International legal regulation of migration in the context of international construction contract law

Belkin Dmitry Semenovich ORCID: 0009-0003-1532-1958 Senior Lecturer; Department of International Law; Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy 20 Radio Street, office 201, Moscow, 105005, Russia dmitryb81@gmail.com Other publications by this author

International construction projects require significant amounts of hired labor and, consequently, inevitably generate steady labor migration flows. The emerging model of "construction and migration" generates a complex of international legal relations in which the receiving State, the State of origin, a multinational construction company and the migrant himself interact, regulated by a multi-level system of norms of public and private international law. Modern doctrine emphasizes that the fragmentation of these norms and the lack of reliable liability mechanisms contribute to maintaining the risk of exploitation of migrant construction workers ^[1].

Taking into account the interdisciplinary nature of the problem, the research of F. L. Cook, who analyzed in detail the hiring practices of Chinese government contractors on foreign construction sites and showed their impact on international standards of labor protection for migrants ^[2], and A. Khalegua, who examines the responsibility of contractors for violating workers' rights at facilities associated with the Chinese Belt and Road initiative, deserves attention (English "Belt and Road Initiative") and emphasizing the need for consistency of national and international standards in the field of migrant protection ^[3], as well as D. Wells, who identified the relationship between the "pay-if-paid" condition in the standard forms of contracts of the International Federation consulting Engineers (MFIC) and the vulnerability of migrant workers in megastructures in the Middle East, justifying the introduction of joint responsibility of the entire chain of contractors ^[4].

In the context of the formation of a multipolar world and the increasing interdependence of States, the protection of the rights of migrant workers in the construction industry is becoming particularly relevant. International construction contracts increasingly involve the recruitment of labor from abroad, which makes the issues of legal regulation of migration central to international law ^[5]. The creation of unified legal mechanisms and the application of international standards is a prerequisite for minimizing legal risks and ensuring fair working conditions for migrants.

At the same time, the contractual and corporate layer of regulation is developing. The draft UN Business and Human Rights Treaty (English: "UN Business & Human Rights Treaty") seeks to transform voluntary social obligations of companies into legally binding standards, which is especially important for the construction sector, which systematically faces labor violations ^[6].

The post-Soviet space remains one of the largest regional centers of labor migration: Exporting and importing countries of labor form their own regimes, which often differ from the universal conventions of the International Labor Organization (ILO). Research shows that without reliance on international standards, national practices turn out to be excessively repressive or, on the contrary, insufficiently protecting migrants ^[7].

At the same time, bilateral agreements, as the most flexible tool, today form the actual "framework" of the system of sources of law in the field of labor migration, fixing the balance of interests of the parties and fixing procedures for mutual recognition of documents — which is critical for construction and investment projects with a tight schedule ^[8].

The hypothesis of the study was that the institutional inconsistency between soft corporate standards, universal conventions and bilateral agreements leads to legal gaps that increase the risks of exploitation of migrants; a comprehensive unification of key obligations based on developing business and human rights treaties, while maintaining the flexibility of the bilateral level, can eliminate these gaps and increase legal predictability for all actors.

The purpose of the study is to develop scientifically sound proposals for improving the international legal regime for the protection of migrant workers in the construction industry and ensuring its consistency with the terms of international construction contracts.

Research objectives: (1) To systematize the current universal, regional and bilateral norms related to labor migration in construction; (2) To analyze judicial and arbitration practice and corporate codes reflecting the rights of migrant builders; (3) Evaluate the effectiveness of bilateral agreements as a tool for flexible regulation; (4) Formulate proposals for adapting international treaties and model construction contracts to new human rights standards.

The object of the study is a complex of international migration relations that arise when attracting foreign labor in cross-border construction projects. The subject of the study is the norms and mechanisms governing labor migration.

In the course of the research, a comprehensive methodological approach based on a combination of analytical, comparative legal and systemic methods was applied. Analysis of international legal acts, including the ILO Convention No. 97 "On Migration for Employment (Revised)" (English "Migration for Employment Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 97)"), (ILO Convention No. 143 "On the Status of Migrant Workers (Additional Provisions)" (English "Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1975 (No. 143)")), (European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (English "European Convention on Human Rights")), and (International Convention for the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (English"International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, 1990") revealed the basic principles and norms governing migration processes in the construction industry. Comparative legal methods have made it possible to identify effective practices for regulating labor migration and identify gaps in national legislation affecting the protection of the rights of migrant workers.

The systematic approach provided a holistic consideration of the international legal regulation of migration in the context of international construction contract law (ISCO). This made it possible to take into account the interrelationships between various legal institutions and international organizations, such as the United Nations and the International Organization for Migration (IOM), in the process of forming and implementing legal norms in this area.

