×
Home
2024 Conference
All Conferences
Instructions
TSVC | Tourism Students Virtual Conference

Should Tourism be considered a Human Right?

Should Tourism be considered a Human Right?
Author: Sandisiwe Mguni
2 Commentries
Should people be given the right to travel without the use of visas etc...?We now have what is called acceptable tourists and those seen as dodgy.


Human rights where adopted in 1948 by the UN General Assembly (Cole and Morgan, 2011). By law people are given the rights to equality, well being, health, as well as rights to privacy. People are able to take part in various cultures, religion and education. It is also in people's rights to move freely to travel (Cole and Morgan, 2011).

However ,In the last decade there has been a distinction between the way in which immigrants, 'asylum seekers, refugees and tourists serves as an introduction to the tensions, contradictions and debates surrounding the freedom of movement, the right to travel and the permeability of borders (Bianchi, 2009).

Tourism undermines the rights of the people when it comes to 'tourists' visiting a destination (Cole and Ericksson, 2011). According to Picket et al., (2010) we now have what is called a good citizen who is 'framed', or set up, by political and academic observers.

Ever-since 9/11 their attitude towards tourists visiting a country has led to tight visa restrictions. According to Neiman and Swagel (2009), the US government enhances a range of border security policies that affect visitors who require a visa to enter the country. All travellers are security checked. This includes an examination of their passports; luggage on their arrival into the United States.

Furthermore, security checks not only affect those with visas but everyone as a whole. For instance visitors to America who do not need a visa will now need to be registered with the government online. This is a security regulation that has been put into place (BBC, 2008). This can make travel less pleasant and raises the question on our human rights are being violated. It has come to a point were we can all be accused of being suspects without having done anything.

Other instances involve countries with a less favorable view of the United States who entered with a lower frequency following the 9/11 attacks, compared with before the attacks (Neiman and Swagel, 2009). Many articles suggest that the view of the 9/11 attacks worsened with Muslim communities in that, there have been large decline in entries opposed to other countries that also require visas (Neiman and Swagel, 2009).

This has led to a continuation of racism and the discrimination against the 'minority' communities within the 'West'. It also brings attention to the often complex and contradictory relationship between mobility, leisure travel and the citizenship in the contemporary globalizing order (Bianchi, 2009).

Moreover, tourism can be favorable; If visa restrictions or barriers are removed it will ease accessibility and give access to refugees who have feelings of alienation and are often harassed by the receiving state (Nawyn, 2008). This can have a huge impact on promoting cultural exchange amongst people of different nations. This will enhance a greater understanding between people of different races (Satani, 2003-2004).

Further more it can increase accessibility for students traveling on the basis of education. Tourism access will allow visitors the right to establish themselves with better positions abroad. It will also help eliminate random checks on non-white and ethnic minority.

In contrast to issuing of visas and having a tight security system, will help ensure safety of tourists. According to Vishnevskii (2010), "People are very worried about unlawfulness and disorderliness, but at the same time living according to the law is not attractive to them" (p.68). Therefore if people were give the right to travel without acquiring a visa. It would attract more criminals, terrorists, and all kinds of people. This could maximize potential risk of visitors and increase suspicion (Simpson, 2011). Moreover, if a lot of people go to one place it may cause an influx of people. The country becomes over populated with people using up all its resources.

Furthermore the use of issuing a visa can be of favor to the locals. This helps reduce the number of visitors to a country. According to George and Varghese (2007) "Tourism becomes the gratification of "self "at the expense of "other" (p.41) .For instance local residents at a destination may find that their human rights are being violated by visitors i.e. locals may not be able to access certain areas which are only open to tourists. This can lead to tensions between locals and tourists.

In addition, even though the argument for visa restrictions and tightened border controls still exists and continues to affect tourist's intentions to visit a destination. These issues are likely to continue if they are not properly dealt with. Especially in restricting people that political freedom to travel. As long as it is done properly there could be potential for change and freedom of right. With that being said it is impossible to know the true extent of human rights as tourists. We cannot afford to stay away from traveling as this leaves various destinations more isolated and vulnerable. Therefore they should be alternatives for change in accessibility.

References
Bianchi,R. (2009). Tourism and Citizenship: a critical reflection on rights,freedoms and priveldges in a mobile world. International Studies.
Neiman,B and Swagel,P. (2009). The Impact of Post-9/11 Visa Policies on Travel to the United States. University of Chicago Booth School of Business. 1 (1), 1-36.
Cole,S and Eriksson,J. (2010). Tourism and human rights. Tourism and Inequality: Problems and Prospects. 1 (1), 1-24.








