Several multilateral agreements attempt to address migrant rights and prevent migrant exploitation, but the success of these agreements in terms of being adopted varies widely. The variation in these agreements stems from disparate preferences in the treaty creation phase. When states have common interests in regulating migration, they are able to create common standards and practices, however, where states have disparate interests, agreements find less success. Consequently, while states have been able to cooperate on areas where there are clear common interests, such as human trafficking and smuggling, this cooperation has not extended to areas of migrant rights, despite the fact that all three agreements focus on preventing migrant exploitation more broadly. To evaluate my theory I present quantitative and qualitative evidence about the creation of and commitment to three agreements nominally protecting migrants, but which have a wide variety of success internationally.