The study was based on official documents and reports from international organizations, including (Migration Data Portal, 2024) and (Global Migration Indicators 2024), which ensured the relevance and reliability of the results obtained. Special attention was paid to the analysis of legislative initiatives and practical cases from the international construction industry, which helped identify current challenges and trends in the field of legal regulation of migration.

International protection of migrant workers is formed by a multi-level system of norms: the general goal of respect for human rights is formulated by the UN Charter of 1945, which obliges States to respect human rights and cooperate; specific standards of equal treatment are enshrined in ILO Convention No. 97 "On Migrant Workers" of 1949 and ILO Convention No. 143 "On Abuses in the field of migration (additional provisions)" 1975, which require non-discrimination in wages, equal access to trade unions and the exchange of migration statistics. As of May 6, 2025, Convention No. 97 has been ratified by 54 countries, and No. 143 by 30. Freedom of movement and the equal right to work are proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966. These guarantees were expanded by the 1990 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which added obligations on fair pay, occupational safety and family reunification (60 ratifications as of 05/06/2025). In Europe, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights of 1950 and the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights complement protection at the regional level. Within the European Union, the minimum conditions for seconded construction workers are fixed by the EU Council Directive 96/71/EC (English "Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services"), which sets out requirements for pay, duration of work and living conditions; and EU states still have the sovereign right to control entry, but At the same time, there is an international obligation to comply with these minimum standards of the union, which forms a flexible, albeit uneven framework of migration law in the European Union. It is important to note that starting from July 30, 2020 (the date of completion of the transposition), the EU has the principle that pay for the same work should be equal (English: "same work – same pay") and extended guarantees for builders (compensation for travel expenses, dormitories, protection against subcontracting).

Regional trade agreements already serve as "corridors" for legal labor migration: chapters on the temporary relocation of specialists are embedded in the North American Agreement USA–Canada–Mexico (eng. "United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement", USMCA, former. NAFTA), the Agreement on the Eurasian Economic Union and the CIS Free Trade Area Agreement, and international treaties of the World Trade Organization, primarily the General Agreement on Trade in Services, through the Mode 4 regime, allow companies to send managers and engineers abroad. soft law is reinforced by the International Labour Organization, which adopted Global Principles and Operational Guidelines on Fair Employment in 2016, as well as ILO Recommendations No. 97 and No. 151 requiring transparent hiring, prohibition of recruitment fees and protection of vulnerable migrants; additional standards are promoted by UN agencies — The International Organization for Migration (eng. "International Organization for Migration") with the reports of the World Migration Report, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (eng. "Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe") with the "International Legal Framework for the Protection of Migrant Workers," and financial institutions like the World Bank include social and labor guarantees in the terms of lending to large construction projects, which effectively turns them into a supervisory mechanism for observing labor rights.

Regional and bilateral agreements in the field of construction, including those of the Eurasian Economic Union, simplify migrants' access to the labor market and at the same time create specific regulatory regimes that require alignment with generally accepted international standards. Domestic laws on labor and migration, similar to the Russian Federal Law on the Legal Status of Foreign Citizens, directly refer to ratified ILO conventions, and enforcement control is distributed among courts, migration commissions, and labor inspections.

The analysis showed that in countries with less developed legal systems, migrant construction workers are more likely to suffer from underpayment, lack of trade union protection and the risk of forced labor, which confirms the need to unify standards at the international level ^[9]. The scale of the problem is significant: the Migration Data Portal database of the International Organization for Migration records about 280.6 million international migrants, and the Global Migration Indicators 2024 report indicates that their number is growing due to economic crises, conflicts and climate change. According to the International Labor Organization, women are slowly increasing their presence in migration flows, but most of those employed in construction remain low- and medium-skilled and work in the informal sector, where they are particularly susceptible to violations of labor and social rights. It is the conventions of the ILO and the United Nations, the decisions of European courts and the provisions of trade agreements that form the necessary "legal framework", and international organizations act as both standard-setters and a monitoring mechanism, ensuring the protection of migrants and the sustainability of construction projects.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). In Chowdury and others V. Greece (ECtHR, No. 21884/15, decision dated 30 March 2017) ^[10], the European court of human rights had considered a complaint 42 Bangladeshi citizens, illegal immigrants employed in 2012-2013 to work on strawberry plantations in Greece without permission to live and work; they were promised a fee of EUR 22 per day, but the funds are not systematically paid, the living conditions were extremely bad, and the work was supervised by armed guards; after workers began to demand payment, one of the guards opened fire on them, injuring several people, the Greek court in 2014, condemned those responsible only for causing grievous bodily harm, justifying them on charges of human trafficking, indicating that the migrants themselves allegedly took the job and was not deprived of freedom of movement; the European court of human rights found a violation by Greece of article 4 of the European Convention for the protection of human rights (eng. "European Convention on Human Rights"), referring also to the Council of Europe Convention on combating human trafficking (eng. "Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings") and the Additional Protocol to the UN Convention against transnational organized crime (eng. "Palermo Protocol"), indicating that the consent of the employee does not exclude the forced labor, if used in its vulnerability, and also noted that the state has an obligation not just to prevent exploitation, but also effectively prevent it from private individuals; as a result, the court awarded EUR 16,000 each of the applicants who participated in the Greek process, and 12,000 euros rest, finding that Greece had not complied with the obligation to prevent, investigate and punish trafficking in persons, do not punish the guilty and did not provide adequate compensation, that is of direct importance to the areas of ISCO as similar forms of exploitation can occur in construction projects with the participation of migrant workers, and in such cases the state shall bear international legal responsibility for the inaction.

