Freedom of movement, mobility rights, or the right to travel is a human rights concept encompassing the right of individuals to travel from place to place within the territory of a country,<ref name="Gilbert">Jérémiee Gilbert, Nomadic Peoples and Human Rights (2014), p. 73: "Freedom of movement within a country encompasses both the right to travel freely within the territory of the State and the right to relocate oneself and to choose one's place of residence".</ref> and to leave the country and return to it. The right includes not only visiting places, but changing the place where the individual resides or works.<ref name="Gilbert"/><ref name="GGC">Kees Groenendijk, Elspeth Guild, and Sergio Carrera, Illiberal Liberal States: Immigration, Citizenship and Integration in the EU (2013), p. 206: "[F]reedom of movement did not only amount to the right to travel freely, to take up residence and to work, but also involved the enjoyment of a legal status characterised by security of residence, the right to family reunification and the right to be treated equally with nationals".</ref>
"Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state."
"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref>
Some people and organizations advocate an extension of the freedom of movement to include free migration between countries.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref> The freedom of movement is restricted in a variety of ways by various governments and may even vary within the territory of a single country.<ref name="Gilbert" /> Such restrictions are generally based on public health, order, or safety justifications and postulate that the right to these conditions preempts the notion of freedom of movement.<ref name=":6" />
Restrictions on international travel on people (immigration or emigration) are commonplace.<ref name=":6">Dowty, Alan, Closed Borders: the Contemporary Assault on Freedom of Movement. Yale University Press, 1989.</ref> Within countries, freedom of travel is often more limited for minors, and penal law can modify this right as it applies to persons charged with or convicted of crimes (for example, parole, probation, registration).<ref name=":2">Template:Cite journal</ref> In some countries, freedom of movement has historically been limited for women, and for members of disfavored racial and social groups.<ref name=":2" /> Circumstances, both legal and practical, may operate to limit this freedom. For example, a nation that is generally permissive with respect to travel may restrict that right during time of war.
Restrictions may include the following:
national and regional official minimum wage tariff barriers to labour-market entry (free movement of workers);
official identity cards (internal passports, citizenship licenses) that must be carried and produced on demand;
obligations on persons to register changes of address or of partner with the state authorities;
protectionist local/regional barriers to housebuilding and therefore settlement in particular districts;
trespassing into another individual's property;
motor vehicle normative road and highway design, in which pedestrian and bicycle access is severely restricted or absent.
Freedom of movement between private properties
In some jurisdictions, questions have arisen as to the extent to which a private owner of land can exclude certain persons from land which is used for public purposes, such as a shopping mall or a park. There is also a rule of law that a landowner whose property has no public access can be awarded an easement to cross private land if necessary to reach his own property. Conversely, public nuisance laws prevent alternate use of public streets designated for public transit from being used for block parties and playing basketball.
Parents or other legal guardians are typically able to restrict the movements of minor children under their care, and of other adults who have been legally deemed incompetent to govern their own movement. Employers may legally set some restrictions on the movements of employees, and terminate employment if those restrictions are breached.
Domestic restrictions
Governments may generally sharply restrict the freedom of movement of persons who have been convicted of crimes, most conspicuously in the context of imprisonment. Restrictions may also be placed on convicted criminals who are on probation or have been released on parole. Persons who have been charged with crimes and have been released on bail may also be prohibited from traveling. A material witness may also be denied the right to travel.
Though travelling to and from countries is generally permitted (with some limitations), most governments restrict the length of time that temporary visitors may stay in the country. This can be dependent on country of citizenship and country travelled to among other factors. In some instances (such as those of refugees who are at risk of immediate bodily harm on return to their country or those seeking asylum), indefinite stay may be allowed on humanitarian grounds, but in most other cases, stay is generally limited. One notable exception to this is the free movement of people in the European Union, where citizens of any country in the EU and EFTA generally enjoy indefinite stay in other EU/EFTA countries.
Furthermore, restrictions on the right to relocate or live in certain areas of a country have been imposed in several countries, most prominently China.<ref name="movement1" />
In a child custody dispute, a court may place restrictions on the movement of a minor child, thereby restricting the ability of the parents of that child to travel with their child.
{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}
The Visa Restrictions Index ranks countries based on the number of other countries its citizens are free to enter without visa. Most countries in the world require visas or some other form of entrance permit for non-citizens to enter their territory.<ref name=":2" /> Those who enter countries in defiance of regulations requiring such documentation are often subject to imprisonment or deportation.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":7">Template:Cite book</ref>
Exit restrictions in certain countries
{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}
Most countries require that their citizens leave the country on a valid passport, travel document issued by an international organization or, in some cases, identification document. Conditions of issuance and the governments' authority to deny issuance of a passport vary from country to country.
Under certain circumstances, countries may issue travel documents (such as laissez-passer) to aliens, that is, to persons other than their own citizens.
Having a passport issued does not guarantee the right to exit the country. A person may be prohibited to exit a country on a number of reasons, such as being under investigation as a suspect, serving a criminal sentence, being a debtor in default,<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> or posing a threat to national security. This applies to aliens as well.
In some countries prohibition to leave may take the form of revocation of a previously issued passport. For example, the United States of America may revoke passports at will.<ref>See Haig v. Agee, Passport Act of 1926.</ref>
Some countries, such as the former Soviet Union, further required that their citizens, and sometimes foreign travelers, obtain an exit visa to be allowed to leave the country.
Currently, some countries require that foreign citizens have valid visas upon leaving the country if they needed one to enter. For example, a person who overstayed a visa in Czech Republic may need to obtain an exit visa. In Russia, the inconvenience goes even further as the legislation there does not formally recognize residency permits as valid visas; thus, foreign citizens lawfully residing in Russia need to obtain "exit-entry" visas in order to do a trip abroad. This, in particular, affects foreign students, whose original entry visas expire by the time they return home.
When Augustus established the Roman Empire in 27 BC, he assumed monarchical powers over the new Roman province of Egypt and was able to prohibit senators from traveling there without his permission. However, Augustus would also allow more liberty to travel at times. During a famine in 6 AD, he attempted to relieve strain on the food supply by granting senators the liberty to leave Rome and to travel to wherever they wished.<ref>Cassius Dio, Roman History, Book LV, 26.</ref>
In England, in 1215, the right to travel was enshrined in Article 42 of the Magna Carta:
It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above.
The serfs of the Russian Empire were not given their personal freedom until Alexander II's Edict of Emancipation of 1861. At the time, most of the inhabitants of Russia, not only the serfs but also townsmen and merchants, did not have freedom of movement and were confined to their places of residence.<ref>"Pale of Settlement"</ref>
(1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
(2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
(3) The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
(4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
The ICCPR entered into force for the initial ratifying states on 23 March 1976, and for additional states following their ratification. In 1999, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, which is charged with interpreting the treaty, issued its guidelines for Article 12 of the ICCPR in its "General Comment No. 27: Freedom of Movement".<ref name=":7" />
While the treaty sets out the freedom of movement in broad and absolute terms, part four of Article 12 of the ICCPR admits that these freedoms may be restricted for a variety of reasons in the public interest. This clause is often cited to justify a wide variety of movement restrictions by almost every country that is party to it.<ref name=":7"/>
COVID-19
{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}
During the COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions on freedom of movement were implemented by many of the world's governments.
Examples of free movement arrangements between countries
Commonwealth of Independent States
{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}
The countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States have concluded a number of agreements among themselves in the field of citizens' mobility rights, which regulate visa-free travel, recognition of documents, cooperation in the field of employment and the common labor market. Usually a travel passport is required for abroad visits, unless there are other agreements that a national identity document or internal passport is valid (a common market is a lesser degree of integration than a single market and separate agreements are more restrictive than the provisions of a single market).
{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}
The single market has provided for the free movement of labor without work permits for the worker and his or her family members since 2012, including access to health care and recognition of educational credentials. The national identity document or internal passport is valid within the Union (a single market is a deeper degree of integration than a common market).
