Document Details

Temporary contract migrants as a class fall between systems of responsibility: home
country, host country, and international community. The systems are separately inadequate and
basically uncoordinated, leaving migrants in a precarious situation. The situation of temporary
contract migrants is even more precarious as they cross international borders without a path to
citizenship or full enfranchisement in the political, economic, and social life of the host country.
Where citizenship and residence/employment are divided between multiple countries, the
corresponding human rights obligations are similarly divided. This division results in migrant rights
falling between different state-based systems of responsibility. Human rights can be divided
between those that are inherent in citizenship (citizenship obligation) which are the responsibility
of the sending state, those that are inherent in the physical body (presence obligation) which are
the responsibility of the receiving state, and those that fall between systems of responsibility
(involvement obligation) which require sending and receiving countries to act cooperatively.
These categories provide clear guidance in sorting out responsibilities for the rights of temporary
contract migrants and direct us towards possible avenues for reform. Once adopted, this
framework can help guide bilateral or regional agreements on a case-by-case basis. Although the
principles underlying split responsibility are universal, the required elements of cooperation are
likely to vary between different contexts. This dissertation draws on analyses and interviews
conducted with Filipino temporary contract migrants in the United Arab Emirates in order to
substantiate the argument, illustrating strategies that migrants as agents utilize to improve their
conditions, the tradeoffs that they have made in order to secure their livelihood in a global job
market, and the impact that current policy frameworks have on their lived experience.