In the 2007 case of Laval un Partneri Ltd v. Svenska Byggnadsarbetaref ö rbundet ^[11], a Latvian construction company sent workers to Sweden to perform contract work, but refused to sign a local collective agreement providing for higher wages than it paid according to Latvian standards; in response, the Swedish trade union organized a collective action (eng. "collective action") to block the construction site (English: "in the form of a blockade"), which stopped work, and the company was forced to curtail its activities. Laval appealed to the court, and as a result, the Court of Justice of the European Union sided with it, pointing out that the freedom to provide services, enshrined in article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), takes precedence over the actions of the trade union if they impose requirements that go beyond the minimum standards officially established and available to a foreign contractor (the nucleus of mandatory rules for minimum protection), defined in Directive 96/71/EC on the secondment of workers. As a result, the union's actions were found to violate EU law, Laval won the case, no salary increases were achieved, and the unions failed to sign an agreement or pay additional contributions, which set a precedent for limiting excessive pressure on foreign contractors in the construction sector.

In the Viking Line case (C-438/05) ^[12] in 2007, a dispute arose between the Finnish company Viking Line ABP (together with its Estonian subsidiary) and the International Federation of Transport Workers plus the Finnish Seafarers' Union, because Viking wanted to "re-register" the Rosella ferry under the Estonian flag and hire a cheaper crew and thus save money, and the trade unions, in order to prevent a reduction in rates, threatened to strike — that is, they applied collective action in order to force the employer to sign the Finnish collective agreement. Viking filed a lawsuit in an English court, the case went to the EU Court of Justice, which referred exclusively to the norms of European law — article 43 of the former EU Treaty (freedom of establishment) and confirmed that the right to strike is recognized as fundamental, but it cannot disproportionately block the freedom of establishment: trade union pressure making it economically pointless to switch a ship to another flag is a restriction of this freedom and is permissible only if there is a proven need to protect workers and when choosing the least burdensome measures; thus, Viking legally "won" because it was able to invoke article 43 directly against trade unions, the strike was considered potentially illegal, the crew's salary increase was not I have achieved this, and the key conclusion for the practice of international construction (and other) contracts with migrants is this: trade unions can protect pay levels, but their actions must be strictly proportional and based on transparent legal standards, otherwise they violate the freedoms of the internal market.

In the case of Commission v Luxembourg (C‑319/06) ^[13] in 2008, the European Commission accused Luxembourg of setting too strict requirements for foreign construction companies sending workers from other EU countries. In particular, Luxembourg required that each such company have a special representative living in the country who would keep all documents on employees directly in Luxembourg. The authorities also tried to impose additional labor regulations under the pretext of "public order," but without sufficient justification. The Court of Justice of the European Union has declared such requirements illegal and contrary to the freedom to provide services in the EU. As a result, Luxembourg lost the court case and had to repeal these rules. This decision has become an important signal for the field of international construction contract law: now, when concluding contracts under the terms of the IFIC, excessive and unreasonable administrative restrictions cannot be included, such as the mandatory appointment of a local agent or the storage of all documents on site, unless this is justified by specific labor risks. This has helped simplify the work for construction companies and make it easier for workers to be seconded without prejudice to their rights.

