A/HRC/32/40 the Special Rapporteur in his previous reports on labour exploitation (A/HRC/26/35) and recruitment practices (A/70/310) will be mentioned briefly in the context of international trade. Examples of good practices and key features of existing trade agreements towards the full realization of human rights are provided throughout the present report. A. Direct impact on the rights of migrants Constraints on freedom of movement 24. International human rights law recognizes the right of any individual to freedom of movement within the borders of his or her country, as well as the right to leave his or her country and return. Admittedly, there is no corresponding right to enter into the territory of another State, and States retain the sovereign authority to regulate immigration. Still, even when making immigration decisions, under international law States are still required to respect, promote and fulfil their human rights obligations to all, regardless of their status. 25. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that, in spite of the protections for migrants contained in the international human rights framework, transnational migration laws and regulations have been restrictive and segmented by skill, rather than protective. Within the multilateral framework, the liberalization of temporary workers under the General Agreement on Trade in Services covers only 5 per cent of world services trade. Moreover, of the few commitments that were made by States in mode IV of the Agreement, only 17 per cent relate to low-skill trade for temporary workers.7 Conversely, 70 per cent target high-skilled services occupations, 25 per cent target executives, managers and specialists, and 43 per cent cater to intra-corporate transferees.8 26. Despite a global boom in labour mobility agreements during the 1990s, geographic biases prevailed, reinforcing power imbalances between sending and receiving States, rather than remedying them. States members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) registered a fivefold increase in the number of bilateral labour mobility agreements and Latin American countries doubled their numbers; countries in Asia and Africa, on the other hand, failed to register the same figures.9 27. The Special Rapporteur remains concerned that States have not analysed their own labour market needs across sectors and adjusted mobility allowances accordingly. Even in cases where trade arrangements allow for mobility across all sectors, immigration determinations in receiving countries are heavily influenced by economic pressures, political ties and traditional admission practices, completely disregarding the overwhelming evidence of the benefits of a well-regulated migration. During the Special Rapporteur’s visit to the European Union institutions in Brussels, he noted the high demand for unskilled labour in several sectors, including agriculture, hospitality, construction and domestic work, which generally goes unrecognized, thus fostering important underground labour markets where irregular migrants are exploited. He observed that the European Union migration framework has yet to be accompanied by a parallel development of opportunities for migrants to seek regular channels for temporary “unskilled” jobs. 7 8 9 Marion Panizzon, “Standing together apart: bilateral migration agreements and the temporary movement of persons under ‘Mode 4’ of GATS”, Working Paper No. 77 (Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, University of Oxford, 2010). States have demonstrated a preference for regulating medium- and low-wage migration in bilateral labour mobility agreements, which are different from trade agreements (see paras. 65-69 below). World Economic and Social Survey 2004: International Migration (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.04.II.C.3). 7