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]

Today the inclusion of non-citizens in the electorate is an increasingly common phenomenon. Yet, we know relatively little about under what conditions some states extend such voting rights to non-citizens earlier than others. In this paper, we investigate the timing of local enfranchisement policies for non-citizens in 28 democracies from 1980 to 2010 using event-history analysis. Adding to the conditions studied in earlier work, we examine the extent to which demographic composition, immigration policy regimes, and political partisanship relate to the timing of non-citizen suffrage. We find that higher shares of immigrant residents delay whereas EU membership and economic openness advance the timing of voting rights for non-citizens. At all demographic heterogeneity conditions, less permissive immigration regimes have been able to enfranchise non-citizens earlier. The findings suggest that, over time, having more left-wing parties in the government accelerates the timing of enfranchisement, while right-wing parties contribute to delays. The article brings forward new data and an original explanatory framework emphasising relevance of partisanship and immigration policy at different demographic contexts. Our analysis sheds light on the idiosyncratic state practices in the timing of enfranchisement reforms adding to the debates in migration and citizenship studies and the broader comparative politics field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]