– Promote safe and orderly migration, cooperating to expand and diversify rights-based processes of orderly migration. Efforts should aim, inter alia, to ensure decent working conditions for migrants, promoting pathways for migrants affected by disasters, climate change and environmental degradation, and those in other situations of vulnerability, as well as support family reunification and regularization for migrants in an irregular situation. Among the recommendations, also the exhortation to States to respect the obligation of non-refoulement [UNHCR n.a. c] [11] at borders and to stop forced returns in situations where the health, safety, dignity and human rights of migrants and communities of origin and transit cannot be protected, as well as to defend, at all times, the best interests of minors.

– Prevent loss of life during migrations developing clear, safe and pre-planned disembarkation mechanisms for rescued people, in which coastal states assume equal responsibility for providing a safe port, in accordance with international law and according to principles of solidarity, rather than on the basis of ad hoc approaches that undermine human rights, first of all the right to life. States are also called upon to respect their international obligations at borders and along migratory routes and to ensure the protection of human rights, opposing approaches based on deterrence, not to hinder the efforts of those providing humanitarian assistance and not to criminalize them.

– Build capacities to implement the GCM, through cooperation between all States and stakeholders at all levels.

A particularly interesting element that emerges from what is indicated above, is that, in the opinion of the drafters of the Pact and of Guterres himself, it would first of all be necessary to address the causes of forced mass migrations. To this end, the commitment of the international community to peace, security, sustainable development, peacebuilding, respect for human rights and the fight against discrimination, poverty reduction and disasters is recalled, in line with the provisions under the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. ¶{p. 288}Also noteworthy is the reference to climate change and natural disasters, which profoundly affect the choice to leave one’s own territory but do not always lead to crossing borders.

Furthermore, among the first affirmations of the Global Pact on Migrants there is precisely the clarification that migrants and refugees are all recipients of universal human rights and fundamental freedoms although they are «distinct groups governed by separate legal frameworks» [United Nations 2018, 2-4]. This especially takes into account the fact that the dichotomy between migrants and refugees appears inconsistent with a reality characterized by mixed flows, in which there are people fleeing wars, serious violations of human rights, environmental catastrophes and other effects of climate change, poverty and food scarcity, and various circumstances not always easily referable to a voluntary or forced choice [Cataldi and Del Guercio 2019].

It is also important to note that, even if the GCM does not transform the international regulatory framework on immigration and asylum, but carries out a survey of already existing non-binding obligations, it nevertheless reaffirms international obligations, of a customary and contractual nature, in particular on human rights, which States are required to comply with. In this direction, the Global Compact seeks to be the answer to the need to identify a more equitable distribution of weights and responsibilities so as not to burden only the host states but to involve the entire international community.

And precisely because of these characteristics, the unanimity reached on the issue of displaced Ukrainians could represent something more profound than the emergency response to the Russian invasion, and the beginning of a reflection towards a common policy on migration, through true solidarity between States [Centro Astalli 2022].

Indeed, it is only through interstate cooperation and the involvement of various stakeholders, such as international organizations, the International Red Cross, financial institutions, civil society, to name but a few, that effective cooperation can be defined and the need to achieve it, a need strongly demonstrated by the events that have characterized migration in the Mediterranean in the last ten years, not least the diplomatic crisis of November 2022 between Italy and France, on the management of migrants in international waters and on the role of NGOs.¶{p. 289}

The nexus between disasters (whether natural or man-made) and forced migration is a complex one, and calls for much more detailed studies to both understand the causal relationship between the two, and to obtain more quantitative evidence of migration movements triggered by natural and human disasters [Venditto 2018]. It is far too simplistic, however, to assume that environmental and climate changes will, in all circumstances, automatically result in an increase in people’s movements. The actions taken by states to address environmental/climate changes when they occur (or actions taken to prevent their occurrence in the first place) can increase or reduce migration movements. Therefore, bringing together perspectives on migration, development, climate change and environmental policy is both a priority and a challenge for policy makers if migration problems are to be addressed holistically. The view that climate change, rather than lack of development, is responsible for poverty, results in blaming local survival strategies [Chandler 2012]. Instead, on the basis of the data and the scenarios outlined, it is probably necessary to reflect, first of all, on the ways in which disasters occur and on how forced migrations are described and represented in public discourse according to rhetoric that conceptualizes them through the paradigm of emergency. This approach produces serious consequences from a social, cultural and political point of view:

As noted by Pitzalis, [2018], disasters and forced migrations contend the same narrative space, both phenomena are characterized focusing on the suffering of the victims, their inertia, the need for assistance from above and the imposition of a strong, coercive power [p. 126]; this representation deprives the actors of their agency power in the name of urgency/emergency. On the other hand, considering these two phenomena just in terms of unpredictability and exceptionality is an approach that leaves out the socio-cultural aspects of these events, putting into play rhetoric that eclipses political responsibilities, which are instead their cause and consequence, [p. 127].

Recent research has improved our understanding of such climate-security traps.

Too little attention has been paid to the role of gender norms and power dynamics in shaping responses to these reinforcing ¶{p. 290}crises. From the Sahel and the Horn of Africa to South-East Asia and Central America, critical data and analysis show how factors of marginalization combine to leave women and girls with a disproportionate economic burden; how gendered expectations can lead men and women to resort to violence when traditional livelihoods fail; and how important socio-economic shifts can result from changes to patterns of migration [UNEP 2020]. There are therefore important opportunities for action, even as the negative impacts of climate change become more visible every day. The recommendations of the Global Compact on Migration (GCM) provide a clear way forward, encouraging us to recognize the interdependence of peace and security, human rights and development and, above all, to build capacities to implement cooperation between all States and stakeholders at all levels. In light of the growing phenomenon of displacement caused by environmental factors, the adoption of common international and national legal protection mechanisms is becoming increasingly urgent. In this direction, despite legal considerations and the resistance shown by States to the recognition of climate refugee status, a recent UN Human Rights Committee statement opened the door to future asylum applications for reasons related to the effects of climate change [UNHCR 2020a]. In particular, in its judgment of 5022/2021, the Court of Cassation upheld the appeal lodged by a Nigerian national who had been refused an application for recognition of international protection. This request was supported by the presence of a situation of serious environmental instability, partly due to the indiscriminate exploitation of the Niger delta area by oil companies [Actionaid 2021]. Together with the existence of an array of soft and hard law tools to be drawn upon to respond to the challenges of climate migration [12] , all this bodes well for necessary consolidation ¶{p. 291}in the areas of human rights, refugees, and humanitarian law, as well as providing tools to manage internal displacement, disasters and forced migration.