In the case Dirk Ruffert v. Lower Saxony (C-346/06, judgment of April 3, 2008) ^[14], the manager of the bankruptcy proceedings of Objekt und Bauregie GmbH & Co. KG appealed the decision of the regional authorities to terminate the state construction contract and impose a fine, since the Polish subcontractor, having paid the seconded workers only about 46% of the salary set by the regional collective agreement of builders. The State of Lower Saxony demanded compliance with this rate on the basis of its procurement law, according to which contractors were required to guarantee in writing a payment not lower than that specified in the agreement. The Court of Justice of the European Union recognized that such a requirement violates the principle of freedom of provision of services (Article 49 of the TFEU) and the provisions of Directive 96/71/EC on the secondment of workers, since the collective agreement referred to by the land did not have the status of a generally binding one. The Court noted that the directive allows for mandatory observance of working conditions, including the minimum wage, only if they are enshrined in legislation or in collective agreements officially recognized as mandatory for the entire industry. Since this was not complied with, the additional requirement for the contractor created an obstacle to the free provision of services and was considered unacceptable. As a result, the State of Lower Saxony lost the case, and the requirement to pay at the local rate was lifted. This meant that employee benefits remained at the level set by the Polish subcontractor, and the workers did not achieve an increase in salaries. The case became a precedent that limited the possibility of including "social reservations" in the terms of international construction contracts in the EU, if they are not supported by the universal legal effect of the collective agreement.

In the case of Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. the United Republic of Tanzania ^[15], considered by the ICSID Tribunal in 2008, a British investor company that controlled City Water Ltd. sued Tanzania for actions related to the forced deportation of foreign managers, the unilateral termination of the concession agreement for the water supply of Dar es Salaam, by seizing property and transferring control to the DAWASCO state structure. The investor referred to a violation of the provisions of the bilateral investment agreement between the United Kingdom and Tanzania, including the prohibition on expropriation without compensation, the standard of fair and equitable treatment, and the commitment to ensure full protection and security of investments. The Tribunal concluded that the deportation of foreign specialists without due process guarantees, as well as the unilateral seizure of infrastructure and termination of the concession contract, constitute a cumulative violation of investment obligations. Although no compensation was awarded to the investor due to the lack of economic value of the project at the time of the intervention, the arbitration emphasized that migration measures affecting key technical personnel involved in international construction contracts may give rise to international legal liability if they hinder the implementation of the investment project. The case of Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania illustrates that in the field of ISCO, effective legal regulation of labor migration becomes important not only from the point of view of domestic legislation, but also as a condition for compliance with international obligations of States to protect investments, especially when migration-related measures affect the fulfillment of infrastructure obligations and the activities of foreign contractors.

In the case of Caratube International Oil Company LLP v. the Republic of Kazakhstan (ICSID No. ARB/08/12) ^[16], the plaintiff, a company registered in Kazakhstan, but referring to control by a U.S. citizen, Devinci Hourani, sued the state, claiming that large—scale inspections by government agencies as part of a project to The development of the oil and gas field and the construction of the Tulpar–Kumkol pipeline violated the trade agreement between the United States and Kazakhstan, as they made it difficult to implement the project, including hiring foreign labor, checking visas and work permits. The ICSID Arbitration Tribunal rejected the claim, pointing out that the plaintiff had not proved the existence of "foreign control" in the sense of article 25(2)(b) of the Washington Convention of 1965, and the actions of the state to monitor compliance with migration and labor laws did not exceed its regulatory powers (eng. "police powers") and did not they were a violation of international obligations. The court found that the inspections were lawful, did not contain an element of expropriation, and the state only complied with internal regulations, including labor and migration; consequently, there was no compensation, and the plaintiff was obliged to reimburse Kazakhstan for $3.2 million in court costs. The workers themselves did not participate in the proceedings and were not a party to the case, so no demands for salary increases or improved working conditions were considered, and their positions remained unchanged. This case shows that international arbitration does not consider the protection of migrants' rights as an end in itself, but evaluates the actions of the state in terms of compliance with investment obligations; checking visas, permits and compliance with the laws of the host country is a sovereign right that does not violate international law if applied in good faith and without discrimination; at the same time, construction companies are obliged to ensure in advance strict legal compliance with migration and labor standards, otherwise they risk both administrative consequences and loss of international protection.

In the case of Muhammet Çap and Sehil Inşaat Endüstri ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. against Turkmenistan (ICSID No. ARB/12/6) ^[17] in 2021, initiated by Turkish investors, the plaintiffs claimed that Turkmenistan has violated obligations under the bit between Turkey and Turkmenistan, in particular, preventing the construction of objects in the zone "Avaza" through a systematic refusal to issue a visa, and the denial of admission of foreign labour, that, in their opinion, violate the right skilled labor migrants and undermine the execution of construction contracts; investors stated that he had applied for a visa, but the authorities of Turkmenistan was created by excessive bureaucratic barriers especially for entry to the region Dashoguz, however, arbitration is not considered the merits of the case, citing a lack of its jurisdiction due to the fact that, under article VII(2) of DIS, the dispute had to be referred to the courts of Turkmenistan, and only if, in the course of the year will not be the solution, it is possible to go to arbitration, as investors turned directly to the ICSID, not respecting this procedure, the court recognized its jurisdiction unconfirmed, and ended in favor of the government without compensation; the solution used by the rules of international investment law, first and foremost, the provisions of the Washington Convention of 1965 and the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties of 1969, as the dispute involved a bilateral investment agreement, and as a result, neither workers nor the investors did not have any pay raise or recognition of their claims, the case was concerned primarily with the protection of investors, not the migrants themselves. This case highlights that State migration control measures, even if they actually hinder the implementation of construction projects and the influx of foreign labor, can be recognized as legitimate in arbitration if there are formal procedural conditions in international treaties, failure to comply with which precludes consideration of the case on its merits and limits the ability of investors and related migrants to protect their interests.

