Description
This article examines the disjuncture between normative ambition and practical implementation in Latin American migration governance. Despite the proliferation of regional frameworks, governance has shifted away from multilateral, rights-based commitments towards fragmented, security-driven approaches. Drawing on International Relations and critical migration studies, the article conceptualizes this transformation through the lenses of policy ambiguity and ad-hocracy, addressing them as modes of rule rather than symptoms of institutional weakness. Through a comparative analysis of responses to Venezuelan displacement, the Darién Gap crossing, and Central American migrant caravans, the study argues that states deprioritize human rights–based approaches to migration governance in favour of security and sovereignty concerns. Instead, they adopt discreet and flexible policies that undermine regional solidarity and international humanitarian efforts, reinforcing broader trends of securitization and migrant precarity. Theoretically, the article contributes to debates on regional and global migration governance and regionalism by applying the concepts of policy ambiguity and ad-hocracy to the under-examined Latin American context. It extends their analytical scope beyond Europe and offers insights into the hollowing-out of regional solidarity as an outcome of discretionary migration governance.
