Open Access Research Article
THE RIGHT TO MOBILITY, A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT
Published Paper
Article Details
THE RIGHT
TO MOBILITY, A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT
AUTHORED BY - MS. ISHANI VAIDYA,
Research scholar Department of Law
(HPU)
& Assistant Professor, Asian Law
College, Noida
Abstract
One of the core human rights that
guarantees people's freedom to travel both within and between nations is the
right to mobility. This paper makes the case that being mobile is necessary to
take advantage of opportunities, meet fundamental needs, and engage with
society. Mobility restrictions that stem from socioeconomic class, disability,
or gender are major obstacles that exacerbate inequality. The paper examines
the global legal system that safeguards the right to mobility and draws
attention to the difficulties in putting it into practice. The significance of
maintaining mobility rights for a fair and inclusive world is emphasized in the
conclusion.
Keywords: migration, global, Human rights, freedom
Introduction
Although the global migration
governance places a strong emphasis on freedom of movement, there are a number
of paradoxes surrounding it. One paradox is the liberal economies of the main
immigration-absorption nations—the United States and Europe in
particular—contrary to their strong reliance on border protection. How can we reconcile tight borders with a
market economy in which all elements of production are liberalised? The first
paradox is this one. Another paradox is that, although these nations see
themselves as human rights protectors, their management of migration frequently
compels them to violate those rights within their borders, as well as in the
countries where the migrants are sent after being deported. There is another
paradox here. Third, interdependence gives rise to a variety of phenomena.
In terms of border opening, the
debate pits a security- and souverainist-focused vision against one that
emphasises how the state is becoming less and less the primary actor due to
competition from international family, cultural, and economic networks as well
as networks connected to the economy based on clandestine travel. Universal
principles like the freedom to travel for everyone clash with ideas of
solidarity within or between host nations (like European solidarity) (public
acceptability, welfare state preservation). Countries of departure face an
increasing number of challenges, such as desertification, natural disasters,
global warming, low profitability of farm businesses, and resource exploitation
when these are developed by emerging countries that import their own workers or
industrialise production; national or regional political crises that result in
forced or voluntary exiles on the roads; political and economic stagnation;
and, most importantly, social crises (brain drain, immigration related to
family, marriage, and the economy), where there is no guarantee that the
situation will improve in the future.
Jurisprudence
on Global Migration
Philosophers such as Kant contributed
to the definition of the global citizen in his essay "Idea for a Universal
History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose" published in 1784. His premise was
straightforward: since there is nowhere else for us to go, we are destined to
live together on a spherical called Earth. The basic rule of humanity's ethical
behaviour ought to be hospitality. Part of an individualistic and universalist
perspective of values is the right to mobility. He makes sure to differentiate
between the "right to be a permanent visitor" and the "right to
associate, a right which all men have [...] by virtue of their common
possession of the surface of the earth" in his 1795 Project for Perpetual
Peace.
In a more recent reflection on the
effects of globalisation, Zygmunt Bauman (Globalisation, the Human
Consequences, 2000) asserts that because the Earth is a sphere, humans are
destined to live in a closed world and that their only option is to travel
rather than isolate themselves behind impenetrable barriers. There is a severe
lack of a worldwide institutional framework for democratic flow control that
imposes norms and moral standards on everyone. In an age of globalisation,
Zygmunt Bauman views this action as critical and necessary, making it the cause
and strategy of a shared humanity. He examines the postmodernist political
conundrum in his writings, which is marked by the emergence of neo-liberalism,
the collapse of established political institutions, shaky and disjointed ties,
and individual identity. Migrants and refugees foreshadow a global citizenship
in which the state is distant from being the primary player in a future he characterizes
as liquid.
The emergence of co-citizenship,
according to other philosophers like Etienne Balibar, fits within "a
progressive history of citizenship, which replaces it in a cosmopolitan
perspective, equidistant from a mere ethical requirement and a projected world
State," allowing for diversity in the definition of the political community,
multiplicity of affiliations, and mobility, not to be confused with a global
citizenship but rather a global citizenship with contractual democratisation of
borders and universal rights of residence and movement.
Arguments
for and against Global Migration
Why is the international and global
migration governance process, which seeks to encourage development-oriented
mobility, moving along at such a glacial pace? It all boils down to a
confluence of conflicting social interests over the question of free mobility.
Actors who are unfamiliar with collaborating to advocate for or against freedom
of movement are included in the opposition. The actors on the other side are
likewise radically dissimilar and conflicting. Initially, host nations who wish
to maintain sovereignty over their borders are the ones who are against free
movement. A fear that some unions have is that migrant workers may become
competitors. There are the public opinion fringes that are the most
nationalist. Welfare states are concerned that their citizens may have to share
the welfare state they established. Not only do the performers' interests
differ greatly, but they are also unaccustomed to collaborating. This explains
why there has been relatively little progress on the subject of global
migration governance. Globally, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) work to
advance both the right to remain at home and the freedom of migration. They
highlight the developmental aspect. Many organisations that had not previously
worked on migration issues became involved because they had originally been
focused on development issues. A number of rights related to the matter of
freedom of movement are mentioned. Solidarity among host nations with regard to
immigration was one of the topics raised in Europe. The concept is that
everyone has the right to wander the world and is not required to settle down
anyplace because doing so would violate the rights of the host nation, but to
journey around the globe. Therefore, a more flexible world than our own would
be required. This concept is also developed by Zygmunt Bauman in his writings
on the liquid world and globalisation. Others, like Etienne Balibar, advocate
for the democratisation of the right to free movement. He discussed it in his
work on citizenship as well.
Closing borders encourages
development inequality, ends long-standing "norias" mobilisations,
benefits both the departing and the host societies, and prevents cultural
exchanges as well as economic, social, and demographic exchanges across the
world's great divides. Openness is supported by the cases of nations whose
growth has been partially attributed to immigration. According to this thesis,
host nations that conceal behind the inflexibility of control mechanisms
(visas), which are exercised more and more remotely, stand to gain from the
movement of migrants who are not the poorest, who want the freedom to come and
go, and who settle down less if they may travel. The spread of illegal
immigration and border-crossing routes, thousands of deaths at US and European
borders, regularisations as an acknowledgement of the failure of overly strict
policies, the financial and human cost of repressive measures, the influence of
public opinion on repressive policies, human rights violations, and economic
waste in the use of human resources are all examples of the partial failure of
border closures. All of this verges on hypocrisy: orchestrated symbols of
control combined with media reports of deportations; comparisons between
organised crime and illegal immigration; and the connection between immigration
and security concerns. The objective is to persuade the public that migration
is controlled despite the fact that illegal immigration benefits the labour
market by providing low-wage workers. Human rights advocates, proponents of the
liberal economy, and the countries of origin that gain from remittances and are
eager to export their labour surplus and social protest all make different
arguments in favour of opening up .The economic argument of international
competitiveness and the demographic argument of ageing are brought to the
discussion.
Arguments
Against Global migration
The argument against opening is
simultaneously connected to the security of the state in the exercise of its
authority over borders, to the welfare system, to the challenges of integrating
the generations descended from immigrants, and to all of these things. The
welfare state must be unified in granting legal inhabitants access to social
rights as a condition of development in European nations, particularly in the
area of social protection. The idea of social solidarity encompasses the
conflicts around the social cost of immigration as well as the struggle against
marginalisation and insecurity, which are topics that the extreme right in
Europe and the US has exploited. Then, Western states find themselves divided
between respecting human rights, the demographic crisis, labour shortages,
international security imperatives, electoral approval of partial border
openings, and competitiveness in recruiting elites.
The fact that civil society is spread
out among host nations and that migrants receive minimal assistance from civil
society in their home countries contributes to the complexity of the coalition
of actors involved in the creation of an international migration regime. Public
immigration policies have proven to be hesitant, if not cautious, in their
support of the development of a civil society. Even though the causes they
defend are of high quality, most associations in the host countries are on the
defensive, accusing the government of violating fundamental rights and
maintaining a non-partnership with them. This puts them at risk of reaching
only professional rights defenders in civil society the outcomes they obtain on
an individual basis. Due to the absence of convergence for a discourse,
associative and trade union players, as well as countries of origin, lack a
single platform for demands, and civil society's role in decision-making
mechanisms regarding flows is relatively restricted. Most only ask for the
United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant
Workers, which was adopted in 1990, to be ratified in order to combat modern
slavery and illegal immigration. However, they are aware of the contradictions
involved, as recognising one's right to mobility encourages relocation,
economic globalisation, and the rapid exodus of rural residents. They demand
that the mobility channels be secured.
Employers' associations support
global migration governance, but they focus more on the transnational
level—that is, corporations and labour shortages—than on the national level,
which is flow control. In the latter case, they criticise the absence of
political agreement without challenging the policies that are put in place.
They continue to be dubious of the concept of managing migration on an
international scale, although supporting multilateral choices and paying
particular attention to the issue of skilled workers.
Conclusion
How is it possible to reconcile
arguments belonging to humanitarian considerations (international protection of
migrants, integration), economic arguments, and the security concerns of flow
containment with those considerations seeking to make migration a development
strategy in a period of transition? What emerges from this relative cacophony
is the claim of a right to mobility as a fundamental human right, together with
the protection of the rights of migrants. The question of whether these
shortcomings justify the adoption of new instruments remains open among the
players.
References
i.
Logan, S. W., Bogart, K. R., Ross, S. M., &
Woekel, E. (2018). Mobility is a fundamental human right: Factors predicting
attitudes toward self-directed mobility. Disability and Health Journal, 11(4),
562-567.
ii.
Pécoud, A., & De Guchteneire, P. (2006).
International migration, border controls and human rights: Assessing the
relevance of a right to mobility. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 21(1),
69-86.
iii.
Lewis, D. L., & Suen, L. (2022). Towards a doctrine
of Mobility as a human right. In Mobility and Transport for Elderly and
Disabled Patients (pp. 61-106). Routledge.
iv.
Wickramasekara, P. (2009). Development,
mobility, and human rights: rhetoric and reality. Refugee Survey
Quarterly, 28(4), 165-200.
v.
Golash-Boza, T., & Menjívar, C. (2016).
Causes and consequences of international migration: sociological evidence for
the right to mobility. In New Directions in the Sociology of Human
Rights (pp. 91-105). Routledge.
vi.
Fox, S. J. (2017). " Mobility and Movement
Are'Our'Fundamental Rights"... Safety & Security-Risk, Choice &
Conflict!. Issues Aviation L. & Pol'y, 17, 7.
vii.
Kotzur, M., & Feil, L. A. (2021). A culture
of mobility? Perspectives on the human rights-based migration government.
In Handbook of Culture and Migration (pp. 25-39). Edward Elgar
Publishing.
viii.
Fröhlich, C. (2017). A critical view on human
mobility in times of crisis. Global Policy, 8, 5-11.
ix.
Pécoud, A. (2021). Philosophies of migration
governance in a globalizing world. In Reglobalization (pp.
103-119). Routledge.
x.
Schmelz, F. A. (2012). Human rights and
refugees in times of increasing human mobility. Refugees worldwide, 1,
147-72.
xi.
Strik, T. (2017). The global approach to
migration and mobility. Groningen Journal of International Law, 5(2).
xii.
Innes, A. J., & Innes, A. J. (2015). Human
Rights, Mobile Humans: A Critical Reading of Mobility and Access to
Rights. Migration, Citizenship and the Challenge for Security: An
Ethnographic Approach, 66-89.
xiii.
Aleinikoff, T. A. (2017). Toward a global
system of human mobility: three thoughts.
xiv.
Zamora, J. A. (2019). Human mobility and
borders: the limits of global justice. Challenging the Borders of
Justice in the Age of Migrations, 73-92.
xv.
Mpani, N. Migration and human rights: the
management of cross-border mobility in the era of a pandemic–a human rights
perspective. DEVELOPMENTAL MIGRATION, 83.
xvi.
Seidman, G. W. (2007). Beyond the
boycott: Labor rights, human rights, and transnational activism. Russell
Sage Foundation.
xvii.
Long, K., & Crisp, J. (2010). Migration, mobility
and solutions: an evolving perspective. Forced Migration Review, 35(1),
56-57.
xviii.
Cook, N., & Butz, D. (2018). Moving toward
mobility justice. In Mobilities, mobility justice and social justice (pp.
3-21). Routledge.
xix.
Shamir, R. (2005). Without borders? Notes on
globalization as a mobility regime. Sociological theory, 23(2),
197-217.
Article Information
THE RIGHT TO MOBILITY, A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT
Authors: MS. ISHANI VAIDYA
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/03/27
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.