Ever since the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM or "the Compact") was agreed in November 2018 and eventually adopted by the UN General Assembly, it has sparked heated debate in public and academic discourse. While some praised the GCM as the first internationally consented document ever to comprehensively address all phases of migration (departure, transit, arrival, immigration or return), and essentially regard it as a human rights instrument that complements and strengthens existing obligations under international law, 1 others were more critical. Critique has been raised not only by right-wing populist movements or governments who were quick to (falsely) accuse the Compact of introducing a right to immigration, 2 but also by progressive actors from civil society and academia. For them the Compact entails the risk that states could use it as an excuse to bypass obligations following from human rights treaties, and to introduce further requirements for regular migration, in fact bringing more migrants in a situation of irregularity. 3 * Anuscheh Farahat and Jürgen Bast are members of the WCL/VRÜ's editorial board and have curated this issue. Anuscheh is Professor of Public Law, Migration Law and International Human Rights Law at Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg. Jürgen is Professor of Public Law and European Law at Justus Liebig University Giessen. Jürgen is a PI of the research project "PROTECT -The right to international protection". The project has received funding from the EU's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 870761. 1 See the self-description on the official GCM website: https://www.iom.int/global-compact-migratio n (last accessed on 13 Dec 2021) and GCM, para. 11. This narrative has been repeated in a number of academic reflections on the GCM: