The present paper examines the relationship between mobility, freedom, and the right to movement across international borders within the framework of the modern nation-state system. It stems from the contradiction between the universalist discourse of human rights and freedom of movement and the practical selective regulation of mobility through national borders. Although freedom of movement is commonly understood as a universal right and an expression of individual liberty, its realization is shaped by legal, political, and economic structures. The paper aims to explore how structural and ideological frameworks define the limits of mobility and freedom and determine who is justified to exercise the right to movement. It is based on a conceptual analysis of theoretical literature in the fields of sociology, political philosophy, and political economy. The analysis shows that freedom of movement has historically been tied to citizenship, property and membership in a political community, rather than existing as a universal right. National borders function as mechanisms of selection that distinguish between “good” and “bad” mobility, while mobility itself is manifested as a privilege rather than a universal right of the individual. Mobility is thus not a simple expression of freedom, but a socially and politically conditioned possibility. The right to movement depends on power relations, citizenship, and economic interests. Freedom of movement cannot be understood independently from broader social structures, while national borders represent the clearest site of conflict between universal human rights and state sovereignty.
|
