Book Review: The market citizenship illusion: Free movement rights for atypical workers by Alice Welsh WelshAlice, The market citizenship illusion: Free movement rights for atypical workers, Hart Publishing: 2025; 272 pp., ISBN: 9-781-5099666-08

Chapter 6 examines three rights-based arguments for freedom of movement across borders. Three rights-based arguments have been offered in support of freedom of international movement. The first claims that freedom of movement is a fundamental human right in itself. The second adopts a “cantilever” strategy, arguing that freedom of international movement is a logical extension of existing fundamental rights, including the right of domestic free movement and the right to exit one’s country. The third argument is libertarian: international free movement is necessary to respect individual freedom of association and contract. This chapter shows why these arguments fail to justify a general right to free movement across the globe. What is morally required is not a general right of international free movement but an approach that privileges those whose basic human rights are at stake.

This chapter evaluates the sources of movement rights for persons, as well as the horizontal connections between them. It analyses the special free movement rights for economically active persons; that is, workers and self-employed professionals. Importantly, the freedom of establishment here also covers companies. The chapter then specifically looks at the free movement rights of companies (and their subsidiaries). It also introduces the horizontal provisions on EU citizenship and their relationship to the special movement rights for workers and the self-employed. Finally, the chapter considers the horizontal rules that govern the various justifications for national restrictions on the free movement of persons. In addition to the ordinary public policy justifications, the main derogation here is a public service exception that allows Member States to restrict access to professions that are linked to the exercise of public authority.

Since the foundation of the European Community the content of free movement of workers and the sphere of its application have been constantly expanding along with the implementation of new regulations providing more and more rights for foreign employees. The first step in eliminating restrictions on free movement for workers was made in 1961 which marked the adoption of the Regulation of EEC No 15/61. It allowed six countries within the Community to continue the policy of favouring nationals in the public sector employment process. Only in case of failure to find the right employee for a position during a certain period of time permitted employment of a national from any other Member State without additional limitations. Still more freedom in the process of employing foreigners was allowed under the Regulation (EEC) No 38/64. It has eliminated any employment priority rights of Member State workers over immigrants. Actually, free movement was allowed with the aim to pursue employment after receiving a concrete job offer from a Member State. Workers were still deprived of the right to take their own initiative to migrate in order to pursue employment within the territory of a foreign Member State. Factual limitations were still able to restrict the migrant workers of certain professions wishing to seek jobs in different economy sectors. The final step in completely attaining the freedom of the labour market was made in 1968 with the adoption of the Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 under which all the workers within the EU were secured the right of free movement without any restrictions as to the job offer. The main legal norm ensuring free movement of workers is asserted under the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU which regulates movement of workers within the labour market. This provision is of direct application since it provides citizens with the right to refer to this article at the national court. The criterion to apply this Treaty is presence of labour relations irrespective of their legal nature or objectives. Secondary legal acts elaborate on the articles of the Treaty but cannot extend the sphere of its application. Provisions of the Treaty are of the highest legal power which means that secondary law is always derived from the primary law, therefore, can be always amended or abolished if it contradicts the fundamental principles of the Treaty. Moreover, an individual wishing to directly exercise the rights of an EU citizen must own a citizenship of the EU Member State. Nevertheless, the provisions of the Treaty apply only to those activities of the national subjects that are related to crossing the boarder of one of the Member States and coming to work on the territory of another one. In other words, the EU Acts on free movement cannot be applied to those workers who never exercise the right to freely move as employees within the territory of the EU. Besides, the right to free movement is not limitless and those exercising it have to commit to certain liabilities, i.e. to comply with the laws of the hosting state. The Treaty provides national authorities with the right to apply restrictions to free movement of workers, justified by such imperatives as public order, community safety or health as well as by restrictions to be employed in the public services. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.eis.0.6.1697

