Abstract
The international law of mobility has by and large been focused on the question of immigration. Its emphasis has therefore been on what I will call, for convenience's sake, the host state. It is there that some of the most intense dilemmas around the question of mobility have arisen in a context of populism, xenophobia, and racism. The state of nationality is not invisible in that context, but this has not typically been the primary variable in trying to understand and assess the normative challenges of global mobility. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, has refocused attention on distinct patterns of mobility, particularly return mobility, of nationals to their country of origin as well as limitations on leaving that country in the first place. The state of nationality has increasingly been asked to mediate demands for security and public health that are extra-territorial and that implicate its nationals in sometimes far-flung locations. I argue that the pandemic is a further opportunity to shift attention onto the state of nationality as a locus of key decisions concerning transnational mobility and thus to rebalance our sense of what goes into the global “mobility equation.”
Highlights
The international law of mobility has by and large been focused on the question of immigration
It is there that some of the most intense dilemmas around the question of mobility have arisen in a context of populism, xenophobia, and racism
The state of nationality has increasingly been asked to mediate demands for security and public health that are extra-territorial and that implicate its nationals in sometimes far-flung locations
Summary
The international law of mobility has by and large been focused on the question of immigration. Immigration on its territory continues to raise stark dilemmas of protection, discrimination, and health. It may have a clear role in pushing migrants out and triggering return mobility and, in turn, emphasizing the responsibilities for the state of nationality. Calls for help from nationals “stranded abroad” reactivate a neo-Hobbesian sensitivity in contemporary statehood that is increasingly called upon to be exercised beyond the state’s borders This sensitivity emerges from core liberal obligations of protection towards one’s nationals, as well as more romantic, patriotic feelings often raised to fever pitch by the treatment of those nationals abroad. I draw on the double entendre around the word “bound”: nationals are “bound” as in headed towards home (return), and “bound” as in “bound to” their home (being denied the ability to leave)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
