How International Conventions Shape Migration Policy in Asia

Every year, millions of workers from South and Southeast Asia board flights to the Gulf, Malaysia, and Singapore in search of better wages. They build skyscrapers, care for the elderly, and keep household economies running back home through remittances. Yet behind this massive movement of people lies a difficult question: who protects their rights when they cross borders? The answer, increasingly, lies in international conventions and regional dialogues that quietly shape how Asian countries write and enforce their migration policies.

The core international instruments that govern labour migration
What these conventions actually demand
Why adoption has been so slow in Asia
The receiving-country problem
Sending countries are not blameless either
Regional dialogues filling the gap
The Colombo Process
The Abu Dhabi Dialogue
The Global Compact for Migration
Best practices and evidence-based convergence
The shift to evidence-based policy
The gap between paper and practice

The core international instruments that govern labour migration

Three legal instruments form the backbone of migrant worker protection worldwide. The first is the ILO Migration for Employment Convention, 1949 (No. 97), which laid the foundation for the modern normative framework on labour migration. The second is the ILO Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1975 (No. 143), which goes a step further by addressing irregular migration and explicitly linking migrant rights to the fundamental human rights principles of the UN Bill of Human Rights.

The third instrument is the 1990 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (ICRMW), adopted by the UN General Assembly. It is the most comprehensive of the three because it protects migrants regardless of their legal status, including undocumented workers.

What these conventions actually demand

The two ILO Conventions ask states to treat regular migrant workers on par with their own nationals in areas like wages, social security, trade union rights, and conditions of work. Convention No. 143 specifically requires governments to take action against abusive forms of labour migration while upholding the basic human rights of all migrant workers, regardless of their status. Recommendations Nos. 86 and 151 accompany these conventions with detailed operational guidance.

The 1990 UN Convention pushes the principle further. It covers the entire migration cycle, from preparation and recruitment to departure, transit, stay, and return. It also sets up a monitoring body, the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers, to which all states that ratify must submit periodic reports.

Why adoption has been so slow in Asia

Despite the comprehensive nature of these instruments, ratification across Asia remains strikingly low. A study on South Asian migrant workers notes that none of the five major South Asian sending countries had ratified ILO Conventions No. 97 and No. 143, and only Sri Lanka had ratified the 1990 UN Convention. Bangladesh signed the UN Convention in 1998 but has not ratified it. India, despite being one of the largest sources of migrant workers in the world, has not ratified any of the three core instruments.

The receiving-country problem

The bigger gap lies on the destination side. As of 2023, no major migrant-receiving state in Western Europe or North America had ratified the 1990 Convention, and neither have the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, Australia, or South Africa. This is significant because most South Asian workers head to the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, which together host millions of Indians, Bangladeshis, Nepalis, and Filipinos.

The reasons are structural. Many Gulf states historically operated under the kafala or sponsorship system, which legally ties a migrant worker to a single employer. Ratifying conventions that demand equal treatment with nationals would, in effect, require rewriting the entire labour governance model. The Migration Policy Institute notes that the ICRMW’s extension of rights to undocumented workers has itself been a major obstacle, since some receiving countries view such protections as rewarding violations of immigration law.

Sending countries are not blameless either

For origin countries like India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, ratification is sometimes seen as risky. There is a fear that pushing destination countries on rights could affect bilateral relations, remittance flows, and labour quotas. Governments often prefer the quieter route of bilateral Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) with receiving states, which they consider more flexible and less politically charged than binding multilateral commitments.

This is why, instead of full ratification, states have taken alternative measures such as bilateral agreements, model employment contracts, and dedicated institutions like welfare boards to partially protect migrant workers’ rights.

Regional dialogues filling the gap

Where binding conventions have struggled to take root, non-binding regional consultative processes have stepped in. These platforms allow countries to share evidence, agree on best practices, and slowly converge on common standards without the political weight of ratification.

