International

Organization for
Migration (IOM)
Jürgen Bast

Content type: Product: Max Planck

Encyclopedia Entries Encyclopedia of Public
Article last updated: International Law [MPEPIL]
December 2010

Subject(s):
Migrants, rights — Refugees — Internally displaced persons — International Organization for Migration
(IOM)
Published under the auspices of the Max Planck Foundation for International Peace and the Rule of Law
under the direction of Rüdiger Wolfrum.

From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Subscriber:
Universiteit Leiden - LUMC; date: 15 November 2015
 A. Introduction
1 The International Organization for Migration (‘IOM’) is a global, non-UN intergovernmental
organization. The IOM sits in Geneva and has ‘field offices’ in various member countries. Its task is
the provision of ‘migration services at an international level’ (according to the Preamble of its
Constitution), mainly by advising and assisting States in implementing migration control policies
(Immigration; Migration). Pursuant to its mission statement, the IOM is committed to the principle that
humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and society. The organization was formerly known
as Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration (‘ICEM’, later renamed ‘ICM’).

B. Historical Background and Development

1. Foundation as a Tool of the Western Bloc in the Cold War Era

2 Like many international institutions of today’s global governance, ICEM/IOM was founded in the
aftermath of World War II. The International Refugee Organization (IRO), a non-permanent
specialized agency of the UN providing material assistance to refugees and displaced persons in
Europe, terminated its resettlement operations by 31 January 1951 (IRO finally ceased to exist on
28 February 1952). Two different institutions took up its responsibilities: the UN High Commissioner
for Refugees, established by UN General Assembly (‘UNGA’) Res 428 (V) of 14 December 1950
(Refugees, United Nations High Commissioner for [UNHCR]), and the newly formed Provisional
Intergovernmental Committee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe (‘PICMME’). The founding
conference of the latter was held in Brussels on 5 December 1951 on the initiative of the
governments of Belgium and the USA. PICMME took over the assets of the IRO, including a fleet of
steam ships, and also large parts of its personnel; resettlement operations began on 1 February
1952. Formal establishment of the ICEM followed. On 19 October 1953, the then 24 members
adopted the Constitution of the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration (‘Constitution’),
which entered into force on 30 November 1954 (for details, see Holborn 561–71; Ducasse-Rogier
10–21).

3 The reasons for this institutional shift away from the UN framework were the growing Cold War
(1947–91) tensions. The USSR resisted any major resettlement programmes for the displaced
persons in Europe, requesting their repatriation to countries of origin, including those under Soviet
control. Hence the wording in Art. 2 Constitution that any Member State must have a ‘demonstrated
interest in the principle of free movement of persons’ (ie stand against forced repatriation). The US
government, for its part, rejected plans to discuss the issue within the framework of the
International Labour Organization (ILO) in order to keep the communist countries from involvement
in migration issues. Accordingly, the new body set up under US leadership was composed of
countries from the Western bloc exclusively. This would only change when the bloc confrontation
eventually dissolved with the fall of the Soviet empire.

4 Organizing transatlantic emigration from war-damaged Europe stood at the cradle of the ICEM. In
the years to come, however, the institution developed a more permanent understanding of its role
in international migration. While ‘migration services’ originally meant selection and transportation of
people, the term soon acquired a broader meaning (see Feldblum). Ever since the clashes in
Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968), the ICEM was offering material assistance to newly
arriving refugees from communist countries. Moreover, even the foundational 1951 resolution
targeted not only refugees but more generally the emigration of ‘surplus populations’ to countries
which offer opportunities for orderly immigration. In such a neo-Malthusian conception of balancing
population supply and demand through well-planned voluntary migration, the ICEM would serve the
function of a global labour office, helping sending and receiving countries to identify common
interests and to implement adequate labour migration policies (see Thomas; Migrant Workers;
Aliens, Integration). Consequently, when transatlantic emigration from Europe ceased to be a

From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Subscriber:
Universiteit Leiden - LUMC; date: 15 November 2015
 relevant migration pattern in the 1960s, the ICEM redefined its policy and became a promoter of
migration for development purposes, offering technical assistance for developing countries, mostly
Latin American, to attract skilled labour.

5 Such redefinition of the organization’s mission did not go without opposition. In the course of the
1960s and 1970s, the Committee faced a series of withdrawals of membership by important
founding members such as Canada (1962, readmitted in 1990), France (1966, readmitted in 1992),
the UK (1968, readmitted in 2001), and Australia (1973, readmitted in 1985). According to their
view, the organization had completed its initial task and should not widen its capacity for action by
launching new programmes. Others, including the US, West-Germany, Italy, and several Latin
American States, held that the ICEM should adapt to changing conditions and operate on a
permanent basis.

2. Reinventing Itself as a Global Migration Agency

6 The latter position was reflected in Resolution 624 of 19 November 1980 to informally change the
designation of the organization to ‘ICM’. The new name signalled a functionally and territorially
broadened scope of activity, while more ambitious proposals for reform were not yet able to gain
acceptance. In the 1980s the Director General and reform-minded Member States again pushed for
amending the Constitution to recognize the expanded mandate which the institution had assumed
in practice. The amendments were eventually adopted by consensus on 20 May 1987 and entered
into force on 14 November 1989, having been ratified by two-thirds of the members (see
Perruchoud [1987] and [1989] ; Jaenicke; Ducasse-Rogier 88–91). Besides the new name ‘IOM’,
the amendments included a new definition of the persons to whom the organization may provide
migration services, thus extending its potential scope of activity to providing de facto international
protection for refugees and internally displaced persons (Perruchoud [1992] 211–12 ).

