THE RIGHT OF RESIDENCE FOR MIGRANT WORKERS IN ASEAN: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN THE PROCESS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Abstract: The right of residence for migrant workers in ASEAN plays a vital role in fostering economic integration, ensuring social stability within the region, and promoting sustainable development. However, notable legal and administrative differences in the regulation of residence rights among ASEAN Member States continue to pose considerable challenges in legal regulation and migration governance. This article explores the contributions of migrant workers to regional economic development, the current legal framework governing their right of residence within ASEAN, and the legal challenges related to the implementation of this right and the management of migrant labor. Based on this analysis, the article proposes several solutions to guarantee the residence rights of migrant workers and to promote a more harmonized migrant labor governance mechanism in the ASEAN region, thereby enhancing the protection of workers’ legitimate rights and interests and strengthening legal cooperation among Member States.Keywords: The right of residence, migrant workers, sustainable development, legal regulation, migration governance, ASEAN

1. Introduction

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is a region of economic, cultural, and social diversity. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the phenomenon of workers moving from one country to another (referred to as migrant workers) has emerged as one of the global issues, due to their significant contribution to the economic and social development of the region. The number of workers beyond their national borders is now higher than at any other time in human history, with more and more people around the world seeking employment abroad[1]. Statistics show that from 1990 to 2013, the number of migrants in ASEAN increased from 1.5 million to 6.5 million, with three countries - Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand - accounting for nearly 90% of the total migrant workforce in the region[2]. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO) 2022 report, there were approximately 167.7 million migrant workers worldwide, making up 4.7% of the global labor force. Among them, in ASEAN, it is estimated that about 20.2 million migrants originated from ASEAN member states, including around 7 million migrants moving to other countries within the region[3]. In Vietnam, in the first eleven months of 2024, the total number of Vietnamese workers employed abroad reached 143,160, achieving 114% of the annual target for migrant workers in 2024[4]. It can be observed that the number of migrant workers continues to increase, as they not only meet the labor shortages in receiving countries but also contribute to economic growth, skills transfer, and regional integration. However, ensuring the right of residence and other legitimate rights of migrant workers remains a major challenge, especially in the context of ASEAN’s pursuit of sustainable development in line with the goals set out by the United Nations in the Agenda for Sustainable Development 2030.

Amid the opportunities and challenges that migrant workers bring to the sustainable development process, ASEAN has made considerable efforts to establish a legal framework. Through research, analysis, and assessment of the current legal framework, this paper proposes a number of solutions aimed at safeguarding the right of residence for migrant workers, thereby strengthening the protection of their legitimate rights and interests, and contributing to sustainable development and regional integration.

2. Some theoretical issues on migrant workers and the right of residence for migrant workers

2.1. The concept of migrant workers

In the course of history, national territories and borders have been increasingly defined in connection with national sovereignty. However, the phenomenon of citizens of one country living, working, and interacting with citizens of another country is objective, arising from various causes, including the need for cultural exchanges between countries and among individuals, cooperation in the fields of economy, science, technology, and engineering, the consequences of wars leading to large migration flows, changes in political and economic regimes, as well as the demand for employment and improvement of living standards. From these practical conditions, the concept of “foreigners” has inevitably emerged and become a legal term recognized in both national and international legal systems[5]. United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. 40/144 on the Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who Are Not Nationals of the Country in Which They Live (adopted on 13 December 1985) set forth the definition of “foreigners” in Article 1: “an alien” is any individual who is not a national of the State in which he or she is present[6]. of nationality and covers various subjects under international human rights law, such as migrant workers, stateless persons, and refugees…[7]

Migration is recognized as a global issue of the 21st century and continues to play an important role in both international and national affairs. The number of migrants has been steadily increasing due to diverse reasons such as settlement, the search for better employment opportunities, education, or in some cases, escaping crime, violence, conflicts, and terrorism in their country of nationality. However, migrant workers still constitute the majority among migrants[8]. Although migrant workers contribute significantly to the economies of host countries and account for a large proportion of the world’s population, they remain one of the most vulnerable groups, as they often face precarious legal status, are susceptible to labor exploitation, and suffer discrimination compared to native workers, while lacking access to basic social services[9]. According to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 18 December 1990, the term “migrant worker” refers to a person who is to be engaged, is engaged, or has been engaged in a remunerated activity in a State of which he or she is not a national[10].

The rapid increase in labor migration in recent decades is the result of multiple structural factors and globally interconnected contexts. The change in the number of migrant workers in recent years stems from several main factors as follows:

First, disparities in population growth and labor structure. One of the fundamental causes is the imbalance in the distribution of population and labor force among countries and regions. Developed countries are facing rapidly aging populations and low birth rates, which have led to a serious decline in their labor force. Meanwhile, developing countries, particularly in South Asia and Africa, have a high proportion of young people, thereby creating significant pressure on domestic employment[11]. This imbalance generates a demand for cross-border labor supply, driving increasingly strong flows of labor migration.

Second, the wealth gap and development inequality among countries and regions. Workers from poorer countries tend to migrate to more developed economies in search of higher wages, better living conditions, and more stable career opportunities. Developed countries, in turn, need to admit foreign labor to fill vacancies where domestic supply is insufficient, especially in low-paying jobs that native workers are unwilling to take[12]. Conversely, developing countries have an abundant labor surplus or lack sufficient domestic employment opportunities, creating a plentiful labor supply. It can thus be seen that labor migration occurs when individuals from low-income areas with high unemployment rates are willing to move to regions with better prospects of employment and higher wages[13].

Third, globalization and free trade. The process of globalization and free trade has expanded the scale of cross-border production, commerce, and services, thereby leading to labor mobility. Industrially developed countries, facing a severe shortage of human resources, have the opportunity to hire cheap labor from less developed and developing countries. At the same time, less developed and developing countries also address unemployment by sending their workers abroad to countries with high labor demand[14].

Fourth, the development of information technology and transportation. The expansion and improvement of modern information technology, particularly the Internet and digital platforms, have significantly reduced communication and information access costs. Workers, especially from developing countries, can easily access information on job opportunities, residence conditions, and immigration policies in host countries through online channels, thus enhancing their initiative in migrating to seek employment to improve living conditions. Furthermore, the development of information technology not only changes the very nature of migration flows but also leads to the emergence of “transnational migration networks”, in which information about jobs and residence conditions spreads rapidly among current and potential workers[15]. Alongside this, the strong development of international transportation infrastructure has considerably reduced costs and geographical barriers to labor mobility.

Fifth, the impact of pandemics and post-pandemic immigration policies on the rate of migrant workers. Pandemics are among the factors affecting the flow of labor migration across countries. The Covid-19 pandemic is a typical example—one of the first global events in the 21st century causing serious disruption to the international labor flow. In the ASEAN region, the proportion of migrant workers decreased on average by about 15–20% during the 2020–2021 period, particularly in industries heavily dependent on low-skilled labor such as construction, services, and industrial manufacturing[16]. In addition to reducing the number of workers, the pandemic also slowed down the process of contract renewals and the issuance of new residence permits, leading to a rise in undocumented migrant workers, thereby burdening national migration management systems and increasing the risk of human rights violations[17]. Moreover, after the pandemic, many host countries implemented more selective immigration policies to prioritize the recovery of domestic labor markets. Some industrially developed countries within ASEAN, such as Singapore and Thailand, adjusted their immigration policies towards prioritizing the recruitment of skilled and highly qualified workers, while restricting forms of unskilled immigration in order to reduce social pressure, improve workforce quality, and enhance national economic productivity. According to the report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), there has been a clear shift in national migration policies towards the model of “migration selectivity”, which selects workers based on educational attainment, professional skills, and language ability instead of mass immigration as before[18]. This has led to changes in the proportion of migrant workers in recent years.

In the face of the driving factors behind the increase of migrant labor in today’s context of globalization, migrant workers are presented with clear opportunities but also face potential challenges. One of the major opportunities is access to the international labor market, where they can seek employment with higher income and better working conditions. Alongside these opportunities, migrant workers are confronted with a series of challenges in the current context. The lack of legal safeguards to protect migrant workers is considered one of the major challenges. Many migrant workers are employed in the informal sector, without clear labor contracts, without access to social insurance services, and are vulnerable to labor exploitation. In addition, labor migration also results in negative consequences for sending countries, most notably the phenomenon of “brain drain.” Highly skilled workers often choose to settle permanently in developed countries, thereby reducing the quality human resource pool at home and undermining the long-term development strategies of these countries[19]. This situation stems from illegal residence, which is regarded as the main reason why migrant workers are excluded from basic social welfare policies, are easily pushed into the informal labor sector with precarious conditions, and receive little legal protection.

2.2. The concept of “residence” and “the right of residence”

According to the Comprehensive Vietnamese Dictionary, “residence” is understood as the process by which people live in a specific place, where their daily activities such as eating, working, resting, and other essential living activities take place[20]. According to the Dictionary of Legal Terminology, the concept of “residence” is defined as “living permanently in a certain place”[21]. Today, the right of residence has been recognized as a fundamental human right in international law, as enshrined in international human rights instruments. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 affirmed that “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State, including their own, and the right to return to their homeland”[22]. Subsequently, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 also stated that “Anyone lawfully residing within the territory of a State shall have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence within that territory”[23]. The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2018, emphasized the need to “facilitate access for migrants to legal residence permits and basic rights, including social welfare, healthcare, education, and employment”. It can be seen that the right to legal residence is not merely an administrative issue related to visas and permits, but is intrinsically linked to human dignity and personal security. For migrant workers, the right to legal residence is the premise for them to enjoy labor rights, social welfare, and other fundamental human rights in the host country on an equal footing with native workers.

In the current context of sustainable development, the term “sustainable development” first appeared in the Brundtland Report (1987) and was further elaborated in the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development with 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Among these, several goals are directly related to migrant workers, such as poverty eradication (Goal 1), sustainable employment and economic growth (Goal 8), reduction of inequalities (Goal 10), and strengthening just and inclusive institutions (Goal 16)…

Ensuring the right of residence for migrant workers is one of the core requirements for achieving these goals, as the right of residence holds crucial significance within the system of fundamental human rights, as reflected in several aspects:

First, the right to legal residence enables migrant workers to access the labor market in a formal manner and to be protected under the laws of the host country. According to the International Labour Organization, irregular residence status often pushes migrant workers into informal, precarious jobs with poor working conditions, exposing them to the risk of labor exploitation[24]. With valid residence and work permits, migrant workers fall under the scope of labor law, social insurance law, and social welfare law, similar to native workers. However, in the opposite case, migrant workers are often not protected by law or find it extremely difficult to access justice when their rights are violated[25].

Second, the right of residence has a direct impact on the safety of migrant workers. Irregular residence status is one of the factors that expose migrant workers to violence, discrimination, and labor exploitation[26]. Migrant workers without legal residence often live in fear of being detected and deported, which discourages them from seeking legal and medical assistance when needed. Conversely, the right to legal residence provides migrant workers with the protection of the law, enabling them to be more confident in safeguarding their rights and to access public services on an equal basis with local citizens. This creates a safer living and working environment, contributing to public order and social security.

Third, the right of residence plays an important role in the social integration of migrant workers. Recognition of legal residence status not only ensures the stability of residence but also enables migrant workers to fully participate in the social, cultural, and educational life of the host country, thereby contributing to the building of positive social relations, reducing cultural and psychological barriers, and limiting the risks of discrimination and social exclusion[27]. This is an important factor that helps migrant workers stabilize their long-term lives and make greater contributions to the economic and social development of both their country of origin and the host country.

In general, labor migration is a prevalent phenomenon today, driven by various factors, particularly in the context of globalization and sustainable development. In practice, migrant workers stand between economic opportunities and serious legal–social challenges to their fundamental rights, especially the right of residence in the host country. Therefore, at both international and regional levels, including ASEAN, it is necessary to establish a comprehensive, fair, and humane legal framework at the national and international levels in order to fully protect the rights and legitimate interests of this vulnerable group, thereby ensuring progress towards sustainable development in line with the Agenda 2030 adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.

3. The current legal framework of ASEAN on the right of residence for migrant workers

In the context of globalization and economic integration, labor migration has become a widespread phenomenon, particularly in Southeast Asia. Faced with the reality of the rapidly increasing rate of labor migration due to various causes, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has recognized the importance of protecting the rights of migrant workers and has established a number of legal frameworks to ensure the right of residence and related rights for this group. With an awareness of the significance of safeguarding the right of residence, as well as consensus and cooperation in protecting the rights and legitimate interests of migrant workers, ASEAN has developed and adopted several key instruments concerning migrant workers.

First, the ASEAN Declaration on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the ASEAN Declaration 2007). Adopted at the 12th ASEAN Summit held in Cebu, the Philippines, in 2007, the Declaration emphasizes the commitment of Member States to protect the fundamental rights of migrant workers, strengthen bilateral and regional cooperation, and promote measures to ensure the right to lawful employment and residence, as well as protection against exploitation, discrimination, and human rights violations. In addition, the Declaration calls upon Member States to harmonize their national laws with United Nations and International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions, such as the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1990, ILO Convention No. 97 on Migration for Employment, and ILO Convention No. 143 concerning Migrant Workers[28]. The Declaration is an important regional instrument, reflecting ASEAN member states’ commitment to protecting the rights of migrant workers. However, the “right of residence” is not explicitly referred to in the Declaration as a separate right; rather, it is indirectly stipulated in provisions on equal treatment and the guarantee of fundamental rights during the period in which migrant workers are permitted to lawfully reside and work in the receiving country. Article 1 of the Declaration underscores: “Both sending and receiving states shall strengthen the economic and social pillars of the ASEAN Community by promoting the dignity and the full potential of migrant workers in a climate of freedom, equity, and stability, in accordance with the laws, regulations, and policies of the respective member states”[29]. In this context, the right of residence is not merely an administrative issue to ensure that migrant workers may lawfully take up employment in a given country, but also a right closely linked to human dignity, which must be guaranteed to prevent forced labor, arbitrary arrest, or deportation. Despite its achievements, the 2007 ASEAN Declaration still has certain limitations. The most significant limitation lies in its non-binding legal nature; therefore, its practical impact remains limited[30]. As the 2007 ASEAN Declaration is essentially a political document rather than a legally binding regional convention, the implementation and guarantee of fundamental rights, including the right of residence, largely depend on the goodwill of individual Member States. The role of the ASEAN Committee on the Implementation of the Declaration on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers (ACMW) is confined to advisory functions, without binding legal authority or effective supervisory mechanisms such as complaint procedures or investigative powers.…[31]. This has resulted in disparities in the recognition and enforcement of the right of residence across Member States. For instance, the Philippines has adopted numerous policies to support overseas workers—such as Republic Act No. 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as amended in 2010, which provides comprehensive protection for migrant workers, requiring employers to comply with contractual obligations, and, if not, ensuring that workers may maintain temporary residence status through government representative offices and protection programs[32]. By contrast, receiving states such as Singapore and Brunei do not yet have legal frameworks allowing migrant workers to change employers or maintain residence status upon termination of employment contracts[33].

Second, the ASEAN Consensus on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ASEAN Consensus 2017). Adopted on 14 November 2017 in Manila, the Philippines, exactly a decade after the adoption of the 2007 ASEAN Declaration on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers, the Consensus was the result of numerous rounds of negotiations among Member States, aimed at concretizing the principles and commitments of the 2007 ASEAN Declaration and moving towards the establishment of a clearer and more consistent framework for action. The primary objective of the 2017 ASEAN Consensus is to build a framework of cooperation on labor migration in the region and to contribute to the process of ASEAN Community building. Although the term “right of residence” is not explicitly stated in the ASEAN Consensus 2017, the instrument incorporates provisions safeguarding lawful residence in several articles, such as Article 16 “Migrant workers shall have the right to adequate or reasonable accommodation in accordance with the laws, regulations, and policies of the receiving state”, and Article 31 “The receiving state shall make every effort to allow migrant workers to reside and work for at least the same duration as they are permitted to engage in remunerated activity, in cases where national laws and regulations require separate permits for residence and work”[34]. These provisions indirectly acknowledge the importance of the right of residence to the legal security and social welfare access of migrant workers. It can be observed that the ASEAN Consensus 2017 represents a step forward in ASEAN Member States’ recognition of the right of residence as a fundamental right closely associated with human dignity and social protection, while also providing a policy basis for Member States to amend and supplement their regulations on the lawful residence of migrant workers. Alongside its clear positive aspects, the implementation of the Consensus also reveals certain limitations. The most significant limitation lies in the fact that the ASEAN Consensus 2017 is a non-legally binding instrument, without establishing an independent monitoring mechanism, a system of periodic reporting, or a complaint procedure, and therefore lacking enforcement measures in cases where Member States fail to comply with its provisions. This results in practical implementation being largely dependent on the goodwill, voluntary commitment, and prioritization of each Member State. In addition, the ASEAN Consensus 2017 applies only to documented migrant workers; however, in practice, a significant proportion of migrant workers within ASEAN are employed in the informal sector and without proper documentation. This group, considered highly vulnerable, is not covered within the scope of protection of the Consensus.

Third, in addition to regional legal instruments of a general nature applicable to ASEAN as a whole, Member States have also entered into bilateral agreements on labor migration, including provisions on the right of residence, which play a highly important and practical role in regulating labor migration flows. Examples include: The Bilateral Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Government of Malaysia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia 2020 on the employment and protection of migrant domestic workers. Under this MOU, employers are required to recruit Indonesian domestic workers in accordance with the prescribed categories, job descriptions, and specific places of residence stipulated in the Labour contract[35], thereby ensuring the lawful residence rights of migrant domestic workers; The Bilateral MOU between Thailand and Myanmar, Cambodia, and Lao PDR 2002–2003, aimed at streamlining the recruitment process of migrant workers from these countries into Thailand and addressing issues concerning their legal status, recruitment, and repatriation. The agreement provided a framework for obtaining work permits and residence rights for migrant workers in order to regularize their status and reduce the number of undocumented migrant workers[36]. As a result, many workers from Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia were registered and granted permits to work in Thailand for periods ranging from two to four years, instead of remaining in irregular residence. These bilateral agreements are highly pragmatic, enabling receiving countries such as Thailand and Malaysia to legally supplement their labour shortages, while at the same time allowing sending countries to better protect their nationals abroad. However, due to their bilateral nature, such MOUs typically apply only to certain sectors or specific categories of workers, such as domestic work, construction, or agriculture…, and the duration of residence is usually limited to the contractual period or the terms agreed upon in the MOU. Consequently, they have not established a common standard for the entire region but mainly serve as ad hoc measures to reduce undocumented migration and enhance the effective management of labour migration.

Fourth, in addition to intra-ASEAN instruments, the legal framework on the right of residence for migrant workers is also linked to participation in multilateral international treaties on the rights of migrant workers. The most notable is the United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families 1990, together with International Labour Organization (ILO) Conventions, including Convention No. 97 on Migration for Employment 1949 and Convention No. 143 on Migrant Workers 1975. These international conventions set fundamental standards for the protection of the right to work, lawful residence, equal treatment, and social security for migrant workers. However, the level of commitment of ASEAN Member States to these international standards remains very limited. To date, only Indonesia and the Philippines have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families 1990. In addition, the Philippines and Malaysia are the only ASEAN countries that have ratified ILO Convention No. 97. The fact that only a few ASEAN countries participate in these key international treaties on migrant workers shows a lack of shared commitment at the global level. Many countries tend to prioritize informal solutions and self-regulation at the national and regional levels concerning human rights in general and the right of residence in particular for migrant workers, which results in a regional legal framework that mainly remains at the level of flexible declaratory principles, lacking enforceable compliance mechanisms.

Thus, in the context of increasingly widespread labor migration, coupled with the challenges faced by migrant workers under globalization and sustainable development, ASEAN has given special attention and made significant progress in establishing a common legal framework on migrant labor within ASEAN member states. These instruments have gradually built a common regional value system regarding the protection of human dignity, social security, and the lawful right of residence for migrant workers. This process carries substantial political and social significance, particularly in the context of ASEAN being a region with one of the highest intra-regional migrant labor populations in the world.

Alongside the positive achievements over the past period, in practice there remain difficulties and challenges in applying these legal instruments, as most are “soft law,” lack legally binding effect, and are devoid of independent monitoring mechanisms. Implementation largely depends entirely on the goodwill of member states. Notably, vulnerable migrant workers have not been adequately addressed within the existing legal framework on the right of residence. Although both the ASEAN Declaration 2007 and the ASEAN Consensus 2017 affirm the principles of non-discrimination and the protection of fundamental rights for all migrant workers, there are no specific provisions for vulnerable groups, such as female migrant workers. In addition, bilateral agreements have also mentioned the protection of vulnerable migrant workers, such as domestic workers; however, they remain largely focused on employment obligations rather than ensuring the lawful right of residence for migrant workers.

In the period of promoting sustainable development and ensuring human rights across the ASEAN region in general and its Member States in particular, it can be seen that the regional legal framework on the right of residence in ASEAN is at the stage of “initial expansion” but has not yet reached a high level of effective institutionalization in practice. Therefore, ASEAN needs to adopt measures to promote the protection of the right of residence of migrant workers within the ASEAN community in the coming period to achieve the goal of sustainable development across the region.

4. Opportunities and challenges in ensuring the right of residence for migrant workers in the ASEAN region and recommendations for legal improvement to meet sustainable development requirements

4.1. Opportunities in ensuring the right of residence for migrant workers in the process of ASEAN’s sustainable development

Freedom of residence is one of the fundamental human rights recognized and protected under international and national law. The right of residence is not merely a legal factor but also a fundamental foundation enabling migrant workers to fully and equally participate in the economic and social life of the host country. Ensuring this right not only guarantees the basic human rights of migrant workers but also contributes to sustainable and harmonious development for both the sending and receiving countries.

The right of residence for migrant workers is closely linked to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly in promoting economic growth, reducing inequality, and building sustainable communities. In September 2015, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development, comprising 17 goals aimed at ending poverty, protecting the planet, ensuring prosperity for all, and achieving sustainable development by 2030. Sustainable development requires the participation and benefit of all individuals in society, including migrant workers. It can be seen that, for migrant workers to enjoy fundamental rights while living and working in a country of which they are not nationals, the right of residence plays a crucial role in ensuring social inclusion. It enables migrants to contribute stably and long-term to the economy and community of the host country, while also generating spillover effects in skills, awareness, and investment in the sending country[37].

In the process of sustainable development, ensuring the legal and stable right of residence for migrant workers is increasingly recognized as essential, becoming an integral part of national and regional strategies. ASEAN, a region with a high proportion of intra-regional migrant workers, has certain advantages and opportunities in promoting the effective and comprehensive implementation of the right of residence for migrant workers in the context of sustainable development.

First, the linkage between the right of residence and the United Nations sustainable development goals on reducing inequalities within and among countries. Ensuring legal residence helps reduce the risk of migrant workers becoming victims of labor exploitation, discrimination, or being deprived of access to essential services in line with Goal 10 of the Agenda 2030 on reducing inequality within and among countries. One of the most important aspects of the right of residence is the ability to access social, health, educational, and social protection services. When the legal framework on the residence of foreigners in general, and migrant workers in particular, is established and there is basic harmonization between international law and national law, as well as among national laws, migrant workers and their families have the right to access public health insurance programs, use basic and specialized healthcare services, enjoy rights to education, and receive support from local social welfare policies and civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. The linkage between the right of residence and other rights is not only of humanitarian significance in protecting human rights globally but also of strategic importance in the context of sustainable development.

Second, the right of residence contributes to economic growth and sustainable employment, ensuring Goal 1 on ending poverty in all its forms everywhere and Goal 8 on promoting inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all, as stated in the Agenda 2030 of the United Nations. Legal residence allows migrant workers to participate in the formal labor market, directly contributing to the economic growth of host countries while increasing remittances to sending countries. Migrant workers fill labor gaps in sectors where domestic labor is insufficient, particularly in agriculture, construction, services, and healthcare…[38] Once granted legal residence and protection by the host state, migrant workers have the legal basis to enter into stable labor contracts with employers, receive fair wages and working conditions, thereby increasing labor productivity and contributing to national GDP. For sending countries, migrant workers’ remittances help reduce poverty and support family investment; for example, intra-ASEAN migrant workers’ remittances have contributed to poverty reduction in many ASEAN countries[39].

Third, promoting gender equality and reducing inequality in accordance with Goal 5 and Goal 10 of the Agenda 2030 of the United Nations. A large proportion of migrant workers in ASEAN are women, often employed in vulnerable occupations such as domestic work, caregiving, and restaurant services. Female migrant workers are frequently exposed to gender biases and a higher risk of abuse and exploitation[40]. Legalizing their residence status provides them with a legal position to assert their rights, such as reporting cases of abuse or unpaid wages. The right of residence helps narrow the inequality gap between migrant workers and local workers in terms of wages, working conditions, and access to social benefits. This is considered a foundation for achieving gender equality and reducing social inequality.

Fourth, enhancing migration governance and promoting regional cooperation. Ensuring the right of residence also brings significant institutional benefits. When migrant workers have clear legal status, governments can more effectively manage and monitor migration flows and collect accurate data on the number and characteristics of foreign labor. This allows states to formulate appropriate labor and social welfare policies for this group, improving governance efficiency. In practice, the increasing labor migration compels ASEAN member states to enhance institutions, adjust policies, and harmonize training systems, thereby facilitating coordinated management of migrant labor[41]. This creates opportunities to strengthen regional legal cooperation, aiming toward a comprehensive, consistent, and enforceable legal framework on the right of residence for migrant workers in the future.

Fifth, the emergence of non-governmental organizations facilitates the protection of the right of residence for migrant workers in the context of sustainable development. Non-governmental organizations act as intermediaries, providing legal support, policy advocacy, and essential services to protect the rights of migrant workers, particularly those who are vulnerable, such as female workers and domestic workers. Non-governmental organizations assist migrant workers in accessing information about their rights, residence application procedures, and protection against the risk of deportation. Moreover, non-governmental organizations contribute to policy advocacy, encouraging governments to improve migrant workers’ right of residence.

Thus, given the crucial significance of the right of residence, ASEAN has consistently emphasized and created multiple opportunities and advantages in ensuring the right of residence for migrant workers within the context of sustainable development. The right of residence is regarded as a fundamental basis for migrant workers to fully realize their potential and make positive contributions to both sending and receiving countries. Developing and implementing comprehensive migration policies based on the principles of respect and protection of migrant workers’ rights, including the right of residence, represents an important step toward realizing the sustainable development goals outlined by the United Nations in the Agenda 2030.

4.2. Challenges to ensuring the right of residence for migrant workers in the process of sustainable development in ASEAN

Although ASEAN has issued numerous instruments affirming its commitment to protecting the rights of migrant workers, in practice, the application of the provisions of these instruments remains very limited because the legal framework is mainly “soft” and depends on the domestic laws of each country. According to the report of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES), the ASEAN consensus on the rights of migrant workers “is not legally binding,” and its implementation depends entirely on the laws and goodwill of each member state[42]. Therefore, among receiving countries, such as Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand, and sending countries, such as Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines, there remain significant disparities in legal regulations. Many countries only regulate “soft” aspects, such as accommodation and mobility of migrant workers, without guaranteeing them through mandatory national legislation. On the other hand, important international conventions, such as the United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (1990), have not been ratified by all ASEAN countries, resulting in the absence of a common monitoring mechanism according to international standard.

Differences in legal systems and enforcement among countries also hinder efforts to protect the right of residence for migrant workers. Current ASEAN instruments lack sanctioning mechanisms or common supervisory bodies, which results in the right of residence for migrant workers not being uniformly guaranteed. In Thailand, the management system for migrant workers is highly centralized through Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with sending countries such as Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia. Migrant workers must register through the government system and are largely dependent on national programs, without the freedom to change employers at will[43]. Conversely, Singapore applies a strict classification model for foreign workers based on visa types, such as Work Permit, S Pass, and Employment Pass, with the right of residence closely tied to the employer. Migrant workers cannot change employers without permission and usually must leave Singapore if their contract is terminated prematurely. Meanwhile, Malaysia has implemented partial reforms in migrant labor management but still maintains a system dependent on intermediary agencies, increasing the risk of abuse and reducing transparency in legal residence procedures[44]. It can be seen that the current migration management model in ASEAN remains fragmented, lacking a regional mechanism with sufficient authority to coordinate and supervise the protection of migrant workers’ rights in general, and the right of residence for migrant workers in particular. Institutional fragmentation undermines the integration process and the effectiveness of ASEAN’s sustainable development policies. At the national level, differences in approaches to residence also stem from the administrative capacity and organization of each country; some countries with strong and transparent administrative systems protect the right of residence better than weaker ones. However, not all ASEAN countries possess the same resources or political will to support migrant workers.

In addition, language, cultural, and social awareness barriers make it difficult for many migrant workers to access legal residence. When living and working in another country, migrant workers often lack proficiency in the local language and have limited understanding of the law, customs, and local culture. This leads to their inadequate knowledge of rights and procedures necessary to maintain legal residence, such as timely visa renewal and proper work permit conversion. Moreover, cultural and religious differences sometimes give rise to prejudice and discrimination from certain segments of the local population towards migrant workers. As a result, many workers miss deadlines for document renewal and inadvertently become undocumented, even if they initially entered legally. Clearly, if protective laws exist but workers cannot or do not dare to exercise them, the right of residence is effectively not ensured. This challenge requires ASEAN countries to strengthen legal awareness campaigns, provide language support, and offer advisory services for migrant workers. However, the implementation of such measures is often uneven: some countries, such as the Philippines and Thailand, have support centers and hotlines for foreign workers, while other countries, due to limited resources and insufficient attention to migrant workers, have not developed similar systems. The lack of consistent societal recognition of the role of migrant workers, who are still considered “outsiders” in some contexts, constitutes a long-term barrier to ensuring inclusive protection of the right of residence.

On the other hand, fluctuations in immigration policies affect the protection of the right of residence for migrant workers. In recent years, some ASEAN countries have tended to tighten immigration policies to address internal pressures. For example, Singapore has gradually raised the standards for hiring foreign workers with skills, increased the minimum salary requirement for the S Pass, and raised licensing fees for companies employing low-skilled labor. These stricter regulations inadvertently make it difficult for a portion of low-skilled migrant workers to meet the requirements, increasing the risk of losing their legal residence if they fail to adapt in time. Similarly, Malaysia has recently intensified inspections and deportations of undocumented workers. According to the Human Rights Watch report, the Malaysian government “has increased crackdowns, arrests, and deportations of undocumented workers,” while also opening “at least five new immigration detention centers” since 2018[45]. Such strict crackdowns force undocumented migrant workers to live in a state of “flight,” while even legal migrant workers feel insecure due to the risk of detention if they fail to renew their documents in time. Particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic, many countries temporarily closed borders and canceled visas, causing a large number of migrant workers to unintentionally overstay their legal residence. In the post-pandemic period, the priority given to domestic economic recovery has made countries more cautious in extending contracts for low-skilled foreign workers. From the perspective of sending countries, policy fluctuations in receiving countries, such as reductions in labor intake quotas or suspension of MOUs, directly affect their workers. Vietnam, which sends hundreds of thousands of workers abroad annually, will be impacted if markets like Malaysia change recruitment conditions. Conversely, Vietnam has recently strengthened regulations for the admission of foreign workers, such as strict requirements for work permits, partly creating difficulties for regional migrant workers wishing to work in Vietnam. Overall, the lack of policy coordination between sending and receiving countries - where receiving countries seek strict control while sending countries aim to facilitate maximum opportunities for their citizens - creates a challenge in establishing a stable and long-term residence mechanism for migrant workers at the regional level. In practice, receiving countries often prioritize the protection of local labor for political and economic reasons, resulting in the rights of migrant workers not being fully guaranteed.[46]. This represents a fundamental difference in interests between sending countries, which aim to protect their citizens working abroad, and receiving countries, which focus on labor market needs and domestic social stability. Such policy adjustments make it easier for migrant workers to lose their legal residence status or fall outside the protection of the law if they fail to update or meet the new requirements in time. Specifically for Vietnam, a country with a large number of exported workers, policy decisions regarding labor cooperation, quotas, or MOUs also directly affect the ability to protect Vietnamese workers abroad and the regulations governing the admission of foreign workers to work in Vietnam.

As analyzed above, these factors lead to a high risk to human rights in general and the right of residence for migrant workers in particular. A loose, fragmented legal system lacking a centralized monitoring mechanism results in the rights of migrant workers not being guaranteed, with serious consequences: some migrant workers may fall into an irregular residence status, while simultaneously increasing their vulnerability to serious crimes such as human trafficking and prostitution. From the perspective of sustainable development, these challenges not only place migrant workers in a vulnerable position but also reduce the effectiveness of utilizing migrant labor for economic growth and social stability in ASEAN.

4.3. Solutions to promote the guarantee of the right of residence for migrant workers in the context of sustainable development within the ASEAN Community

In view of the opportunities and existing issues, and with the goal of sustainable development, this paper proposes several solutions to ensure the right of residence for migrant workers within the ASEAN community.

Firsly, completing the regional and national legal framework on migrant labor. One of the key solutions is to develop and complete the legal framework to institutionalize the right of residence as a fundamental right of migrant workers in ASEAN. Regional instruments, such as the ASEAN Declaration on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers 2007 and the ASEAN Consensus on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers 2017, only indirectly address the right of residence through other fundamental rights, and are merely recommendatory, lacking legal binding effect. At the regional level, ASEAN should consider upgrading current commitments into more legally binding agreements. For example, ASEAN could proceed to conclude a regional treaty on the protection of migrant workers, recognizing the right of legal residence as a fundamental right and establishing mandatory minimum standards for its protection. Such a treaty would provide a solid legal basis for harmonizing national laws while setting up sanctions in case a member state violates the provisions. At the national level, each ASEAN member state needs to review and amend regulations concerning labor migration, domesticating international standards on the right of residence to protect the rights of migrant workers and ensure fairness and non-discrimination. Sending countries, such as Vietnam, Philippines, etc., should continue to improve laws on sending workers abroad, clearly stipulating responsibilities for protecting citizens abroad, establishing support funds, and legal assistance mechanisms when migrant workers face residence-related risks. Meanwhile, receiving countries, such as Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, etc., should amend immigration and labor laws for foreign workers to facilitate legal residence for migrant workers, distinguishing clearly between legal and irregular migrant workers to apply appropriate policies; consider allowing migrant workers to change employers or extend residence in special cases, such as employer breach of contract or worker abuse; and remove unnecessary legal barriers that impede access to public services, such as minimum residence requirements for medical care or children of migrant workers having difficulty enrolling in school. In addition, national laws should include provisions to protect vulnerable groups of migrant workers, such as undocumented workers, domestic workers, female workers, and children accompanying parents, through humane policies such as providing opportunities to regularize residence status or waiving/reducing penalties for voluntarily presenting for legalization. Completing this legal framework requires political determination and a concrete roadmap, representing a crucial step to institutionalize the right of residence of migrant workers as a human right respected across ASEAN.

Secondly, strengthening institutional capacity and inter-agency coordination in the management of migrant workers’ residence. Ensuring the right of residence for migrant workers depends greatly on the state management capacity of competent authorities, including labor management agencies, immigration authorities, and local governments in areas with high concentrations of foreign workers… ASEAN member states need to focus on investing in capacity building for implementing staff, such as training on law and human rights, and upgrading information technology systems for migration management to monitor the residence status of migrant workers accurately and in a timely manner. In addition, it is necessary to establish effective inter-agency coordination mechanisms at both central and local levels. In localities with many foreign workers, a task force should be formed comprising representatives from the Department of Labor, immigration authorities, police, trade unions, etc., to exchange information and promptly and effectively resolve arising issues related to residence and employment of migrant workers. At the regional level, ASEAN may consider establishing an ASEAN inter-agency working group on migrant labor management to share experiences among countries and provide technical support to countries with limited management capacity. When institutional capacity is enhanced and inter-agency coordination operates smoothly, legal provisions on residence can be effectively implemented, ensuring the right of residence in practice for migrant workers.

Thirdly, establishing a monitoring and complaint resolution mechanism at the regional level. To address the current shortcomings of “soft law,” ASEAN needs a supervisory body on the rights of migrant workers. This body should be granted the authority to monitor and collect reports from member states on the implementation of migrant workers’ rights, and to receive feedback and recommendations from social organizations as well as from the migrant workers themselves. A complaint mechanism at the regional level should also be considered, allowing migrant workers, or through representative organizations, to file complaints when their rights are seriously violated and are not adequately addressed at the national level. With a transparent and effective feedback channel, the right of residence for migrant workers will be better protected, as migrant workers will have a venue to voice concerns when facing the risk of unlawful loss of residence due to reasons such as employer or administrative abuse of power. This measure also enhances the accountability of ASEAN member states regarding the commitments they have made to protect migrant workers.

Fourthly, promoting international and regional cooperation on migration governance linked to sustainable development. ASEAN and its member states need to strengthen multilateral and bilateral cooperation to address the root causes of remaining issues in ensuring the fundamental human rights in general and the right of residence in particular for migrant workers. At the regional level, ASEAN should continue to leverage forums such as the annual ASEAN Forum on Migrant Labour (AFML), expanding policy dialogues with the participation of the International Labour Organization (ILO), the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and social organizations to seek innovative solutions to protect the right of residence for migrant workers. At the same time, ASEAN could advocate for the development of a regional action program implementing the Global Compact for Migration, integrating related sustainable development goals, such as setting targets to reduce the proportion of undocumented migrant workers by 2030 and increasing the proportion of migrant workers with access to social protection services… At the bilateral level, sending and receiving countries need to update and conclude new memoranda of understanding on migrant workers with more progressive provisions, such as simplifying residence permit procedures and sharing migration data to monitor the residence status of migrant workers… International cooperation should also focus on information and experience sharing, for instance, ASEAN member states could establish a common information portal on migrant workers, updating new regulations and issuing risk alerts so that workers are aware and comply, avoiding falling into irregular residence. Coordinated action among countries will help ensure safe and orderly labor migration, benefiting all parties, and directly contributing to the sustainable development goals of both individual countries and the ASEAN region as a whole.

5. Conclusion

The right of residence for migrant workers in ASEAN plays a pivotal role in shaping the pathway toward inclusive and sustainable development in the region. In the context of ASEAN’s continued pursuit of deeper international integration and increased labor mobility, ensuring safe and equitable residence rights is essential for protecting the stability and welfare of migrant workers.

Mặc dù ASEAN đã có những nỗ lực bảo đảm quyền cư trú của lao động di trú thông qua các văn kiện chính trị như Tuyên bố ASEAN về Bảo vệ và Thúc đẩy Quyền của Lao động di trú năm 2007, Đồng thuận ASEAN về bảo vệ và thúc đẩy quyền của lao động di trú năm 2017 và các thoả thuận song phương, hạn chế khi triển khai áp dụng trong thực tiễn vẫn tồn tại. Trước mục tiêu đảm bảo quyền cư trú của lao động di trú, một trong những yêu cầu của phát triển bền vững theo Chương trình nghị sự 2030 của Liên hợp quốc, các quốc gia thành viên ASEAN cần có những giải pháp hữu hiệu, phù hợp với tình hình thực tiễn hiện nay như hoàn thiện khung pháp lý cấp khu vực và quốc gia, tăng cường năng lực thể chế và phối hợp liên ngành, thiết lập cơ chế giám sát và giải quyết khiếu nại hiệu quả về lao động di trú, tăng cường hợp tác quốc tế và khu vực. Như vậy, quyền cư trú khi được tiếp cận dựa trên quyền con người và lấy con người làm trung tâm không chỉ là một yêu cầu pháp lý để đảm bảo an ninh quốc gia, phát triển của kinh tế và xã hội, mà còn là nền tảng chiến lược để xây dựng một cộng đồng ASEAN công bằng, bình đẳng và phát triển bền vững.

Tài liệu học thuật

1. Dang Ngoc Anh, Nguyen Ngoc Quynh & Dao Thi Suu, Study on the Socio-Economic Impacts of International Migration in Vietnam, Hanoi: Vietnam National University, 2011.

2.Amarjit Kaur, Labour Migration Trends and Policy Challenges in Southeast Asia, Policy and Society (2010).

3. Vu Ngoc Binh, International Law on Human Rights and the Practice of Implementing Human Rights for Women Working Abroad, in Rights of Foreigners, National Political Publishing House – Truth, 2018.

4. BRIDGE ANDERSON, US AND THEM ?: THE DANGEROUS POLITICS OF IMMIGRATION CONTROLS, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2013

5. Dinesh Bhugra, Matthew A Becker, Migration, Cultural Bereavement and Cultural Indentity, World Psychiatry 18, 2005

6. Nguyen Thuy Duong, Stateless Persons and the Issue of Ensuring the Rights of Stateless Persons in Southeast Asia, in Rights of Foreigners, National Political Publishing House – Truth, 2018.

7. Dang Viet Dat, Protection of Migrant Workers’ Rights in the ASEAN Community: Current Situation and Solutions, Southeast Asian Studies Review, No. 8/2018.

8. Vu Cong Giao & Nguyen Dinh Duc, Some Theoretical, Legal and Practical Issues Regarding the Rights of Foreigners, p.15, in Rights of Foreigners, National Political Publishing House – Truth, 2018.

9. Vietnam Lawyers Association, Things to Know about Migrant Labour, Hong Duc Publishing House, 2008.

10. Martin Ruhs, The Price of Rights: Regulating International Labor Migration. Princeton University Press, 2013

11. Nicola Piper, Gender, migration and the global race to the bottom, Migration and Gender in the Global South, Routledge, pp.25-42, 2019

12. CHU HONG THANH, HUMAN RIGHTS OF FOREIGNERS, in Rights of Foreigners, National Political Publishing House of Truth, 2018.

13. PHAM HONG THAI & VU CONG GIAO, MIGRANT LABOUR: A GLOBAL TREND, A GLOBAL EFFORT – MIGRANT LABOUR IN INTERNATIONAL AND VIETNAMESE LAW, Labour and Social Affairs Publishing House, 2011.

14. Nguyen Phuoc Thien, Dong Thi Thanh Thoan & Pham Thi Hong Diep, Management of Foreign Workers in Vietnam: Current Situation and Policy Recommendations, Journal of Science and Technology – Dong Nai University of Technology, No. 01/2024.

Online Sources

15. Asean Parliamentarians for Human Rights, Regional MPs: ASEAN Consensus on Migrant Worers does not provide adequate protections, https://aseanmp.org/publications/post/regional-mps-asean-consensus-on-migrant-workers-does-not-provide-adequate-protections/

16. Bao Cao Vien, Labour Export in 2024: More Job Opportunities and Attractive Incomes (2024), https://baocaovien.vn/tin-tuc/xuat-khau-lao-dong-nam-2024-mo-them-nhieu-co-hoi-viec-lam-thu-nhap-hap-dan/160468.html

17.Nguyen Thi Dieu Hien & Tran Phuong Thao, Freedom of Labour Mobility in the ASEAN Economic Community: Opportunities and Challenges for Skilled Workers in Vietnam, Industry and Trade Review, https://tapchicongthuong.vn/.

18. Natalia Figge, Theresa Cua, ASEAN signs breakthrough agreement on migrant workers’right, Friedrich Elbert Stiftung, 2017 https://asia.fes.de/news/asean-signs-breakthrough-agreement-on-migrant-workers-rights.html#:~:text=However%2C%20the%20Consensus%20is%20non,in%20the%20Consensus%20into%20fruition (accessed June 12, 2025).

19. Mekong Migration Network, Regularisation of Migrants in Thailand, 2020. https://mekongmigration.org/?page_id=13509 (accessed June 18, 2025).

20. Dao Mai Linh, Rights of Migrant Workers and the Protection of Their Rights under International Law and in Certain Countries, Law and Development Journal, https://phapluatphattrien.vn/... (accessed July 8, 2025).d35.html#:~:text=Lao%20%C4%91%E1%BB%99ng%20di%20c%C6%B0%20l%C3%A0,s%E1%BB%B1%20quan%20t%C3%A2m%20c%E1%BB%A7a%20d%C6%B0

21. Phan Thanh, Migrant Labour – A Key Driver of ASEAN Growth, ASEAN Vietnam Portal (2024), https://aseanvietnam.vn/post/lao-djong-di-cu-mot-djong-luc-quan-trong-cho-tang-truong-cua-asean

22. Thanh Truc, ASEAN Protects and Promotes the Rights of Migrant Workers, External Information Portal Thanh Truc,(2024), https://ttdn.vn/nghien-cuu-trao-doi/su-kien-binh-luan/asean-bao-ve-va-thuc-day-quyen-cua-nguoi-lao-dong-di-cu-104374#:~:text=Theo%20%C4%91%C3%A1nh%20gi%C3%A1%20c%E1%BB%A7a%20gi%E1%BB%9Bi,k%E1%BA%BF%20b%C3%AAn%20ngo%C3%A0i%20%C4%91%E1%BA%A5t%20n%C6%B0%E1%BB%9Bc

23. International Labour Organization, International Migrants: An Essential Force in the Global Labour Market, 2024. https://www.ilo.org/vi/resource/news/ng%C6%B0%E1%BB%9Di-di-c%C6%B0-qu%E1%BB%91c-t%E1%BA%BF-l%C3%A0-l%E1%BB%B1c-l%C6%B0%E1%BB%A3ng-thi%E1%BA%BFt-y%E1%BA%BFu-trong-th%E1%BB%8B-tr%C6%B0%E1%BB%9Dng-lao-%C4%91%E1%BB%99ng-to%C3%A0n

24. Liberty Chee, Asean on Migrant Rights: Making Process, not Progress, 9Dashline, 2021 https://www.9dashline.com/article/asean-on-migrant-rights-making-process-not-progress#:~:text=development%20also%20create%20push,economic%20integration%20and%20demographic%20differences

International Legal Instruments

25. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.

26. International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, 1990.

27. ASEAN Consensus on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers, 2017.

28. Human Rights Watch, “We Can’t See the Sun”: Malaysia’s Arbitrary Detention of Migrants and Refugees. HRW report, 2024

29. International Labour Organization, Review of the effectiveness of the MoU system in managing labour migration between Thailand and neighbouring countries. Bangkok: ILO, 2015

30. International Labour Organization, Research on Migrant Workers’ Rights – Based Standard Employment Contract for Domestic Work in ASEAN, ILO, 2016

31. International Labour Organization. Review of labour migration policy in Malaysia: ILO, 2016

32. International Labour Organization (ILO), Global Estimates on International Migrant Workers – Results and Methodology, ILO, 2018.

33. International Labour Organization (ILO), Labour Migration in Asia: Impacts of the COVID-19 Crisis and the Post-Pandemic Future. ILO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, 2021

34. International Organization for Migration, COVID-19 Analytical Snapshot: Migrant Workers. Geneva: IOM, 2020

35. Memorandum of Understanding between the government of the republic of Indonesia and the government of Malaysia on the employment and protection of Indonesian domestic migrant workers in Malaysia

36. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) International Migration Outlook 2023. OECD Publishing, 2023

37. Republic Act No. 8042: The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022 (2010).

38.Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, 2018.

39. ASEAN Declaration on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers, 2007.

40. TDeclaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who Are Not Nationals of the Country in Which They Live, 1985.

41. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.

[*] Master, PhD Candidate NGUYEN THI YEN NGA: Tel: 0705588119 – Email: yenngahp99@gmail.com – Address: School of Law, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Building E1, 144 Xuan Thuy, Dich Vong Hau, Cau Giay, Hanoi.

[1] PHAM HONG THAI, VU CONG GIAO, MIGRANT LABOUR: A GLOBAL TREND, A GLOBAL EFFORT, p.9, in MIGRANT LABOUR IN INTERNATIONAL AND VIETNAMESE LAW, Labour and Social Affairs Publishing House, 2011.

[2] Nguyen Thi Dieu Hien & Tran Phuong Thao, Freedom of Labour Mobility in the ASEAN Economic Community: Opportunities and Challenges for Skilled Workers in Vietnam, Industry and Trade Review (2017), https://tapchicongthuong.vn/tu-do-di-chuyen-lao-dong-trong-cong-dong-kinh-te-asean--co-hoi-va-thach-thuc-doi-voi-nhan-luc-co-ky-nang-o-viet-nam-48298.htm (accessed March 18, 2025).

[3] International Labour Organization, International Migrants: An Essential Force in the Global Labour Market, 2024.

[4] https://www.ilo.org/vi/resource/news/ng%C6%B0%E1%BB%9Di-di-c%C6%B0-qu%E1%BB%91c-t%E1%BA%BF-l%C3%A0-l%E1%BB%B1c-l%C6%B0%E1%BB%A3ng-thi%E1%BA%BFt-y%E1%BA%BFu-trong-th%E1%BB%8B-tr%C6%B0%E1%BB%9Dng-lao-%C4%91%E1%BB%99ng-to%C3%A0n (accessed March 18, 2025).

[5] Phan Thanh, Migrant Labour – A Key Driver of ASEAN Growth, ASEAN Vietnam Portal (2024), https://aseanvietnam.vn/post/lao-djong-di-cu-mot-djong-luc-quan-trong-cho-tang-truong-cua-asean (accessed March 18, 2025).

[6] Bao Cao Vien, Labour Export in 2024: More Job Opportunities and Attractive Incomes, 2024, https://baocaovien.vn/tin-tuc/xuat-khau-lao-dong-nam-2024-mo-them-nhieu-co-hoi-viec-lam-thu-nhap-hap-dan/160468.html (accessed March 19, 2025).

[7] CHU HONG THANH, HUMAN RIGHTS OF FOREIGNERS, in RIGHTS OF FOREIGNERS, p.45, National Political Publishing House of Truth (2018).

[8] Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who Are Not Nationals of the Country in Which They Live, 1985.

[9] VU CONG GIAO & NGUYEN DINH DUC, SOME THEORETICAL, LEGAL, AND PRACTICAL ISSUES ON THE RIGHTS OF FOREIGNERS, p.15, in RIGHTS OF FOREIGNERS, National Political Publishing House of Truth (2018).

[10] VU NGOC BINH, INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOR WOMEN WORKING ABROAD, in RIGHTS OF FOREIGNERS, p.279, National Political Publishing House of Truth (2018).

[11] Pham Hong Thai & Vu Cong Giao, ibid., vol.2, p.15.

[12] Article 2, International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 18, 1990.

[13] United Nations, World Population Prospects 2022, New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2022).

[14] Thanh Truc, ASEAN Protects and Promotes the Rights of Migrant Workers, External Information Portal (2024), https://ttdn.vn/nghien-cuu-trao-doi/su-kien-binh-luan/asean-bao-ve-va-thuc-day-quyen-cua-nguoi-lao-dong-di-cu-104374#:~:text=Theo%20%C4%91%C3%A1nh%20gi%C3%A1%20c%E1%BB%A7a%20gi%E1%BB%9Bi,k%E1%BA%BF%20b%C3%AAn%20ngo%C3%A0i%20%C4%91%E1%BA%A5t%20n%C6%B0%E1%BB%9Bc (accessed April 22, 2025).

[15] Nguyen Phuoc Thien, Dong Thi Thanh Thoan & Pham Thi Hong Diep, Management of Foreign Workers in Vietnam: Current Situation and Policy Recommendations, Journal of Science and Technology – Dong Nai University of Technology, No.01/2024, p.82.

[16] Pham Hong Thai & Vu Cong Giao, ibid., vol.2, p.15.

[17] Stephen Castles, Hein de Haas & Mark J. Miller, The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World, 5th edn, Palgrave Macmillan (2014).

[18] International Labour Organization, Labour Migration in Asia: Impacts of the COVID-19 Crisis and the Post-Pandemic Future, ILO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, p.8 (2021).

[19] International Organization for Migration, COVID-19 Analytical Snapshot: Migrant Workers, Geneva: IOM, 2020.

[20] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), International Migration Outlook 2023, OECD Publishing, 2023, pp.62–64.

[21] Dang Ngoc Anh, Nguyen Ngoc Quynh & Dao Thi Suu, Study on the Socio-Economic Impacts of International Migration in Vietnam, Vietnam National University Publishing House, Hanoi, 2011.

[22] Comprehensive Vietnamese Dictionary, Hanoi: Culture and Information Publishing House, 1999, p.489.

[23] Explanation of Legal Terms, Hanoi: People’s Public Security Publishing House, 1999, p.23.

[24] Article 13, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.

[25] Clause 1, Article 12, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966

.[26] International Labour Organization (ILO), Global Estimates on International Migrant Workers – Results and Methodology, ILO, 2018, p.24.

[27] Liberty Chee, ASEAN on Migrant Rights: Making Process, not Progress, 9Dashline, 2021, https://www.9dashline.com/article/asean-on-migrant-rights-making-process-not-progress#:~:text=development%20also%20create%20push,economic%20integration%20and%20demographic%20differences (accessed April 22, 2025).

[28] BRIDGE ANDERSON, US AND THEM?: THE DANGEROUS POLITICS OF IMMIGRATION CONTROLS, pp.43–44, Oxford University Press, 2013.

[29] Dinesh Bhugra, Matthew A. Becker, Migration, Cultural Bereavement and Cultural Identity, World Psychiatry 18, pp.18–22, 2005.

[30] Dang Viet Dat, Protection of Migrant Workers’ Rights in the ASEAN Community: Current Situation and Solutions, Southeast Asian Studies, No.8/2018, p.15.

[31] Article 1, ASEAN Declaration on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers, 2007.

[32] VIETNAM LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, ESSENTIAL INFORMATION ON MIGRANT WORKERS, pp.31–33, Hong Duc Publishing House, 2008.

[33] NGUYEN THUY DUONG, STATELESS PERSONS AND THE PROTECTION OF THEIR RIGHTS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA, in RIGHTS OF FOREIGNERS, pp.333–334, National Political Publishing House of Truth, 2018.

[34] Article 23, Republic Act No.8042: The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as amended by Republic Act No.10022 (2010).

[35] International Labour Organization, Asian-Pacific Employment and Social Outlook 2018: Advancing Decent Work for Sustainable Development, ILO, 2018.

[36] https://www.ilo.org/publications/asia-pacific-employment-and-social-outlook-2018-advancing-decent-work-0

[37] Articles 16 and 31, ASEAN Consensus on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers, 2017.

[38] Appendix C, Article 21, Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of Malaysia on the Employment and Protection of Indonesian Domestic Migrant Workers in Malaysia.

[39] Mekong Migration Network, Regularisation of Migrants in Thailand, 2020, https://mekongmigration.org/?page_id=13509 (accessed June 18, 2025).

[40] Amarjit Kaur, Labour Migration Trends and Policy Challenges in Southeast Asia, Policy and Society, pp.385, 388–390, 2010.

[41] International Labour Organization (ILO), Global Estimates on International Migrant Workers – Results and Methodology, ILO, p.24, 2018.

[42] Phan Thanh, ibid.

[43] Phan Thanh, ibid.

[44] Thanh Truc, ibid.

[45] Natalia Figge, Theresa Cua, ASEAN Signs Breakthrough Agreement on Migrant Workers’ Rights, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2017, https://asia.fes.de/news/asean-signs-breakthrough-agreement-on-migrant-workers-rights.html#:~:text=However%2C%20the%20Consensus%20is%20non,in%20the%20Consensus%20into%20fruition (accessed June 12, 2025).

[46] International Labour Organization, Review of the Effectiveness of the MoU System in Managing Labour Migration between Thailand and Neighbouring Countries, Bangkok: ILO, p.15, 2015.

[47] International Labour Organization, Review of Labour Migration Policy in Malaysia, ILO, p.27, 2016.

[48] Human Rights Watch, “We Can’t See the Sun”: Malaysia’s Arbitrary Detention of Migrants and Refugees, HRW Report, 2024.

[49] Dao Mai Linh, Rights of Migrant Workers and the Protection of Their Rights under International Law and in Certain Countries, Law and Development Journal, https://phapluatphattrien.vn/quyen-cua-lao-dong-di-cu-va-viec-dam-bao-quyen-cua-lao-dong-di-cu-trong-phap-luat-quoc-te-va-mot-so-quoc-gia-d35.html#:~:text=Lao%20%C4%91%E1%BB%99ng%20di%20c%C6%B0%20l%C3%A0,s%E1%BB%B1%20quan%20t%C3%A2m%20c%E1%BB%A7a%20d%C6%B0 (accessed July 8, 2025).