prevention and case resolution.

This led to the development of a set of 26 concrete recommendations which were presented to the UN General Assembly in a report of the UN Secretary-General in December 2024.[6] Importantly, these recommendations are expressly intended to be applicable to refugees and other persons in need of international protection too, thus reinforcing the complementarity between the two Global Compacts, on Migration and on Refugees. notably in the context of mixed movements. Such complementarity, which is emphasised in a general manner in a specific section of the Secretary General’s report, is of critical importance as no commitments comparable to Objective 8 of the GCM are found in the GCR. Applying Objective 8 commitments to all people moving across international borders in mixed movement settings, irrespective of status, is significant progress as it avoids the often harmful definitional disputes that have marred previous discussions.

Engagement at the global level, however, would not have been sufficient on its own to foster concrete progress in State responses to missing migrants, as this requires prioritising coordinated prevention, search and identification efforts along migratory routes, across countries of origin, transit and destination, including by States that did not adopt the GCM.

Regional-level engagement

Regional and sub-regional bodies as well as, importantly, transregional migration dialogues have proven critical in providing platforms for States to discuss and jointly address missing migrant-related challenges. These bodies and processes can help turn global commitments into practical policies or recommendations adapted to regional realities. This has been recognised by the UN Secretary General who in 2024 recommended to UN Member States to “leverage regional and sub-regional bodies to facilitate cooperation among States and other actors on search and identification along routes such as through common policies, information-sharing and exchange of practices.”[7] Since 2019, not least due to sustained advocacy by the ICRC, IOM and others both at multilateral and at individual State level, a growing number of regional bodies around the world has taken on the issue of missing migrants.

In 2022, following two years of consultations, the 11 Member States of the Regional Conference on Migration in the Americas adopted a comprehensive set of ‘Recommendations on Regional Coordination and Information Exchange Mechanisms in the Search for Missing Persons in the Context of Migration’.

In the same year, the Rabat Process (Euro-African Dialogue on Migration) began to focus on the issue through dedicated thematic discussions, leading its 54 Member States to incorporate missing migrants into their joint action plan the following year. Since then, strong leadership on the issue by The Gambia and Switzerland in this forum, supported by the ICRC, IOM and UNHCR, has yielded path-breaking results in the form of a Network of National Focal Points.[8]

In Africa, the ICRC and the African Union Commission have jointly organised several high-level meetings on missing migrants. The AU Commission now plans, with support from IOM, to develop a set of continental guidelines on the issue. Similarly, several discussions have been held between 2022 and 2024 in the framework of the Economic Community of West African States to work towards a Strategic Plan for Missing Migrants.[9]

In Europe, intergovernmental discussions – let alone frameworks and policies – have been woefully lacking (outside the Rabat Process), despite the continent having the world’s largest reported caseload of missing migrants at its shores and on its doorstep, notably but not only linked to the Mediterranean and Atlantic routes. However, two recent developments give cause for optimism. At the level of the EU, in March 2024 the Belgian Presidency initiated the first ever technical discussion of the missing migrants issue at the Council of the EU.[10] And at the level of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in October 2024 parliamentarians representing 46 Member States adopted a resolution on ‘Missing migrants, refugees and asylum seekers – A call to clarify their fate’.[11]

In Asia, which has an important share of the global caseload of missing migrants, initiatives had been largely lacking. This changed in late 2024 with a Policy Roundtable to improve the response to people going missing along dangerous routes in Asia. Convened by the Regional Support Office of the Bali Process, IOM, UNHCR and the ICRC, this meeting brought together several of the 45 Member States of this regional migration dialogue. However, concerted governmental action on missing migrants in Asia remains an ambitious longer-term goal.

While the above regional initiatives are important, they differ greatly in depth, reflecting complex realities of political will and interest, capacities or the lack thereof, and the degree to which irregular migration and the issue of migrants going missing are negatively perceived in different societies. Nevertheless, based on years of engagement on the issue, it is possible to identify several factors which have clearly contributed to successful humanitarian diplomatic engagements.

