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

"The world is your oyster" in relation to the freedom of movement is questioned

"The world is your oyster" in relation to the freedom of movement is questioned
Author: Nathalie Armstrong
0 Commentries
Are you certain that travelling the world is a universal right?

Contrary to what people might think, the flow of people has been more restricted over the years rather than more flexible. One might consider that due to constant developments in technology, it has become easier, faster and more efficient for people to travel and therefore the number of individuals on the move has increased remarkably. In spite of this, what most people forget is that as technology advances, it has also become simpler for governments to control people as surveillance systems and 'intelligent environments' are becoming a trend.

Among the main reasons restricting people from travelling, the one of particular interest in this paper is authority constraints as it is related to citizenship. Indeed, one should not forget how powerful a nations government can be and how it can control the mobility of their citizens. Tourism mobility is not a universal right as only a minority have the privilege to travel. Overall, mobility depends on socioeconomic factors, geographical location, cultural elements and the political circumstances however age, childcare responsibilities, gender, income, race, cultural context and consumer culture all influence people's behaviour towards mobility.

Controlling mobility is not a recent innovation as examples from the past, such as the Great Wall of China and the Berlin Wall, prove it has existed for some time now yet their nature has simply changed. Indeed, examples can be found in different parts of the world and not only in developing or poor countries. Even today states are building walls in Baghdad, the West Bank, Botswana, Padua and at the Mexican-American border. The reasons for these walls are numerous: to stop illegal immigrants, asylum seekers or intruders from entering a country or to separate two sides (i.e. one where one area has a higher crime rate or for political reasons). However, nowadays borders are not necessarily noticeable and just delineated by race, class, gender and nationality, and marked largely by economic factors.

Coles (2008) presents the present situation as such: "Features of citizenship are just as capable of blocking or inhibiting flows of people as facilitating the freedom of their movement." This statement can be demonstrated with some countries in the European Union, where a minority of people are restricted to travel due to their citizenship and lack of visa possession. Despite the expansion of the European Union, it has resulted in limitations in relation to travel. Europe's leaders seem to have disregarded the main intention of having a unified area of citizenship and mobility, as the EU is subject to the hardening of its borders and the use of controls to check the identity papers of foreign citizens as well as EU citizens has become a habit.

The EU's fundamental right "the freedom of movement" is highly questionable due to the important number of visa restrictions. The top five countries with the most freedom to travel without a visa are Western countries including the United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Luxembourg whereas the citizens that have the least freedom to travel are from poor countries including Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan. Overall, 70,3% of the world's countries require a visa which means that only 29,7% of countries allow mobility without visa. Outside the EU, Cuba's leader has been manipulating citizens' migration for five decades; citizens in Saudi Arabia require an exit visa to leave the country; and in the United Arab Emirates mothers are not allowed to leave the country with their child unless they get written approval from the child's father.

Furthermore, globalisation plays a role in keeping movement under control and restricts access as well as brings nations that are completely different closer in proximity. This has lead institutions to take measures to limit the undesirable effects of danger that may arise between them. Events such as the terrorist attacks of 9/11 have increased the need to tighten the security in some places. The emergence of the term "global citizenship" proves that globalisation has lead citizens to lose their right to travel as well as their sense of identity.

It can be concluded that despite the numerous positive aspects of citizenship, there are however parts of the world where restrictions are severely controlled by the state and that may be considered a violation of human rights. Whether the reasons for travel constraints are political or to protect citizens, it is unequally distributed in the world. This proves that even if technological developments have improved mobility, in the long run states have the ultimate power to control their population. As a result, the world has become a place where decreased mobility is being forced upon a large number of people and the citation "the world is your oyster" can no longer be considered an obtainable objective.

Bianchi, R. (2009) 'Tourism and citizenship: a critical reflection on rights, freedoms and privileges in a mobile world' Paper to Conference of International Studies Association.

Hall C. (2005) Tourism: Rethinking the social science of mobility. Harlow: Pearson

Turner B (2007) The Enclave Society: Towards a Sociology of Immobility. European Journal of Social Theory 10 (2) 287-304