Within the European Union, residents are guaranteed the right to freely move within the EU's internal borders by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004.<ref name="movement2">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref> Union residents are given the right to enter any member state for up to three months with a valid passport or national identity card, and over three months with evidence of "sufficient resources... not to become a burden on the social assistance system". If the citizen does not have a travel document, the member state must afford them every facility in obtaining the documents. Under no circumstances can an entry or exit visa be required. There are some security limitations<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref> and public policy restrictions on extended stays by EU residents. For instance, a member state may require that persons register their presence in the country "within a reasonable and non-discriminatory period of time". In general, however, the burden of notification and justification lies with the state. EU citizens also earn a right to permanent residence in member states they have maintained an uninterrupted five-year period of legal residence. This residency cannot be subject to any conditions, and is lost only by two successive years absence from the host nation. Family members of EU residents, in general, also acquire the same freedom of travel rights as the resident they accompany, though they may be subject to a short-stay visa requirement.<ref name="movement2" /> Furthermore, no EU citizen may be declared permanently persona non grata within the European Union, or permanently excluded from entry by any member state.
Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community.
Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.
It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:
(a) to accept offers of employment actually made;
(b) to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose;
(c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action;
(d) to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in implementing regulations to be drawn up by the Commission.
The provisions of this article shall not apply to employment in the public service.<ref>Treaty of RomeTemplate:Webarchive (consolidated version). EUR-Lex</ref>
Schengen Area
{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}
A different arrangement amongst 29 European countries, covers some but not all European Union member states together with some non-member states. The arrangement allows visa-free travel between the countries in this area, in general without border controls. A foreign national who holds a visa issued by any of these countries can travel freely within the area.
Nordic Passport Union
{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}
The Nordic Passport Union allows citizens of the Nordic countries – Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland – to travel and reside in another Nordic country without any travel documentation (e.g. a passport or national identity card) or a residence permit. Since 25 March 2001, all five states are also in the Schengen Area.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref>
Mercosur
{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}
The Mercosur alliance between Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay includes a freedom of movement area between its member states and five other associate states. Citizens don't require a passport to travel through other Mercosur or associate countries. Freedom of movement also extends to certain associated countries (Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru), citizens of which can also travel to their territories without the need of a passport..
The Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement between Australia and New Zealand allows citizens of each country to move between, and work within, the two countries with few limitations. The arrangement also extends to holders of permanent resident and resident return visas of Australia.
United Kingdom, Ireland, Isle of Man and Channel Islands
{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}
Saudi, Omani, Kuwaiti, Bahraini, Qatari, Emirati - Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) citizens do not need a visa to enter each other's countries and they also have the right to work in each GCC country. GCC citizens can use a GCC national identity card (rather than a passport) to travel between these states.
Union State of Russia and Belarus
{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}
Freedom of movement between Russia and Belarus for their citizens exists, similar to that which exists for British and Irish citizens within the Common Travel Area.
United States, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, and Palau
{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}
Citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Palau, and the United States may enter, reside, study, and work in each respective country indefinitely without a visa.
The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) member states of Barbados, Belize, Dominica, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines have implemented full freedom of movements of their nationals among themselves since 01 October 2025.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref> Nationals of these four countries have the unrestricted right to live and work in said countries, with no time limits or visas.
Protection of right to freedom of movement in specific countries
Asia
Myanmar
The military regime in Myanmar has been criticized for allegations of restrictions to freedom of movement.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref> These include restrictions on movement by political dissidents,<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref> women,<ref name="movement1">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref> and migrant workers.<ref name="movement1" />
In the mainland of the People's Republic of China, the hukou system of household registration makes internal migration difficult, especially for rural residents to move to urban areas.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Many people move to places in which they do not have a local hukou, but local governments can restrict services like subsidized schooling, subsidized housing, and health insurance to those with local hukou.<ref name=":8" /><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name=":9" /><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> The system was used as far back as the Han dynasty for tax collection, and more recently in the People's Republic to control urbanization.<ref name=":8">Template:Cite news</ref> The Hukou system has also led many municipal governments to disregard the welfare of migrant workers as measures of wellbeing and economic progress are based almost exclusively on conditions for those with a local hukou.<ref name=":9">Maurer-Fazio, M., Connelly, R., & Tran, N. T. (2015). Negative native-place stereotypes and discriminatory wage penalties in China's migrant labour markets. In Handbook of Chinese Migration: Identity and Wellbeing (pp. 71-104). No, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.</ref>
Also, Chinese citizens are allowed to go from the mainland to Hong Kong or Macau only for travel, but not for residence unless they obtain the "one-way permit" from Chinese authorities. Currently, the issuance of the "one-way permit" is limited to 150 per day.Template:Fact
The Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy claimed in 2000 that people in Tibet had to promise not to criticize the Chinese Communist Party before receiving official permission to leave for India or Nepal.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref> Additionally, it alleged that people of Han descent in Tibet have a far easier time acquiring the necessary permits to live in urban areas than ethnic Tibetans do.<ref>"Racial Discrimination in Tibet (2000)". Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy. Archived from the original on 2 September 2010.</ref>
Under Basic Law of Hong Kong article 31, "Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of movement within the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and freedom of immigration to other countries and regions. They shall have freedom to travel and to enter or leave the Region. Unless restrained by law, holders of valid travel documents shall be free to leave the Region without special authorization."