American cities are facing an inflection point. Widespread dissatisfaction with urban planning outcomes is making land use and transportation policies (such as congestion pricing) a mainstream topic of debate. Suburban sprawl and housing shortages are moving urban populations into the periphery, commuting times (and associated mental health problems) are increasing, and pedestrian and cyclist deaths caused by vehicles are at all-time highs. American cities that were largely planned and built in the twentieth century based on assumptions that we now know are flawed are not meeting the needs of their residents, and urban planners are making changes to reshape urban life as we know it. On one end of the spectrum, cities are embracing density by designing for walkable and bikeable communities that prioritize a diversity of transportation modalities. On the other end of the spectrum are cities that embrace ‘motonormativity’ and are enacting policies to facilitate speed and vehicular mobility. The state or municipal government’s ability to regulate land use and design streets is a well-established police power, often considered in relation to private property rights. Much less understood are the individual rights that are implicated when a city uses its police power to limit or eliminate movement within a city. Collectively referred to in this Article as ‘free movement rights,’ these rights act as a safeguard against oppressive urban planning decisions. Nonetheless, movement rights have not been brought together and studied as such, nor have they been conceptualized as a tool to promote or push back against ill-conceived city design. This Article is the first to comprehensively bring the Constitution’s free movement rights together in the context of urban planning in order to understand the individual’s rights to move about the urban environment. Four such rights are identified and explored: 1) the right to interstate travel; 2) the right to intrastate local travel; 3) the right to locomotion; and 4) the right to public assembly and expression. While much has been written about some of these rights in other contexts, little is known about the rights they confer on an individual’s urban mobility. This Article explores the contours of these rights, and, for the first time, draws conclusions regarding the outer limits of urban planning in the face of free movement rights. In broad terms, the Article posits, first, that the collective of movement rights guarantees an individual’s right to move about the urban environment but does not guarantee the individual’s right to move about using their preferred transportation modality. Second, while bans on vehicular, pedestrian, or cyclist travel in certain areas or at certain times may be justified for safety or general welfare reasons, city-wide bans would likely represent an overextension of state power relative to movement rights. Third, given the increased awareness of negative outcomes created by motonormativity, as well as the fundamental and traditional need to be able to walk or move around affordably, cities likely have more leeway to restrict vehicular travel. This Article unfolds in six sections. Following the introduction in Section I, Section II explores the government power to regulate land use, street design, and transportation networks. In Section III, the Article juxtaposes dueling visions of the American city. On one end of the spectrum are cities moving away from motonormativity, and on the other end of the spectrum are cities doubling down on car dependency. Section IV identifies and analyzes the collective of free movement rights and civil liberties that counteract the government’s broad powers to use urban planning to limit individual movement within the city. Section V draws out the implications of these movement rights, defining broadly how far cities can go in limiting individual transportation choices, and how individuals may assert their movement rights to shape the future of American cities. Section VI concludes with a roadmap for future research and previews the application of free movement rights to contemporary urban planning debates such as congestion pricing, 15-minute cities, the right to walk to school, and the legal possibility of a car-free city.

This article is concerned with the evolving free movement rights of Turkish nationals in the European Union (‘EU’). The right to move freely represents one of the fundamental freedoms of the internal market, as well as an essential political element of the package of rights linked to the very status of citizenship of the EU. Given the fact that the holding of the nationality of a Member State is the condition sine qua non for acquiring citizenship of the EU, Turkish nationals are clearly not yet citizens of the EU; at best, they can be described as “EU citizens in being.” While the rights granted to Turkish nationals by the EU, are amongst the most extensive granted to third country nationals (‘TCNs’), the outer limits of their freedom of movement rights are firmly rooted in the specific free movement provisions in EU-Turkey Association Law. This naturally gives rise to several inter-related questions: how far should the free movement rights granted to EU nationals be extended to Turkish nationals, as citizens of an accession state? How do the freedom of movement rights of Turkish nationals compare with EU nationals? The freedom of movement rights for Turkish nationals, within the context of Turkey-EU relations, has been an important issue for Turkish citizens ever since 1980 when strict visa requirements were introduced. This problem confronts all strata of Turkish society, including the business community, the academic world, students, journalists, and almost 3 million family members of Turkish nationals living in the EU. This paper shows that the free movement rights of Turkish nationals under EU-Turkey Association law is independent of the political talks surrounding the re-admission agreement and “visa dialogue,” which are aimed at gradually permitting free movement in the EU for Turkish nationals. This paper shows that under the text of the AA, and as confirmed by ECJ case law, Turks have substantial free movement rights within the EU arising from EU-Turkey Association Law and these new agreements and requirements are evidence that the political consideration of the EU block continue to trump the legal considerations.

This chapter examines the European Union (EU) law concerning citizenship and the right of residence and free movement. It suggests that while citizenship provides a broad framework of rights, it is important to recognise the higher level of protection awarded to the economically active under Articles 45 (workers), 49 (establishment) and 56 (services) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The chapter also considers the link between migration and the rights claimed, and the underlying concerns about the abuse of Union law rights. It also considers the position of third-country nationals (who are family members or dependents of an EU national) and students. This chapter also examines the social rights that arise as part of free-movement rights under Articles 21, 45, 49 and 59 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). As well as dealing with the provisions in the Citizens’ Rights Directive (CRD) (Directive 2004/38) and Regulation 492/2011, the chapter deals with social security and citizenship. This chapter also examines the European Union (EU) law concerning the free movement of persons and the limitations of this right on grounds of public health, public security, or public policy, including the ‘rule of reason’ and expulsion, refusal of entry or an entry ban due to criminal offences or other personal conduct. It considers the substantive scope of the derogation provisions and the procedural guarantees in the CRD applicable to EU citizens and their family members facing expulsion, refusal of entry or entry bans.

Although, at the current state of development of the European Union (EU) legal order, EU citizenship is exclusively enjoyed by nationals of Member States, certain third-country nationals also benefit from some of the rights inherent to this status, mainly the right of free movement and residence. This chapter examines the rights, associated with EU citizenship, enjoyed by nationals from Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland and compares the extent of these rights to those enjoyed by EU citizens. EU citizenship rights include the right to free movement and residence within the territory of Member States. It determines which legal basis of primary law allows the Union to conclude international agreements that extend the right of free movement to third-country nationals when the Treaty solely confers it to EU citizens. The chapter concludes that Norwegians, Icelanders, Liechtensteiners and Swiss indeed enjoy true rights of free movement and residence to the EU. Keywords: European Union (EU) citizenship; Member States; Norwegians; right of free movement; Switzerland; third-country nationals

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter discusses the scope of the right of the free movement of persons in the EU; the relevant Treaty provisions and secondary legislation provisions regarding the free movement of persons in the EU; the specific rights granted to workers and EU citizens under their general right of free movement, limitations on the rights of free movement as provided for in primary and secondary legislation; and the impact of Brexit on free movement rights.

Classic free movement rights of persons is discussed separately from family reunification, the latter based on Directive 2004/38 or on Articles 20 and 21 TFEU on Union citizenship, even though it has been argued that ‘the Court appears to be moving towards a convergence of approach under articles 45, 49, 56 and now article 21(1) TFEU on citizenship’. Two main reasons relating to the nature of family reunification justify this decision. First, family reunification concerns derived rights for third country nationals who are family members of Union citizens while classic economic free movement rights concern Union citizens directly. Secondly, family reunification is one of the main sources of immigration to the EU, and immigration is traditionally a competence of the sovereign State, which makes it a delicate issue politically.

As a founding principle of the EU, a prerequisite for the exercise of most other EU rights, and a key component of EU integration, the freedom of movement right has carried great political and practical importance. It has also been one of the most contested, politically abused, and poorly understood of EU rights, particularly in the context of mobility of nationals from Central and Eastern Europe (“CEE”). Notably, misinformation regarding the free movement right that was spread by the media, politicians, and the public helped to propel both the UK’s renegotiation of its EU membership and, ultimately, its exit from the Union. Other EU-15 State politicians have also been perpetuating myths about freedom of movement and immigration. Scholars addressing free movement, even in the context of Brexit, have devoted little attention to this right’s conceptualization as it has evolved over time, to how EU branches other than the European Court of Justice have approached it, or to how CEE nationals have been positioned and impacted by mobility’s legal framework. Although some critical scholars have critiqued derogations from the free movement right imposed on CEE nationals in the aftermath of their States’ accession to the EU, they have also failed to situate their analysis within a broader look at the creation and application of the legal framework behind mobility. CEE movers in the UK and other EU-15 States have tended to be racialized by the media, politicians, and the public – that is, described and approached by individuals and institutions in ways which denigrate or assume their inferiority. Hence, several tenets of critical race theory (“CRT”) and critical whiteness studies (“CWS”) that expound the relationship between race, power, society, and law are helpful to the analysis of their mobility. This Article argues that the freedom of movement right has always been limited, and that CEE nationals’ mobility rights have been especially restricted by both EU statutes and case law – and further impeded by restrictive Member State policies. Ultimately, the right of free movement has been created and consistently applied in a way as to benefit EU-15 States’ economies, while approaching CEE movers as mere units of production. This broader understanding of this right is necessary to make Brexit negotiations more meaningful, and debates about intra-EU movers in other EU-15 States more responsible. Moreover, the discussion here also critiques CRT and CWS for overlooking the significance of immigrant background and of white minority ethnicities in the conceptualization and experience of equality. I suggest that both theoretical frameworks need to not only look beyond the black-white binary, but also consider contemporary transnational power dynamics to arrive at a more flexible and nuanced picture of micro-level racial and ethnic power relations in today’s globalized world.