International construction contracts (for example, based on IFIC standards) are private law agreements between construction participants. Despite their private-law nature, such contracts overlap with public international law where employment and migration issues are concerned: visa obligations, local staff, and social security. Thus, most of the standard forms of IFIC contracts contain reservations about the applicable law and the requirement to comply with national laws. The MFIC's model contracts have provisions instructing the contractor to ensure compliance with "all applicable laws, including labor laws" when performing work. In practice, this means that the contractor must obtain work permits for foreign specialists or hire the required number of local workers, in accordance with the regulations of the project country. For example, a recent IFIC review noted that "forced labor is prohibited in most countries," and the customer's task is to ensure that contracts allow for the implementation of measures against the use of illegal labor. This is in line with the international principle of non-exploitation: such contractual norms prevent attempts to circumvent national requirements or use migrants illegally.

Sometimes contracts explicitly stipulate quotas for hiring local workers or obligations to train the local population. These conditions are aimed at developing and protecting the local labor market, but they must be consistent with international obligations. For example, if the recipient country has ratified the ILO conventions on equality, such quotas should not formally discriminate against foreign workers in protecting their rights (equal pay, social guarantees, etc.). Otherwise, the contractor may question the integrity of the recipient state and turn to international arbitration (for example, ICSID). At the level of international law, it is recognized that the operation of internal immigration rules and quota conditions belong to the sovereign right of the State, but the obligations of the host State under the conventions ratified by it must be respected.

The role of international financial institutions should also be noted. Development banks (the New BRICS Development Bank, the World Bank, the EBRD, etc.) that finance large construction projects impose conditions for compliance with the "loan agreement" and "environmental and social management standards", which stipulate the rights of workers. They require governments and contractors to follow not only domestic laws, but also international standards (for example, exclude labor exploitation, comply with minimum wage conditions, comply with labor protection standards, etc.). Such requirements, although formally related to a loan agreement, strengthen the international legal basis for labor migration: real project contracts essentially include references to international norms.

Along with State and interstate forums, quasi-judicial procedures created by multilateral development banks and multinational corporations play an important role in protecting labor standards. The World Bank's Independent Ombudsman (English, "Compliance Advisor Ombudsman", CAO) examines complaints from employees of enterprises funded by the World Bank Group, including construction projects involving migrant workers. Despite their unofficial status, the CAO's decisions encourage borrowers to eliminate violations, and therefore actually complement international mechanisms for monitoring working conditions.

Finally, the construction industry attracts the attention of transnational corporate human rights manuals (for example, the UN Principles of Business and Human Rights, the UN Global Compact). These soft-law tools encourage companies involved in international projects to guarantee the rights of workers, including migrants. For example, companies should avoid attracting illegal migrants and protect them from violations by contractors. Although these standards are not legally binding, they form an environment of corporate responsibility in construction and are taken into account in the financing and insurance of projects.

The study revealed that the ISCO faces serious challenges related to ensuring the legal protection of migrant workers and fulfilling international obligations. Vincent Chetail ^[5,9] and Alexander Alenikoff ^[9] emphasize the need to develop international legal norms aimed at protecting the rights of migrants and creating conditions for their legal and secure work. International contracts increasingly require the involvement of labor from other countries, which increases the importance of international standards and legal mechanisms in this area.

The study also revealed that poverty is one of the main factors that increase migration flows and create new challenges for the international community. Economic instability leads to a deterioration in living conditions, an increase in unemployment and a decrease in the level of protection of migrants' rights. Migrants' poverty often causes their vulnerability and exploitation in the workplace, which requires the development of comprehensive legal measures to protect their interests.

The international community is actively working to implement the goals of the UN Concept of Sustainable Development ^[18], aimed at eradicating poverty and improving living conditions. This is directly related to labor migration in the construction industry, where migrants often occupy low-paying and unsafe jobs. The elimination of poverty and the provision of decent working conditions are the basis for the development of legal mechanisms for the protection of migrants and their integration into the economies of host countries.

