ABSTRACT
The negotiations for the global compacts made history as the most extensive and inclusive global processes on migration and displacement. This chapter describes the timeline and processes, the negotiation blocs, and the populist backlash. Governments approached the negotiations with different strategies based on their experiences with migration and displacement, their geopolitical position, and their domestic politics. The most conservative strategies aimed to undermine rights and dismantle institutions, while the most ambitious hoped for expanded rights and new institutions. UNHCR took a relatively conservative approach by refusing to discuss the refugee definition and proposing voluntary contributions instead of mandatory burden-sharing. A populist backlash to the GCM started with the United States and Hungary but was fueled in Europe by a far-right campaign, resulted in 5 countries voting against and 12 countries abstaining; however, the majority of states supported both compacts. Overall, the negotiations reflected the three shifts in global migration governance from hard to soft law, from rights to aid, and from Cold War politics to nationalism.