Tourism may not be a Human Right after all
Author: Nathalie Armstrong
I agree that events such as the terrorist attacks of 9/11 have increased the need to tighten the security (Turner, 2007) however it is important not to forget that the USA is not the only country which has decided to modify their regulations in relation to the freedom of movement. Indeed, one might add the example of the European Union, which has suffered from a lot of restrictions despite the expectation to create new and adjusted tourist flows (Coles and Hall, 2005).

However, as I have learnt by reading this paper, the fact that tourists who do not require a visa to enter the USA do in fact have to be registered with the government online contradicts the fact of not needing a visa. In this case, I agree with the author when she says that this may raise the question of our human rights being violated, because the State is still controlling tourists' movements regardless. Also, it is understandable that the number of Muslims entering the USA after 9/11 has decreased because besides this fact, the countries whose citizens have the least freedom to travel in the world have a majority of Muslim citizens like in Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan (IATA Travel Centre, 2010).

Despite the favourable aspects of tourism highlighted by the author of this paper, visa restrictions and barriers may be the attempt to defend the value of sovereignty (Turner, 2007) and governments are perhaps more likely to focus their efforts on that aspect rather than bringing more money to the economy and aspiring to the "greater understanding between people of different nations" that can be achieved through tourism. Moreover, they may have political reasons or simply acquire to protect their citizens from the dangers of globalisation (Shamir, 2005).

Although visas can be favourable to locals in order to decrease the number of visitors entering their country, what about citizens who are not able to leave their own country? This subject also needs to be taken into consideration as then George and Varghese's (2007) argument can be turned around: Tourism becomes the gratification of "other" at the expense of "self" and this argument can be seen as a violation of human rights once again.

Several arguments of the author tend to reveal her subjectivity on the tourism matter and to her tourism is, as a whole, a positive aspect however I suggest that it is not necessarily tourism that will help isolated and vulnerable destinations in the most appropriate way. Nevertheless, as the author so rightly stated, the future of tourists' human rights is uncertain and accessibility should be a matter to be reconsidered by governments.

Coles, T. and Hall, D. (2005) Tourism and EU enlargement. Plus ça change? International Journal of Tourism Research 7(2), 51-62.

IATA Travel Centre (2010) Latest Travel Document News (online). Available from: http://www.iatatravelcentre.com/page/newsitem/1282836210/The_Henley_&_Partners_Visa_Restrictions_Index_%E2%80%93_A_Global_Ranking_of_Countries_based_on_the_Travel_Freedoms_their_Citizens_Enjoy.htm (Accessed 24 April 2012)

Shamir R. (2005) Without Borders? Notes on Globalization as a Mobility Regime, Sociological Theory 23 (2) 197-217

Turner B (2007) The Enclave Society: Towards a Sociology of Immobility. European Journal of Social Theory 10 (2) 287-304
Should tourism be considered a human right? Commentary
Author: Harriet Schofield
This discussion paper is very informative, discussing the main points when looking into if tourism should be considered a human right.

The paper states the right to travel has been enshrined in law however the right is not always upheld, with the author stating there has been a distinction between how immigrants and tourists are treated. I wonder if this paper is more about the right to travel or the right of tourism. However the author does suggest there is a framework for a good tourist but we are at the point of suspecting everyone without discussing profiling of individuals.

I agree that the idea of the good tourist has continued racism and discrimination towards minority communities, with tighter visa requirements for Muslim countries after 9/11.

I understand that the paper refers to the 9/11 terrorist attacks as a catalyst to increased travel restrictions and border security in America. I agree with this however the author fails to mention that there had already been travel restrictions in America and elsewhere before this attack and for the most part had just increased to profile of these restrictions. There had been tighter visa regulations and everyone now has to be registered to enter the US, the author suggests that this has had adverse affects on tourism and that it's a violation of human rights. However could this simply be about securing the borders against another attack and protecting the country's sovereignty?

The paper is favourable towards tourism and the removal of visa restrictions to travel, stating it will prevent discrimination and alienation of minority groups so encouraging a cultural exchange, which I agree with. The author does link visa's to a country's security and wellbeing, regulating visitor number into the country and identifying each visitors. However there are other restrictions that include obtaining a passport, profiling and costs that all affect if a person becomes a tourist.

Despite the fact that tourism is considered favourable by this author, the paper doesn't go further to discuss restrictions in becoming a tourist, only the restrictions to travel. Before tourism could be considered a human right, everyone must have equal access for it to be a human right. The paper suggests that tourism is a way to help isolated and vulnerable destinations; I believe there are other ways to help these destinations. With the main problem for tourism is its accessibility for all and not just the privileged few who are considered a good tourist.