Search

The International Organization Migration (IOM) has expanded dramatically, with many scholars arguing that IOM has thrived because of its place on the margins of the UN, where it could execute restrictive migration management programs on behalf of states, unencumbered by human rights norms and protection obligations. However, in recent years, IOM has adopted human rights discourse and expressed commitment to human rights and humanitarian standards, including in an extensive set of new institutional policies. This article analyzes this development through the prism of international relations theories on the legitimation of international organizations, particularly through discursive strategies. The contribution is two-fold. First, we trace the evolution of IOM's human rights discourse and identify key themes in this rhetoric, highlighting its bridging of rights-talk and management-speak; its constitution of particular groups of 'vulnerable' migrants IOM then positions itself to assist; and its blending of rights commitments and fledging advocacy efforts with continued deference to states. Second, we provide a fresh account of why IOM has acted this way, considering these developments as part of an institutional legitimation strategy that aims to strengthen IOM's perceived legitimacy internally and in the eyes of key constituents, particularly states and other international organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]