7 The fall of the Iron Curtain brought about new migration patterns and set migration issues high on
the political agenda in many countries. The IOM management effectively responded to the new
challenges and once more redefined the organization (see Georgi 52–61). It successfully offered
the institution’s expertise in implementing migration policies to regulate migration flows and to
combat irregular migration and human trafficking. The IOM expanded rapidly and became one of
the leading international institutions dealing with global migration issues, besides its more traditional
UN rivals, the ILO and UNHCR. Its membership rose from 29 States in October 1981 to 43 members
in December 1991 to 86 in June 2001. At the time of writing, the IOM consists of 132 member
countries. IOM’s administrative capacities surged accordingly, from 79 officials and 287 employees
in 1990 to 246 officials and 2,220 employees in 2001. Today, a staff of approximately 7,250 people
is working in more than 2,000 projects, adding to an operative budget of more than US$1 billion per
year (data collected from Ducasse-Rogier and the IOM website). Activities range from resettlement
and repatriation operations via capacity-building measures such as training courses for immigration
officers through to organizing regional consultations of immigration policy-makers. IOM is also
involved in emergency activities such as humanitarian assistance to flood victims, and in post-
conflict activities such as organizing absentee voting for elections in Afghanistan. IOM was also
entrusted with the management of the German Forced Labour Compensation Programme.

C. Institutional Structure and Finances

8 IOM is a ‘classical’ international institution having legal personality. It has a complex institutional
structure consisting of organs established in the Constitution and further sub-committees set up by
decision of the two main governing bodies, the Council and the Executive Committee. The Member
States are represented in the highest organ, the Council, each member having one vote. The
Council held its 98th meeting in November 2009. The Executive Committee is composed of member
governments elected by the Council for a term of two years. The number of governments shall not

From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Subscriber:
Universiteit Leiden - LUMC; date: 15 November 2015
 exceed two-thirds of the total membership (currently, the Executive Committee has 29 members).
The Executive Committee held its 107th meeting in June 2010. The Constitution further provides for
an executive body, the Administration. It comprises a Director General, a Deputy Director General,
and the staff of the Administration. The Director General and the Deputy Director General are
elected by a two-thirds majority vote of the Council. The Director General appoints the staff in
accordance with a staff regulation adopted by the Council. Although IOM has its headquarters in
Geneva, the Administration has a mainly decentralized structure. Most of its staff work in the field
offices in countries all over the world.

9 The IOM has a dual financial structure. The administrative part of the budget is financed by
contributions from the Member States at a rate agreed by the Council and by the member
concerned. The much larger operational part of the budget is funded through voluntary
contributions from Member States, other States, or international institutions such as the European
Union. Any contributor to the operational part of the budget can stipulate the terms and conditions
under which its contributions may be used. Though the annual budget in its entirety is drawn up by
the Director General and subject to approval by the Council and the Executive Committee, the
project-based funding by donors characterizes IOM as a donor-driven organization. This financial
structure contributes to the highly decentralized and at times inconsistent character of the whole
organization since the country offices are more or less free to design their projects and
programmes but need to lobby for their own funds (van Krieken 52).

Select Bibliography
LW Holborn The International Refugee Organization: A Specialized Agency of the United
Nations: Its History and Work 1946–1952 (OUP London 1956).
JF Thomas Planned International Migration and Multilateral Co-operation (ICEM at Work)
(Graduate Institute of International Studies Geneva 1971).
R Perruchoud ‘L’Organisation Internationale pour les Migrations’ (1987) 33 AFDI 513–39.
R Perruchoud ‘From the Intergouvernmental Committee for European Migration to the
International Organization for Migration’ (1989) 1 IJRL 501–17.
B Jaenicke ‘Struktur und Aufgaben der International Organization for Migration (IOM)’ (1990)
10 ZAR 90–5.
R Perruchoud ‘Persons Falling Under the Mandate of the International Organization for
Migration (IOM) and to Whom the Organization May Provide Migration Services’ (1992) 4 IJRL
205–15.
M Feldblum ‘Passage-Making and Service Creation in International Migration’ (1999) Columbia
International Affairs Online.
M Ducasse-Rogier The International Organization for Migration: 1951–2001 (International
Organization for Migration London 2001).
M Geiger ‘Managing Migration for an Enlarging Europe: Inter-governmental Organizations and
the Governance of Migration Flows’ (2005) 4 The Romanian Journal of European Studies 19–
30.
P van Krieken ‘IOM and Beyond: Migration and Institution Building’ (2006) 44/53 AWR-Bulletin
50–9.
F Georgi ‘For the Benefit of Some: The International Organization for Migration (IOM) and its
Global Migration Management’ in M Geiger and A Pécoud (eds) The Politics of International
Migration Management (Palgrave New York 2010) 45–72.

Select Documents
Constitution of the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration (adopted 19 October
1953, entered into force 30 November 1954) 207 UNTS 189.

From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Subscriber:
Universiteit Leiden - LUMC; date: 15 November 2015
 Constitution of the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration, as amended 20 May
1987 (entered into force 14 November 1989) 1560 UNTS 440.
International Organization for Migration.
UNGA Res 428 (V) ‘Statute of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner’ (14
December 1950) GAOR 5th Session Supp 20, 46.

From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Subscriber:
Universiteit Leiden - LUMC; date: 15 November 2015