The Colombo Process

Established in 2003, the Colombo Process is a regional consultative forum of 12 Asian countries of origin, including Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam. The forum makes non-binding decisions by consensus and focuses on sharing best practices on overseas employment. Its cross-cutting themes include migrant health, women migrant workers, consular support, and operationalising the migration-related elements of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. India currently chairs the Colombo Process for a two-year term running from 2024 to 2026.

The Abu Dhabi Dialogue

The Colombo Process addresses only sending countries, so the Abu Dhabi Dialogue (ADD) was established in 2008 to bring receiving countries to the table. It includes ten Colombo Process member states plus the six Gulf countries of destination (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) and Malaysia. The ADD is the only formal platform where some of the world’s largest temporary labour migration corridors are jointly governed by both sending and receiving states.

The Global Compact for Migration

The newest addition to this ecosystem is the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM), adopted by the UN in December 2018. The GCM is not a treaty and does not require ratification, but it sets out 23 objectives covering the entire migration cycle. Its strength is its “360-degree” approach, where states pick from a menu of policy actions drawn from best practice.

According to the India Centre for Migration under the Ministry of External Affairs, India is a signatory to the GCM and is actively implementing several initiatives for safe and regular migration. The combination of the GCM, the Colombo Process, and the Abu Dhabi Dialogue gives Asia a soft-law architecture that increasingly drives policy convergence even where hard-law conventions remain unsigned.

Best practices and evidence-based convergence

The real impact of these instruments is visible in concrete reforms rolling out across the region. Origin countries have introduced pre-departure orientation programmes, regulated recruitment fees, and built grievance redressal portals. India’s “Madad” e-portal under the Ministry of External Affairs has reportedly resolved about 95 per cent of registered grievances filed by migrant workers abroad.

On the destination side, sustained pressure through regional dialogues and ILO engagement has nudged GCC countries toward labour reforms. Qatar dismantled key elements of its kafala system ahead of the 2022 World Cup, and other Gulf states have introduced wage protection systems and mobility reforms. While critics argue these reforms remain partial, they would not have happened without years of evidence sharing and quiet diplomacy through forums like the ADD.

The shift to evidence-based policy

What ties these efforts together is a move from rhetoric to data. The Colombo Process has championed initiatives like the Comprehensive Information and Orientation Programme (CIOP), which has improved coordination and consistency in the information provided to workers, helping reduce their vulnerability to exploitation. Bilateral MoUs increasingly include provisions on labour rights, social security, and skills recognition, signalling that conventions, even unratified, are shaping the content of agreements that countries are willing to sign.

The gap between paper and practice

It would be naive to claim that international instruments have solved Asia’s migration challenges. Wage theft, contract substitution, passport confiscation, and abuse of domestic workers remain widespread. The ICRMW has only around 60 states parties, almost all of them sending countries, which limits its enforcement power. Regional dialogues are non-binding by design, and progress depends heavily on political will.

Yet the trajectory is unmistakable. International instruments are no longer just documents sitting in UN archives. They define the vocabulary of migration debates, set benchmarks for national legislation, and create soft pressure that even reluctant states find hard to ignore over time. As India chairs the Colombo Process and the GCM enters its second review cycle, Asia is slowly building a migration governance model that is regional, evidence-based, and increasingly attentive to migrant rights.

What do you think? Should India ratify the 1990 UN Convention on Migrant Workers’ Rights to strengthen its moral authority in negotiating with destination countries, or would bilateral MoUs continue to serve its workers better? And can non-binding regional dialogues like the Colombo Process and Abu Dhabi Dialogue genuinely shift labour practices in destination countries, or do they risk becoming talking shops?

References

PDF 📄

How International Conventions Shape Migration Policy in Asia

Table of Contents

The core international instruments that govern labour migration 🔗

What these conventions actually demand 🔗

Why adoption has been so slow in Asia 🔗

The receiving-country problem 🔗

Sending countries are not blameless either 🔗

Regional dialogues filling the gap 🔗

The Colombo Process 🔗

The Abu Dhabi Dialogue 🔗

The Global Compact for Migration 🔗

Best practices and evidence-based convergence 🔗

The shift to evidence-based policy 🔗

The gap between paper and practice 🔗