Success factors

Mobilising champion States

Like many humanitarian issues, the fate of missing migrants is often neglected and reliant on the advocacy of humanitarian actors. However, we observe time and time again that where States decide to actively promote this issue in intergovernmental discussions, outcomes tend to vastly improve compared with situations where humanitarian actors alone speak for the issue. As noted, this has been the case with The Gambia and Switzerland in the Rabat Process and Belgium during its time as EU Presidency. Peer-to-peer exchanges are also more effective in inspiring State action. Mobilising one or more champion States to become standard-bearers should therefore be a critical priority for any effort to have influence in multilateral fora with the goal of prompting action at national level. Moreover, mobilising countries of origin as effective advocates for their missing citizens is key. This often means overcoming a culture of stigmatisation which many countries attach to the irregular migration of their citizens.

Broadening the coalition

The continuing increase in the number of actors that support humanitarian diplomacy on missing migrants has been critical. Especially at a time of unprecedented uncertainty in terms of humanitarian funding and mandates, strength in numbers provides a much-needed degree of insurance – so that one actor dropping out will not take the issue down with them. The combination in terms of mandate, expertise, influence and geographic reach of actors such as IOM, UNHCR, IFRC and the ICRC is also a unique strength, assuring representation in, and access to, a wide range of fora and discussions, alongside the requisite relevance and legitimacy for dealing with the topic. Finally, promoting encounters between civil society and governments on this sensitive issue is key to ensuring that the voices of those affected are directly heard by those who can bring about change.

Grounding humanitarian diplomacy in data and operational practice

Being able to base policy prescriptions on proven operational practices that the ICRC, the wider Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and many other actors have developed over the years has been key to our engagements. Few arguments are more convincing than being able to show that other countries are already successfully searching for and identifying missing migrants. Similarly, the data and analysis provided by IOM’s Missing Migrants Project remains a critical resource for any influencing effort. Expanding this body of evidence by sustaining operational engagements and transferring knowledge between regions should therefore be a collective priority.

Reasons for optimism

Although we are far from where we should be in terms of effective State responses to the plight of missing migrants and their families, there has been much progress since 2018. The multiple initiatives, resolutions and meetings described in this article, combined with the growing number of instances where States have taken successful action (such as, for instance, in the case of the Pylos shipwreck), bear out this assertion.[12] On an issue as sensitive and complex as missing migrants, taking the long-term view and remaining optimistic is the only way forward.

Angela Cotroneo
Former Global Advisor on Internal Displacement and Migration, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
acotroneo@icrc.org

Florian von König
Global Advocacy Lead, Central Tracing Agency, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
fvonkoenig@icrc.org

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the ICRC.

[1] See for example: IOM (2022) Missing Migrants, Missing Solutions? Reviewing Objective 8 of the Global Compact for Migration in West Africa, p5.

[2] See in particular the CED’s CED/C/GC/1: General comment No. 1 (2023) on enforced disappearance in the context of migration | OHCHR.

[3] See in particular African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Resolution on missing migrants and refugees in Africa and the impact on their families – ACHPR/Res. 486 (EXT.OS/XXXIII) 2021

[4] The statement was issued on 7^th March 2022 and co-signed by the Heads of the UNNM’s Executive Committee, the President of the ICRC, the President of the IFRC and the Director General of the International Commission on Missing Persons. It urged for more effective action to save lives and prevent migrants from going missing, in line with international law and GCM commitments.

[5] For the compilation of practices see the UNNM workstream homepage here.

[6] UNGA, Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration: Report of the Secretary-General, 14 November 2024, A/79/590

[7] United Nations Network on Migration Recommendations on saving migrants’ lives

[8] For details, see Röthlisberger, Saho and von König in this issue.

[9] See for example: ECOWAS – Statutory Meetings.

[10] See Kingdom of Belgium (2^nd July 2024) ‘The Belgian Presidency comes to an end – Achievements of the FPS Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation’

[11] See Pahlke and Pisco in this issue.

[12] See Lanzarone, Themelis and von König and in this issue.

READ THE FULL ISSUE