This chapter examines the European Union (EU) law concerning citizenship and the right of residence and free movement. It suggests that while citizenship provides a broad framework of rights, it is important to recognise the higher level of protection awarded to the economically active under Articles 45 (workers), 49 (establishment), and 56 (services) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The chapter also considers the link between migration and the rights claimed, and highlights the underlying concerns about the abuse of Union law rights. The chapter highlights the latest contribution of the CJ in relation to the interpretation of the Citizens’ Rights Directive (Directive 2004/38/EC). It also considers the position of Third Country Nationals (who are family members or dependents of an EU national).

This chapter examines the European Union (EU) law concerning citizenship and the right of residence and free movement. It suggests that while citizenship provides a broad framework of rights, it is important to recognise the higher level of protection awarded to the economically active under Articles 45 (workers), 49 (establishment) and 56 (services) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The chapter also considers the link between migration and the rights claimed, and highlights the underlying concerns about the abuse of Union law rights. The chapter highlights the latest contribution of the CJ in relation to the interpretation of the Citizens’ Rights Directive (Directive 2004/38/EC). It also considers the position of third-country nationals (who are family members or dependents of an EU national) and students.

Turkey and Yugoslavia remain the only Southern European emigration countries outside the EC. An agreement of 1964 allowing Turkish workers to take up and to exercise an occupation of their own choice anywhere within the EC after December 1st 1986, was checked in the mid-eighties. By German influence and with heavy financial compensation, the Turkish government was pushed to step back from the right of free movement within the Common Labor Market for Turkish workers. This paper discusses some economic consequences of this resignation of the right of free labor movement by the Turkish government. It concludes that emigration only under certain preconditions may influence positively the economy of the sending country. Therefore it is argued that a re-examination of the agreement of 1964 might be in the interest of both the EC and Turkey: The solution of recent migration problems needs the collective action of an internationally coordinated migration policy.

ASEAN Economic Community has been entered into force in December 31st, 2015. A free labour movement is one of major agendas to support the establishment of ASEAN as a single market and production base of ASEAN. This agenda becomes a hot debate since it can be an opportunity or threat for Indonesia. In fact, most of Indonesian people view it as a threat for Indonesia. On the contrary to that view, this research takes a clear position to support that a free labour movement is not a threat for Indonesia. This research is aimed to give a new perspective to see labour market liberalization in ASEAN not as a threat by giving new empirical findings. Theoritically, this research will give new empirical findings to explain that a free labour movement is not a threat for Indonesia by using liberal-institutionalis perspective. Practically, this research will give some policy recommendations addressed to the Government of Indonesia and other stakeholders related to employment issue.Keywords: ASEAN Economic Community, free labour movement, Indonesia

Preface Willem Maas Foreword Joseph H. Carens 1. Equality and the Free Movement of People: Citizenship and Internal Migration Willem Maas 2. Right of Way? Defi ning Freedom of Movement within Democratic Societies Matthew Longo 3. Free Movement for Workers or Citizens? Reverse Discrimination in European Family Reunifi cation Policies Anne Staver 4. Under-Appreciated, Under-Employed and Potentially Unwelcome: The Long-Term Future of Polish Migrants in Ireland and Britain Michael Johns 5. Politics of Free Movement in the European Union: Recognition and Transfer of Professional Qualifi cations Micheline van Riemsdijk 6. Roma and the Limits of Free Movement in the European Union Jacqueline S. Gehring 7. Ethnic Return Migration, Selective Incentives, and the Right to Freedom of Movement in Post-Cold War Greece Harris Mylonas 8. Liberal Democracies' Divergent Interpretations of the Right of Return: Implications for Free Movement Megan Bradley List of Contributors Index.