International Organization for

Migration (IOM)
Jürgen Bast

Content type: Encyclopedia entries

Product: Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law
[MPIL]
Module: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International
Law [MPEPIL]
Article last updated: December 2010

Subject(s):
Migrants, rights — Refugees — Internally displaced persons
Published under the auspices of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law under the
direction of Professor Anne Peters (2021–) and Professor Rüdiger Wolfrum (2004–2020). 

From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. Subscriber:
Universita degli Studi di Roma 1; date: 31 March 2021

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

From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. Subscriber:
Universita degli Studi di Roma 1; date: 31 March 2021

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
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.

From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. Subscriber:
Universita degli Studi di Roma 1; date: 31 March 2021

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 th
Council, each member having one vote. The Council held its 98 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 exceed two-thirds of the total membership (currently, the
Executive Committee has 29 members). The Executive th
 Committee held its 107 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).

From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. Subscriber:
Universita degli Studi di Roma 1; date: 31 March 2021

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. 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 5 Session Supp 20, 46. th

From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. Subscriber:
Universita degli Studi di Roma 1; date: 31 March 2021