How did a higher education treaty take nearly 80 years to succeed?

Welcome! Scrolling through LinkedIn, you’ve probably come across an inspiration graphic for the iceberg principle: the idea that what is visible, the final result, represents only a fraction of the work that went into it. Typically, this means months of unseen work, sometimes a few years. But, in some rare instances, it could mean decades.

This week, we look at one such example, the recently(ish) enforced UNESCO Global Recognition Convention for education credentials and mobility. While it was adopted in 2019, its roots go back almost 80 years. We also look at the British Labour Government over a year on, to see how they are shaping the country’s higher education system.

Stay insightful,

Anton John Crace, Editor-in-Chief, QS Insights Magazine, QS Quacquarelli Symonds

---

Bridging the Recognition Gap

By Michelle Zhu

In Brief

• Unrecognised higher education qualifications cause global issues for individuals. UNESCO's Global Recognition Convention aims to bridge this gap, establishing a universal standard for academic credentials and supporting international mobility.
• The Convention was adopted in 2019 and became legally binding in 2023. It complements existing regional agreements, ensuring fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory appreciation of qualifications across borders.
• With 38 states committed, the Convention strengthens international cooperation and quality in higher education. It strives to make academic mobility and qualification recognition a reality for millions, with significant global expansion anticipated.

For many, diplomas and degrees represent years of dedication, stress and profound financial and personal sacrifice. So, imagine what it would be like to discover that this hard-won credential isn’t recognised precisely where it matters most, whether applying for a dream job or a competitive graduate programme.

Stig Arne Skjerven, Chair of the UNESCO Global Recognition Convention, notes that the idea for a global convention as a solution for this issue was first floated by UNESCO as early as 1947. At the second General Conference in Mexico that year, the "problem of the difference in university degrees across the world” was discussed for the first time.

This prompted the organisation’s initiative to develop normative instruments in the field of academic mobility and the recognition of qualifications, beginning with regional- and inter-regional-level frameworks and agreements.

“The aspirations for a world-wide instrument resulted in a normative instrument of a less-binding nature: the Recommendation on the Recognition of Studies and Qualifications in Higher Education adopted by the 27th session of the General Conference of UNESCO in November 1993,” says Skjerven. He explains that the Recommendation does not require ratification by member states as it is less binding than a convention.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, political changes in Europe that took place in the 1990s, including widespread educational reform, resulted in the Council of Europe and UNESCO joining forces to develop a new and stronger joint convention on the recognition of qualifications in the region.

This was led by the Lisbon Recognition Convention, which was adopted in 1997 to regulate higher education qualifications across Europe and North America. It was eventually followed by the adoption of four other second-generation regional conventions covering the Asia-Pacific, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Arab States.

The Push for a Global Standard

A key turning point, however, came in 2010 when data pointed to a significant increase in inter-regional student mobility, with the international student population reaching an estimated 3.6 million that year, up from 2.1 million in 2000.

This highlighted a need for a global normative instrument to complement the existing regional conventions. The greatest challenge, Skjerven says, was reaching a consensus among all of UNESCO’s member states on every element of the treaty.

He observes that some European countries were among the most hesitant in the early stages, arguing that their existing regional frameworks were sufficient for recognising qualifications.

There was also apprehension that introducing global mechanisms, particularly for information sharing, could undermine the well-established and effective regional systems already in place, he adds.

“Over time, these concerns were addressed by underlining that the global convention would be a complementary framework, ensuring that regional cooperation would remain central while benefiting from an added layer of global coordination,” says Skjerven.

After years of feasibility studies, a dedicated drafting committee was established. Following intergovernmental consultations, the Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education was finally adopted by UNESCO in 2019.

As the first global treaty of its kind, it builds on the regional conventions to enhance cohesion between them and aims to promote the international recognition of higher education qualifications.

Yet, the adoption of the convention was only the start of a long journey. For the convention to enter into force – that is, to become legally binding – at least 20 ratifications by UNESCO’s member states were required. This threshold was only met in early 2023, some four years after the convention was adopted.

Skjerven attributes this gap to a combination of procedural, legal, political and contextual factors. He explains that even when a government is politically willing to ratify the convention, lengthy and time-consuming processes are still required to ensure that a state’s commitment to the convention complies with its national laws and regulations.

This includes conducting process reviews and extensive consultations with stakeholders; building consensus and securing broad-based support; and addressing concerns about economic and administrative implications, which could slow momentum.

“Finally, some states prefer to wait and observe how comparable states act before committing themselves,” he adds.

Another crucial factor impeding the ratification process was the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The convention was adopted in late 2019, just before the COVID-19 pandemic. During the following years, international student mobility and higher education cooperation inevitably fell lower on national political agendas, as governments focused on urgent public health and economic challenges,” elaborates Skjerven.

“The perseverance in building consensus, combined with a strategy of step-by-step engagement, from feasibility studies to broad-based negotiations, proved decisive in overcoming the many challenges along the way.”

To date, 38 states are parties to the global convention, of which 30 have deposited their instruments of ratification. Another five states, Finland, France, Iceland, Japan and Romania, have given formal acceptance, while two, Estonia and Norway) have approved, actions which carry similar legal weight as ratification.

Hilligje van’t Land, Secretary General of the International Association of Universities (IAU), [EL1] says that for individuals in countries which have ratified the convention, this means the qualifications that they hold would receive “fair, transparent and non-discriminatory appreciation world round, beyond the recognition received at regional level in the context of the regional conventions.”

IAU and UNESCO recently began organising a series of webinars for the higher education sector to engage policymakers and stakeholders around the world on the global convention and its complementary regional recognition conventions. Objectives of these webinars include deepening understanding of the convention's principles, aligning recognition with national development goals, and planning for its implementation.

“By ratifying the global convention, countries commit to strengthening international cooperation in higher education, raising its quality at home and worldwide, and helping make academic mobility and the recognition of qualifications a reality for millions around the world,” comments van’t Land.

A Work in Progress

While some of the world’s most populous countries like China and India are yet to be found on the list of state parties to the global convention, UNESCO’s Skjerven believes this is likely due to procedural and domestic legal considerations, rather than a lack of political will.

“It is worth noting that approximately 100 countries worldwide have already ratified either a regional recognition convention, the global convention, or both, which is demonstrating a broad commitment to the recognition agenda,” he explains.

“As we have seen, creating the only global United Nations normative instrument in higher education, based on broad international consensus, takes time and requires a deliberate, step-by-step approach… For many countries, ratification requires alignment of national laws, parliamentary approval and broad consultations with key stakeholders in education. These, often time-consuming, steps ensure that once ratified, the obligations of the convention can be fully implemented at the national level.”

One such example is South Africa, whose ratification of the global convention entered into force in December 2024. Nadia Starr, Chief Executive of the South African Qualifications Authority as well as Trudi Van Wyk, Chief Director for Social Inclusion and Quality at the Department of Higher Education and Training, agree that some of the main challenges leading up to this achievement were the timelines, detailed consultations and changes within the administration during the ratification process.

In a joint statement, Starr and Van Wyk share that changes since ratification have focused on creating an enabling regulatory environment. This includes aligning national legislation with the convention's requirements and developing new policies to guide the recognition of foreign qualifications.

They have also initiated research and pilot projects to implement these principles for groups such as refugees and asylum seekers, a key area that is expected to be outlined in an upcoming set of guidelines which aims to negotiate and set global standards on quality assurance in higher education, including transnational education.

The US is notably also absent from the global convention’s list of 38 member state parties, which is unsurprising given its third and most recent withdrawal from UNESCO, with plans to cut ties with the agency by the end of 2026.

Skjerven believes the withdrawal has not undermined the global convention’s credibility, nor will it discourage participation from other countries in the near future as momentum around the treaty has remained steady.

“That said, the US has historically been one of UNESCO’s largest financial contributors, covering at least 20 percent of the organisation’s assessed budget. Its absence inevitably has financial implications, which could indirectly affect the pace or scale of UNESCO’s work in promoting and supporting the implementation of the convention.”

“A possible future return of the US to UNESCO – as has happened in past cycles of withdrawal and re-engagement – would no doubt provide both political weight and financial stability, further strengthening global efforts in recognition of higher education qualifications,” he adds.

Looking ahead, Skjerven deems it “realistic” that over 70 countries will be consistently applying the global convention’s principles within five years. This group, he expects, will include most major sending and receiving countries for international students on every continent.

He also anticipates the development of additional tools and guidelines to further expand mobility and access to quality education across borders and continents.

“For the future success of the global recognition convention, it is important that the development of guidelines, tools and capacity building is seen as relevant and useful for the universities, authorities and ministries, to contribute to ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all,” says Skjerven.

Michelle Zhu is a former correspondent at breaking news desk at The Business Times in Singapore, where she mainly covered corporate announcements including financial earnings, mergers & acquisitions, and board changes. Prior to that, she was part of the editorial team at the Singapore arm of The Edge, a Malaysia-headquartered financial weekly. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in communications and new media from the National University of Singapore.

---

A Labour of Love?

By Tim van Gardingen

In Brief

• Despite expectations, Labour's tenure brought both tighter international student rules and financial pressures, alongside a potential return to Erasmus+ and a slight tuition fee increase.
• The government has further restricted international student pathways, including a shorter Graduate Route, and introduced a potential 6% international tuition fee levy, threatening university finances and global competitiveness.
• With universities facing widespread deficits and vague policy promises, the "barrage of policy ups and downs" highlights a critical need for coherent, long-term strategies to secure the future of UK higher education.

Labour came to power in the UK on a mandate of change. One year since a 13-year reign of the Conservatives came to an end and Sir Kier Starmer moved into 10 Downing Street, change has proven harder than Labour expected.

Labour’s promises enticed many universities. The previous government instigated policies on immigration pressuring international student numbers and chose to not offer financial support to a sector teetering on the brink of financial instability. Appetite for ‘change’, whatever form it may take, was running high.

On this backdrop, it is not surprising that British education policy was a spectacle this year. From signs that UK students may once again have access to Erasmus+ to the further tightening of immigration rules affecting international students, the Labour government has kept British universities on their toes with its barrage of policy ups and downs.

What Was Labour’s Promise to Universities?

Labour’s manifesto managed to say everything and nothing on universities. “Higher education is in crisis” was the stark message, but the plan to escape that crisis was unclear.

Those speculating what the manifesto meant for education latched onto one line more than any other: “The current higher education funding settlement does not work for the taxpayer, universities, staff, or students. Labour will act to create a secure future for higher education and the opportunities it creates across the UK” stated the manifesto.

Universities UK (UUK) saw this as a suggestion that a major higher education funding review could be on the way, calling it “the most eye-catching of Labour’s pledges”.

The Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) also highlighted the same part of the manifesto, but criticised it as vague on details and that promises of a “secure future for higher education” gave little hint at what Labour might tangibly do.

Alistair Jarvis, Pro-Vice Chancellor at the University of London, admitted in a blog post published by the Association of Heads of University Administration (AHUA) that universities were far from the top of the list of voters’ priorities. There was “little chance of a Labour government riding to the rescue”, said Jarvis, but he predicted significant incoming regulatory and funding developments which would ultimately lead to positive change.

Manifestos only give a glimpse into what a new government will attempt, and less so achieve. They are not policy, but a notice of direction and aspiration. Labour has so far delivered a mix of the sector’s hopes and fears.

Immigration Rules Villainise Students

The highest profile policy challenges for UK universities came from the Home Office, when a new immigration white paper turned its attention to international students.

The former Conservative government pulled universities into the heart of the country’s inflammatory immigration debate when it raised the minimum salary thresholds for international students on the Graduate Route and tightened rules on students bringing dependents to the UK.

Much of the sector hoped Labour would revert the Conservative’s changes. Instead, they have tightened the rules further. Universities are set to face stronger international recruitment regulation, students with families have more hurdles to bring dependents to the UK, and the Graduate Route is shrinking from 24 months to 18 months.

“I thought the new government would have a better policy for international students” a current international PhD student tells QS Insights Magazine. “Students in the Netherlands and Germany can get permanent residence after their PhD. Compared to that, the UK is already less attractive to students”.

Anti-immigration sentiment has swept across Europe in recent years and is affecting universities. In the run up to the UK’s election last year, A YouGov survey found that 26 percent of Brits thought immigration was one of the top issues influencing their vote. 18 percent said it was the single most important factor in their vote.

International student inflows are counted in immigration figures, making them an easy target for policymakers managing migration. The Home Office cited a rapid increase in sponsored study visas at lower-ranked education institutions and a significant rise in visas for dependants as key drivers for reining in student numbers.

This marks a U-turn from the government’s standpoint in 2019, when it set a target of welcoming 600,000 international students as part of its international education strategy. This is likely because international student numbers quickly surpassed the target, reaching over 730,000 students in 2023/24, triggering a rethink.

Tim van Gardingen is a freelance journalist and analyst specialising in international higher education and commodity markets. He previously worked for the British Council’s insights and consultancy team in Beijing, where he covered HE sector developments in over 30 countries. Tim holds a BA in German and Chinese from the University of Leeds and an MA in International Political Economy from King’s College London