India
{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}
Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India though reasonable restrictions can be imposed on this right in the interest of the general public, for example, restrictions may be imposed on movement and travelling, so as to control epidemics.
Freedom to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India, which is subject to reasonable restrictions by the State in the interest of the general public, or for protection of the scheduled tribes because certain safeguards, as are envisaged here, seem justified to protect indigenous and tribal peoples from exploitation and coercion.
Israeli Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, which has quasi-constitutional status, declares that "there shall be no deprivation or restriction of the liberty of a person by imprisonment, arrest, extradition or otherwise"; that "all persons are free to leave Israel"; and that "every Israeli national has the right of entry into Israel from abroad".<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref> In practice, stay of exit orders are liberally issued by Israel courts, including on non-custodial fathers who are not in arrears in child support.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref> In March 2012 a corruption scandal led to the arrest of two officials for allegedly having taken bribes to circumvent court ordered "no exit" travel abroad bans.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref><ref>Template:Cite news</ref> Freedoms of movement within the West Bank and Gaza is not similarly protected and has been a source of controversy.<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":5" />
Japan
{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}
The Constitution provides for the freedom of movement within the country, foreign travel, immigration, and repatriation, and the Government generally respects them in practice.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Citizens have the right to travel freely both within the country and abroad, to change their place of residence, to emigrate, and to repatriate voluntarily. Citizenship may be forfeited by naturalization in a foreign country or by failure of persons born with dual nationality to elect citizenship at the required age. The law does not permit forced exile, and it is not used.<ref>"Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2006". U.S. Department of State. 2007-03-06. Retrieved 2008-10-21.</ref>
Kuwait
Kuwait refuses admission to holders of Israeli passports as part of its boycott against Israel.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> In 2015 Kuwait Airways cancelled its route between New York and London following a decision by the U.S. Department of Transportation that the airline had engaged in discrimination by refusing to sell tickets to Israeli citizens.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> Direct flights between the US and Kuwait are not affected by this decision as Israeli citizens are not allowed to enter Kuwait.<ref>Template:Cite magazine</ref>
{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}Syrian citizens are prohibited from exiting the country without special visas issued by government authorities.<ref>Ghadry, Farid N. (Winter 2005). "Syrian Reform: What Lies Beneath". The Middle East Quarterly.</ref><ref>"How Syria controls its dissidents – Banning travel". The Economist. 30 September 2010.</ref>
The Syrian Constitution states "Every citizen has the right to liberty of movement within the territory of the State unless prohibited therefrom under the terms of a court order or public health and safety regulations.".<ref>Article 33, Paragraph 2, Syrian Constitution</ref> In its mandated report on human rights to the United Nations, Syria has argued that because of this constitutional protection: "in Syria, no laws or measures restrict the liberty of movement or choice of residence of citizens".<ref>Ods Home PageTemplate:Dead link</ref> Legislative Decree No. 29 of 1970 regulates the right of foreigners to enter, reside in and leave the territory of Syria, and is the controlling document regarding the issuance of passports, visas, and diplomatic travel status. The document specifically states "The latter provision is intended merely to ensure that our country is not the final destination of stateless persons."<ref>Legislative Decree No. 29 of 1970, Syrian Government</ref>
However, Syria has been criticized by groups, including Amnesty International for restrictions to freedom of movement. In August 2005, Amnesty International released an "appeal case", citing several freedom of movement restrictions including exit restriction without explanation, refusal to issue passports to political dissidents, detention, restriction from entering certain structures, denial of travel documents, and denial of nationality.<ref>Syria: Unable to Move: Freedom of Movement restricted for Human Rights Defenders (and Others) | Amnesty International.</ref> The United Nations Human Rights Committee issues regular reports on human rights in Syria, including freedom of movement.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref>
There are certain restrictions on movement placed on Women, for example Syrian law now allows males to place restrictions on certain female relatives. Women over the age of 18 are entitled to travel outside of Syria, however a woman's husband may file a request for his wife to be banned from leaving the country.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref> From July 2013, in certain villages in Syria (such as Raqqa and Deir el-Zour), ISIS no longer allow women to appear in public alone, they must be accompanied by a male relative/guardian known as a mahram. People who tried to leave ISIS territory were routinely tortured and executed.<ref>"Double-layered Veils and Despair", The Guardian, 17 February 2015.</ref>
The restriction of the movement of Israelis and Palestinians in Israel and the West Bank by Israel and the Palestinian National Authority is one issue in the Israel–Palestine conflict. In the mid-1990s, with the implementation of the Oslo Accords and the division of the West Bank into three separate administrative divisions, Israeli freedom of movement was limited by law. Israel says that the regime of restrictions is necessary to protect Israelis both in Israel proper and in the West Bank.<ref name="OCHAReport">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref>
Residents of Gaza are only allowed to travel to the West Bank in exceptional humanitarian cases, particularly urgent medical cases, but not including marriage. It is possible to travel from the West Bank to Gaza only if the person pledges to permanently relocating to Gaza. Gazan residents are only admitted to Israel in exceptional humanitarian cases. Since 2008, they are not allowed to live or stay in Israel because of marriage with an Israeli. Israelis who want to visit their partner in Gaza need permits for a few months, and Israelis can visit their first‐degree relatives in Gaza only in exceptional humanitarian cases.<ref>So near and yet so far—Implications of Israeli‐Imposed Seclusion of Gaza Strip on Palestinians’ Right to Family Life. HaMoked and B'Tselem, January 2014. On btselem.org.</ref>
Africa
Freedom of movement laws and restrictions vary from country to country on the African continent, however several international agreements beyond those prescribed by the United Nations govern freedom of movement within the African continent. The African Charter on Human and People's Rights Article 12 outlines various forms of movement-related freedoms. It asserts:<ref name=":10">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref>
Every individual shall have the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of a State provided he abides by the law.
Every individual shall have the right to leave any country including his own, and to return to his country. This right may only be subject to restrictions, provided for by law for the protection of national security, law and order, public health or morality.
Every individual shall have the right, when persecuted, to seek and obtain asylum in other countries in accordance with laws of those countries and international conventions.
A non-national legally admitted in a territory of a State Party to the present Charter, may only be expelled from it by virtue of a decision taken in accordance with the law.
The mass expulsion of non-nationals shall be prohibited. Mass expulsion shall be that which is aimed at national, racial, ethnic or religious groups.
The ideals of the Charter are, in principle, supported by all signatory governments, though they are not rigorously followed. There have been attempts to have intellectuals recognized as having special freedom of movement rights, to protect their intellectual ideals as they cross national boundaries.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref>
South Africa
Under apartheid, freedom of movement for nonwhites was limited by pass laws beginning with the Natives (Urban Areas) Act 1923 requiring black men to have a pass with them to enter cities. After the National Party imposed apartheid in the 1950s, these laws were expanded to prohibit all non-whites from remaining in cities for longer than 72 hours.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> Beyond the African Charter on Human and People's Rights, the Constitution of South Africa also contains express freedoms of movement, in section 21 of Chapter 2. Freedom of movement is guaranteed to "everyone" in regard to leaving the country but is limited to citizens when entering it or staying in it. Citizens also have a right to a passport, critical to full exercise of the freedom of movement internationally.<ref>Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996[1996] ZACC 26, 1996 (4) SA 744, 1996 (10) BCLR 1253 (6 September 1996), Constitutional Court (South Africa)</ref><ref name=":10" />
Europe
France
Many countries mention freedom of movement in their constitutional texts, but France does not.<ref>No paragraph mention liberty of movement in the French Constitution of 1958.</ref> