Consider the following statements : 1. Recently, all the countries of the United Nations have adopted the first-ever compact for international migration, the 'Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM)'. 2. The objectives and commitments stated in the GCM are binding on the UN member countries. 3. The GCM addresses internal migration or internally displaced people also in its objectives and commitments. How many of the above statements are correct?

Gives the total number of UN member states (193), which is the denominator for any claim that 'all UN member states' adopted something.

A student could compare an adoption list or count for the GCM against this 193 total to see if it equals 'all' members.

Shows that some major global agreements (the SDGs) were explicitly adopted by all UN member states, providing a clear example and standard for what 'adopted by all UN member states' looks like.

Use this as a template: check official UN records to see whether the GCM adoption statement mirrors the SDGs' 'adopted by all members' wording or whether it names a smaller group.

Reiterates that SDGs were adopted by all UN member states, reinforcing that some instruments can have unanimous member adoption.

A student could treat unanimous SDG adoption as the benchmark and verify whether GCM documents state a similar unanimous adoption or list specific signatories.

Provides a contrasting example where a global declaration (Kunming) was adopted by 'over 100 countries' — showing that many UN-related agreements are adopted by subsets, not necessarily all members.

Use this pattern to suspect the GCM might likewise have been adopted by a subset; check the number of adopting/signatory states against the UN membership total.

This snippet shows how sources label some treaties as the 'first-ever' attempt in their domain (e.g., Climate Change Framework, Biological Diversity), illustrating that 'first-ever' is a claim that needs specific documentary support.

A student could look for similar authoritative wording in UN/IO records about migration to see whether the GCM is explicitly described as a 'first-ever' or compared to earlier instruments.

Mentions that a Convention (on migratory species) encourages Range States to conclude global or regional Agreements, implying there have been or can be multi-state agreements specifically concerning migration of species.

Use this pattern to search for precedents where international conventions generated specific migration-related agreements (human or non-human) to test whether GCM had predecessors.

Provides a clear definition and scope of 'migration' (internal vs external), helping delimit what counts as an 'international' migration agreement — i.e., agreements addressing cross-border (external) movement.

A student can apply this definition to screen historical international instruments to see if they addressed external human migration and thus could precede the GCM.

States that international migration (including refugees) is a growing post-WWII phenomenon, suggesting many post-war international instruments deal with movements — which could mean earlier migration-related agreements exist.

Combine this historical trend with searches for post-WWII international instruments (e.g., refugee treaties, labour migration agreements) to identify possible prior compacts.

Gives UN data on large-scale cross-border movements (e.g., 210 million living outside their country), indicating migration has been an international policy issue tracked by the UN — making it plausible earlier UN instruments addressed migration.

Use the UN's documented involvement to check UN archives for earlier migration agreements or frameworks that would challenge a 'first-ever' claim for the GCM.

Provides a clear definitional distinction: 'Internal migration means movement of people within a country and external migration means movement of people between countries.'

A student could use this definition to check the GCM text for whether it uses 'migration' to mean cross-border (external) flows or also explicitly includes internal movements.

Explains intra-national (internal) migration as a recognized category with specific streams (region-to-region, rural–urban, etc.), separate from international migration.

A student could use these distinct categories to look for similar categorical language in the GCM (e.g., references to 'intra‑national' or 'internal' streams) to infer coverage.

Highlights the distinction between international migrants/refugees and 'internally displaced persons' (IDPs) who remain within national borders.

A student could check whether the GCM explicitly addresses refugees/IDPs or only cross‑border refugees, using that distinction to judge whether internal displacement is covered.

Notes that internal migration is typically handled in national data (Census 'place of birth' and 'last residence'), implying domestic management and statistical treatment of internal flows.

A student could infer that international agreements like the GCM might focus on cross‑border governance, so they should look for language about national vs international responsibility in the GCM.

States internal migration 'does not change the size of the population, but influences the distribution,' underscoring internal migration as a distinct policy domain affecting national distribution.

A student could extend this to expect that GCM (if focused on cross‑border movement) may not address distributional/internal governance issues unless it explicitly mentions internal migration.

Provides a clear definition: people who have fled their homes but remain within national borders are called 'internally displaced people' (IDPs).

A student can use this definition to check whether the GCM's text or scope language explicitly uses 'internally displaced' or confines itself to cross-border migration.

Distinguishes international migration from intra‑national (internal) migration and notes differences in the role of national governments and control.

One can extend this by asking whether the GCM addresses issues tied specifically to intra‑national movement and national government responsibility, which would indicate coverage of IDPs.

Glossary entry for 'Internal migration' clarifies the category that includes movement within a country (the category to which IDPs belong).

Use this category distinction to compare the GCM's stated remit (internal vs external migration) to determine if IDPs fall inside its scope.

Gives scale and examples of IDPs worldwide, showing IDPs are a significant distinct population affected by conflict and disasters.

A student could argue that because IDPs are numerous and often arise from conflict/disaster, any comprehensive migration compact might be expected to reference them—then verify whether the GCM does so.

Notes that international migration includes refugees (cross‑border) and treats different migration types as distinct phenomena.

This distinction can be used to test whether the GCM focuses on cross‑border movements (refugees/ migrants) rather than internally displaced populations.