A/68/283 with that of all other relevant United Nations entities and agencies working on migration, such as OHCHR, UNHCR, ILO and UNICEF. 116. The IOM Constitution gives it a relatively limited mandate on migration, and a new United Nations organization for migration would need to become the lead organization on migration under a legal protection/human rights mandate. Dissolving IOM and moving its functions into this new, broader agency is thus another possibility which could be considered. 5. Measures to strengthen the current institutional framework 117. It is not realistic to think that agreement on a new institutional framework for migration inside the United Nations will be reached any time soon. In the meantime, there is a need to look at measures to strengthen the current institutional framework. This could be achieved, inter alia, by holding more frequent high-level dialogues. The draft resolution of the Second Committee of the General Assembly in 2012 provided that a high-level dialogue should be held every three years. Unfortunately that proposal was not included in the final text of the resolution. 118. As proposed in the OHCHR report entitled “Migration and human rights: improving human rights-based governance of international migration”, the establishment within the United Nations of a standing platform on the human rights of migrants would enable systematic interaction between all relevant stakeholders (including Member States, Global Migration Group agencies, other international and regional organizations, civil society and migrants themselves) on a broad range of cross-cutting human rights and migration issues. 119. Furthermore, the work of the Global Migration Group should be further streamlined and its human rights framework strengthened. The mandate of OHCHR and its operational expertise on migration and human rights in this respect is crucial. 120. There have also been proposals to bring the Global Forum on Migration and Development inside the United Nations. This does not seem to be very realistic in the near future. The Special Rapporteur believes that, if a high-level dialogue could be held more frequently, for instance every three years, the Global Forum could complement this United Nations process and provide an opportunity for States to discuss informally outside the United Nations setting. IV. Conclusions and recommendations A. Conclusions 121. Migration governance is becoming increasingly informal, ad hoc, non-binding and State-led, falling largely outside the United Nations framework in such forums as the Global Forum on Migration and Development and regional consultative processes. This leads to a lack of accountability, monitoring and oversight and the absence of a relationship with the formal normative monitoring mechanisms established within the United Nations. 122. There is thus a need to enhance the human rights dimension of global migration governance, including in terms of accountability, and to bring it back to the United Nations, including by establishing a United Nations-based 22/26 13-42115