Canem Malem,
Who used threat of loss of trade to enforce CCPR?
Does the new UN agreement mean that all countries signing will have open borders with no controls except handing out welcome brochures?
I doubt both of those.

runner,

It was the government of Malcolm Fraser who authorised
the immigration of more than 50,000 Vietnamese from
Indian Ocean refugee camps. At that time the
"open-door" immigration policy enjoyed bi-partisan support.

And of course - there were more illegal immigrants who
arrived by plane than by boat - 60,000 is just an estimate.

The following link is a brief history of asylum in Australia.
I hope it helps you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_Australia

Both sides of politics had difficulty is trying to solve
this problem. And it's not over yet.

A list of US Reservations and Declarations of the UN CCPR
http://www.bayefsky.com/html/usa_t2_ccpr.php
My understanding is the CCPR wasn't signed by the US until 1993 some 30 years after it was finalized by the UN - this was due to pressure from various organizations and was subject to significant caveats due to national laws.

An example of the use of the International Court (a transnational organisation similar to the UN- could be considered to be the legal arm of the UN - compare with the separation of powers of the Westminster System) to pressure national government.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/world/asia/myanmar-un-human-rights.html

Un Sanctions are used to pressure nations- other organizations such as the Group of 77 can use pressure on nations policy.

Group of 77 Policies-
The group was credited with a common stance against apartheid and for supporting global disarmament. It has been supportive of the New International Economic Order. It has been subject to criticism for its lackluster support, or outright opposition, to pro-environmental initiatives, which the group considers secondary to economic development and poverty-eradication initiatives.

My view is that generally official international organizations ("World Government") should be about the relationships between countries but not within. You could argue that disarmament is relevant but I can't see how apartheid is an issue about the relationship between countries even if it is a moral one. But it is perhaps not our role to judge another nations morality. Perhaps individual countries can choose to manage their relationships on the basis of the aparteid- but perhaps this is not the original intention of the UN. Perhaps this is an example of "scope creep".

The Charter of the United Nations was signed, in San Francisco, on 26 June 1945 and is the foundation document for all the United Nations work. The United Nations was established to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and one of its main purposes is to maintain international peace and security.

The law is often complex- people appear to be subject to laws at multiple levels- eg. Council, State, National, and now International.

When power is held at higher levels it disenfranchises the people and becomes more dictatorial and makes them more dependent and takes their self determination. Ironic given the UN says that taking away a cultures right to self determination is a form of genocide- when they are perhaps complicit in just that behavior.

Bazz,
"You did not seem to realise that the immigration document has a policy
statement that immigration is a human right."
Can you provide a link to substantiate that claim?

Aidan First it appears you only rread the article I supplied the link to.

A lesson in how things are, when you read this part "The finalized text of the agreement, the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration," you would have seen that part of it is in red text that is because it is the link to the actual document.

It does not use the exact wording "immigration is a human right" but if you read it is exactly what they mean.

http://www.un.org/pga/72/wp-content/uploads/sites/51/2018/07/migration.pdf