An analysis of the migration crisis in 2015 that engulfed Europe has shown that the mass displacement of more than a million migrants has become a serious challenge for the international community. This crisis has revealed the inability of existing international mechanisms to effectively manage migration flows and highlighted political and social divisions among European States. The problem of the fair distribution of migrants between EU states has raised the need to reform international legal norms with an emphasis on strengthening coordination and an even distribution of responsibility for refugees ^[19].

Discussions around the humanitarian aspects of migration intensified in 2019, when the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) appealed to European governments to take a more humane decision regarding the rescued migrants in the Mediterranean Sea. The situation with more than 500 migrants left on the high seas without the opportunity to disembark has highlighted the differences between EU countries on migration. This showed the need to review existing approaches to migration in order to create a more equitable and humane regulatory system (UN: "The UN called for the disembarkation of 500 rescued migrants adrift in the Mediterranean Sea", 2019; English: "UN calls on nations to allow the disembarkation of 500 rescued migrants adrift in the Mediterranean Sea").

As noted by E. V. Yeremyan, the immigration issue significantly affects the political stability of the European Union, causing a crisis of liberal democracy due to the massive influx of refugees ^[20]. The inability of States to integrate immigrants leads to the degradation of democratic institutions and an increase in social tension.

An important element is the institution of readmission, which allows States to effectively combat illegal migration through the return of persons with unregulated legal status to their countries of citizenship or permanent residence. As noted by A. Y. Yastrebova ^[21], the successful implementation of readmission requires cooperation between States based on mutual obligations to identify individuals, establish the citizenship of illegal migrants and take their citizens back. In the construction industry, the use of readmission mechanisms contributes to the legality of migration processes and increases the level of national and public security.

The study confirmed that since the middle of the 20th century, the UN has played a leading role in coordinating international efforts to manage migration. The adoption of the New York Declaration on Refugees and Migrants in 2016 (UN, New York Declaration on Refugees and Migrants, 2016 (English "New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants")) and the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Legal Migration in 2018 (UN, Global Compact for Safe Migration, Orderly and Regular Migration, 2018 (English: "Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration")) They have become key steps in the international legal regulation of migration. These documents laid the foundations for the coordination of international efforts and emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of migrants, which is especially important for the construction industry. IOM plays a significant role in the development of effective migration management mechanisms. The main principle of IOM's work is the belief that orderly and humane migration benefits both migrants and host countries, contributing to socio-economic development.

Migration data plays a key role in the global information space, and in the context of acute information conflicts around the movement of people, it is especially important to create a favorable legal and social environment for migrants; this is facilitated by the "I am a Migrant" platform, created by the United Nations together with IOM, which, through real stories of participants in migration processes, raises public awareness of the contribution of migrants -At the same time, it strengthens tolerance for law-abiding migrant workers, who often face discrimination in the construction sector (the United Nations and the International Organization for Migration, the "I am a Migrant" platform).

It is especially important that in the context of a multipolar world and a shortage of qualified personnel in the construction industry, international regulation of migration flows is becoming even more important to ensure labor resources. As stated in Russia by Deputy Prime Minister Mikhail Khusnullin, attracting labor from abroad requires effective legal regulation of migration and protection of migrants' rights ^[22].

The need to integrate international standards into national legal systems is a key factor in creating protected conditions for migrant workers and reducing social tensions in host countries. Using the experience of the European Union in regulating labor migration can serve as a model for the unification of legal norms and standards for the protection of labor rights. However, the EU experience cannot be described as exclusively positive, as the unprecedented increase in migration is already leading to street riots in France and the UK, and an increase in crime in Germany.

The adaptation of national legal systems should be based on the recommendations of international organizations such as the United Nations and the ILO. The implementation of such standards will allow for the integration of best practices for the protection of migrants' rights into national legislation. An example is the legislative initiatives in Russia, developed in September 2024, aimed at regulating labor migration and tightening control over the illegal stay of migrants ^[23]. At the same time, the decline in Russia's attractiveness to migrants due to the periodic collapse of the ruble to more than 100 rubles per dollar, political tensions and increased control over migrants are combined with an increasing need for human resources, especially in the context of the restoration of industrial and residential facilities in new territories. This makes the problem particularly urgent and requires solutions.

International cooperation and legal support for migrants should become a strategic direction of development. Strengthening cooperation between the countries of origin of migrants and the countries of their reception involves not only legal support, but also the creation of conditions for the integration of migrants into the economies of host countries. This is especially true for the construction industry, where migrants play a key role in the implementation of international projects. As a member of the United Nations, Russia must take into account international norms in migration management, while developing its own approach that excludes European mistakes.

