Can the UN solve the current levels of migration? The FBE oratory competition on Human Rights

The competition question—though simple in form—touches the very core of modern civilisation: Can the United Nations, created after the most tragic war in human history, truly develop an effective international strategy to solve the problem of migration?

It is a question about strategy — one that determines the fate of individuals, families, and entire societies.

And while I would like to answer “yes,” the truth is far more complex. The UN is not yet fully capable of solving this problem. But it can become its most important architect.

To understand why, we first need to look at the scale of the challenge itself.

Migration today is not an episode — it is the very symbol of our time.

According to UN data, more than 300 million people today live outside their country of origin. That’s as if every resident of the United States packed their life into a suitcase and set off on a journey. Within this number over 120 million people are forcibly displaced — the highest number in history.

The causes of migration are not new, but their current intensity is unprecedented. Armed conflicts, climate change, economic inequality, and lack of access to education and healthcare — all of these shape the global landscape of displacement.

It is worth stepping back a few decades. After World War II, the world faced the largest refugee movement in history. At that time, the UN was just being formed — with faith that the international community could prevent further humanitarian catastrophes. Today, we face a challenge equally difficult but far more complex — because the world has become interconnected, and therefore co-responsible.

And yet, responsibility without power is never enough. The United Nations carries the weight of moral authority — but not the instruments of enforcement.

It is not a world government. It has no army that could compel solidarity.It cannot order states to accept migrants or determine their number.Its actions rely largely on trust and voluntary cooperation.

The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration was a breakthrough — the first document to gather shared values and goals on migration. But it remains non-binding.It imposes no obligations. Each state implements it as it wishes — or not at all.

The UN thus coordinates, inspires, and sets standards, but lacks the instruments to enforce them.And in a world where every country guards its sovereignty, it is precisely this lack of coercive power that limits the UN’s effectiveness.

But there is another, even deeper obstacle: division.

Migration is like a mirror — reflecting the politics, fears, and hopes of every nation on earth.

Some see it as a threat, others as an opportunity.Developed countries speak of security, border control, and “public order.”Countries of origin speak of poverty, unemployment, and the need to support their citizens.Transit countries speak of the lack of assistance and the need to share costs.

This absence of consensus makes global migration agreements resemble a puzzle whose pieces come from different sets. We only need to recall the European Union’s dispute over refugee relocation.Some states, such as Germany and Italy, called for solidarity.Others — like Hungary and Poland — refused, invoking national security and the right to control their own borders.

It is only one example, but a telling one.It shows that even within the world’s most integrated structures, there is no common denominator.

And yet, despite these divisions, the United Nations continues to act.

We cannot deny the UN’s vast operational significance. Thanks to its specialised agencies, millions of people live safer lives today.

• The UN Refugee Agency assists over 36 million refugees each year.

• IOM runs integration and repatriation programmes in more than 100 countries.

• Not to mention the activities of UNICEF and WHO. 

  
  

These actions save lives, but they do not remove the root causes.The UN extinguishes fires, but rarely has the resources to rebuild what has burned down. Therefore, its strategies are often reactive rather than systemic — responding instead of preventing.Yet a world that keeps producing new crises now requires a strategy that anticipates rather than reacts.

To understand how difficult it is to build a coherent migration policy, let us look at Poland — a microcosm of the global issue. A country that, within just a few years, welcomed millions of refugees from Ukraine, while at the same time strengthening its eastern borders and speaking of “regaining control.”

Poland’s migration strategy for 2025–2030, titled “Regain Control. Ensure Security,” is a very telling document.On one hand, it appeals to humanitarianism.On the other, it emphasises selectivity and safety. Some provisions — such as the construction of buffer zones or the tightening of return procedures — conflict with international refugee protection standards.And the exclusion of civil-society organisations from policymaking limits dialogue.

This example is not an accusation — it is an illustration.It shows how delicate the balance is between state security and human dignity,and how difficult it is for the UN to act effectively in a world where even domestic policies are full of tension.

So what could make the UN more effective?

What is needed is not a revolution, but an evolution toward shared responsibility. The UN could move closer to an effective model if three key conditions were met.

1. A Binding Mechanism for Burden-Sharing

Solidarity cannot remain a slogan — it must become a system.States should be required to participate in relocation, proportionate to their economic and demographic potential.This is not a punishment — it is an investment in global stability.

2. A Global Early-Warning System

The world needs an integrated mechanism that, through data analysis, artificial intelligence, and predictive models, can foresee migration crises.Instead of waiting until thousands set out on their journey, we could act earlier — by investing in aid, education, infrastructure, and local development.

3. Partnership Between States, Business, and Society

The integration of migrants is not only the task of governments.It is also an area for entrepreneurs, NGOs, local authorities, and citizens.Countries like Canada and Germany show that well-designed work and education programmes can become sources of growth rather than threats. The UN should not only describe such best practices but also implement them as international standards.

Which brings me to the final question — the question we started with. Can the United Nations truly solve the current levels of migration?

No — if by “solve” we mean closing the world’s borders and halting human movement.

Yes — if by “solve” we mean making migration safe, orderly, and dignified.

Because the goal is not that no one migrates. The goal is that no one has to migrate out of fear.

The UN will not heal the world alone. But it has the power to remind humanity that every border is merely a line on a map — and that human beings will always stand above it.

As Secretary-General António Guterres once said: “Migration is inevitable, but the suffering of migrants is not.” In that sentence lies the essence of the challenge:We cannot stop human movement, but we can stop indifference.

I do not know whether the UN will ever “solve” migration. But I do know that if a strategy based on solidarity, responsibility, and humanity is ever to be created — it will be created there.

Because the UN is not just an organisation. It is a mirror reflecting the moral landscape of our world.