The effectiveness of global standards depends on their implementation at the national level. Most States establish special statuses for work visas, wage guarantees, and minimum social rights in migration and labor legislation. Nevertheless, certain domestic requirements, such as mandatory registration or limited access to housing, sometimes differ from the principles of non-discrimination of the ILO Convention No. 97 on Migrant Workers. In such cases, national courts increasingly turn to the norms and spirit of international conventions as an interpretative tool, which is facilitated by the emerging practice of courts in Southeast Asian countries and the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Judicial and arbitration practice confirms the applicability of the universal principles of human rights and freedom of cross-border provision of services to the migration of construction workers. The ECHR in the case of Chowdury and Others v. Greece established state responsibility for forced labor, while the EU Court in the case of Laval un Partneri Ltd. emphasized the need to maintain a balance between the protection of workers and the economic freedoms of the employer. Outside of Europe, international arbitrators usually recognize the priority of the sovereign rights of States, if their measures do not contradict the ratified international treaties.

Sustainable legal regulation of labor migration in the construction industry is possible only with the coordinated actions of all actors: states are required to consistently fulfill international obligations, companies are required to include relevant provisions in contracts, and international organizations are required to provide monitoring and methodological support. The synergy of public law norms and private law mechanisms remains a key condition for preventing exploitation and ensuring predictability in the implementation of transnational construction projects.

The conducted research revealed that the international legal regulation of labor migration in the construction industry remains fragmented and requires systematic improvement. Universal ILO conventions, UN documents, EU regional norms, bilateral agreements, and corporate standards (including the IFIC Model Standards and the UN Principles of Business and Human Rights) interact with each other, but do not form a single coherent system. This institutional fragmentation creates legal gaps and increases the risks of exploitation of migrants in construction.

An analysis of judicial arbitration practice has shown that States bear international responsibility for inaction in preventing forced labor and exploitation of migrants. Thus, in the case of Chowdury v. Greece, the ECHR found a violation of Article 4 of the European Convention. In the cases of Laval, Viking and Ruffert, the EU Court of Justice pointed to the need for proportionality between the protection of workers' rights and freedom of entrepreneurship. The arbitration tribunals, in turn, as in the Biwater Gauff and Caratube cases, emphasize the priority of the sovereign right of States to regulate migration, subject to the principles of non-discrimination and legal certainty.

One of the main conclusions of the study was the realization that current international legal acts require specific adjustments. In particular, the ILO Convention No. 97 should explicitly prohibit the collection of any fees from migrants for employment, both directly and through third parties. In the text of article 6, paragraph b, it should be added that the employer is obliged to ensure that there are no recruiting or other fees for access to work. This can be done through an amendment protocol or through a new ILO recommendation.

ILO Convention No. 143 also requires revision. Instead of the phrase "employees legally present in the territory", the phrase "actually present in the territory" should be used, while clarifying that such guarantees do not detract from the State's right to apply administrative measures to employers for violating immigration laws. This will expand the circle of protected persons and eliminate the gap in the protection of vulnerable groups of migrants. In this context, it should be noted that international practice demonstrates two mutually exclusive doctrinal approaches. The first interprets illegal migrant workers as a criminogenic factor deprived of any rights: the task of the state is to promptly identify and severely expel them using a repressive apparatus, and issues of economic participation go to the periphery. This logic is followed by Qatar, Oman and Saudi Arabia, where the digital kafala (Absher / Qiwa) controls the exit visa, refusal of permission blocks exit, and deportation is accompanied by heavy fines and criminal liability for repeated violations. The second approach proceeds from the fact that the work of even an illegal migrant increases GDP and forms the tax base; the state seeks to legalize his employment, provide an opportunity to collect wages through the courts, levies taxes and at the same time maintains sanctions — a fine, deportation and a ban on re-entry. This model is typical for both the USA and the EU. In Germany, Italy, Spain, etc., Directive 2009/52/EC obliges an employer to pay an illegal migrant worker full wages at the minimum rate, and the court protects this requirement, thereby turning the migrant from an "invisible" employee into a tax payer.

For modern Russia, the priority is to suppress the surge in migration-related crime; therefore, at the first stage, it is the repressive vector with the tools of mandatory notification of departure via a smartphone, for example, in the Gosuslugi application and biometric verification on the external border of the Union State of Russia and Belarus, and, if necessary, the introduction of exit permits modeled on kafala., for certain categories of migrants. The transition to this scheme does not require the ratification of ILO Convention No. 143, but rather relies on the sovereign right of the State to strictly control the movement of persons without violating the principles of non-discrimination already enshrined in the ILO conventions ratified by Russia.

After the stabilization of the criminal situation, the economic reserves of the construction market and the tasks of budget saturation dictate a gradual shift to the second approach. The key idea is to turn an illegal worker into a tax resident through legalization, similar to the Spanish amnesty of 2005, where about 600,000 migrants received a residence permit on condition of a six—month contract and payment of insurance premiums, which immediately increased income tax receipts without the effect of attracting new illegal immigrants. The Italian decrees of the Sanatorium in 2002 and 2020, the American agricultural program Farm Labor Stabilization (USDA, 2024) and the Uzbek Fund for the Support of Migrant workers (compensation for courses, visas, air tickets; subsidy of 500,000 soums upon return) prove that a combination of amnesty, contractual conditions and tax discipline gives a positive budget balance.

The economic outline of the Russian migration model is proposed to be built around a special fund for the promotion of legal employment of migrants, formed from the increase in tax revenues after the amnesty. The fund's funds reimburse the migrant for a medical examination, a patent, a flight, and the rental of a bed in a construction camp, or subsidize the employer who signed the employment contract, similar to USDA grants. Such financial support reduces the transaction costs of coming out of the shadows and increases the motivation of the employer to replace the illegal scheme with the legal one. At the same time, the preventive function of the notification-biometric system is maintained, which guarantees the inevitability of punishment in case of repeated violation.

The legal conclusion is very clear: At the initial, punitive stage, the ratification of ILO Convention No. 143 is not justified, since expanded guarantees for illegal migrant workers would weaken the intimidating effect of control. After the transition to the phase of tax maximization, the ratification of ILO Convention No. 143 becomes possible, but only in the wording proposed in the study, where the term "actually located in the territory" does not exclude deportation and at the same time imposes on the employer an unconditional obligation to pay taxes and contributions for any employee. This two—phase strategy gives Russia flexibility: first to strengthen public security, and then to bring the migration market out of the shadows, synchronizing it with international standards and preserving fiscal benefits.

The 1990 UN International Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers also requires amendments. Article 25 should explicitly state that migrants have the right to collect unpaid wages regardless of their migration status. To do this, it is necessary to provide for the possibility of submitting applications in a simplified civil or administrative manner.

European Union law, in particular Directive 96/71/EC on the secondment of workers, requires comprehensive expansion: first, it is necessary to explicitly fix the reimbursement of migrants for all costs of recruitment, visa processing and relocation (similar to the "allowances or reimbursement of expenses to cover travel, board and lodging" in the amendment (EU 2018/957), in order to to exclude the actual transfer of these costs to employees; secondly, it is necessary to introduce a rule prohibiting any recruitment fees and establish the joint responsibility of the contractor for the actions of subcontractors and agencies; thirdly, it is necessary to expand the rights of migrant workers, regardless of their migration status, to access national labor inspections and legal assistance without the threat of criminal or administrative prosecution for illegal status; and, finally, it is recommended to provide a mechanism for monitoring and reporting on migrant complaints (for example, as part of the revision of Employer Sanctions Directive 2009/52/EC or the new horizontal directive on labor inspections), which will ensure real access to justice even for those who work temporarily or illegally.

IFIC's standard construction contracts should include a mandatory condition: the contractor does not have the right to hire employees if they have been charged recruitment fees. It also requires the contractor's commitment to respect the labor rights of migrants at all stages of the project, including the actions of subcontractors and recruiting agencies. These provisions should be fixed in the "Special Conditions" sections as mandatory for inclusion.

The UN Global Compact deserves special attention. It should include the principle that in projects involving large-scale construction, companies are required to check the activities of recruitment agencies, prohibit the collection of fees and bear joint responsibility for the actions of subcontractors in case of violations of the rights of migrant workers.

In the context of the institutional proposals, there is a need to create a specialized registry of DIS at the ILO, with mandatory registration of the text of the agreement and the right of advisory monitoring by the ILO Committee of Experts. This will make it possible to assess the compliance of the DIS with the basic provisions of ILO Conventions No. 97 and No. 143.

It is necessary to develop a global minimum of working conditions for the construction industry in the form of official recommendations (Eng. "Recommendation") ILO Guidelines (English: "Guidelines") The World Bank, which includes mandatory standards on pay, accommodation, medical care, and an effective grievance mechanism. Such a model recommendation should be easily adaptable for inclusion both in national legislation and in the terms of international loan agreements provided by the New Development Bank (BRICS) and other leading financial institutions.

DIS also needs to be upgraded. It is advisable to include special conditions on migration policy, which stipulates that the State has the right to regulate the entry and employment of foreign workers, subject to the principles of non-discrimination and transparency. Such a rule will ensure a balance between the sovereignty of the State and the protection of the rights of foreign investors and their staff.

Future research may focus on economic modeling of the consequences of the ban on recruitment fees, analysis of the practice of collecting unpaid wages, as well as on the formation of a system of indicators to assess compliance with migration standards in the framework of international project financing.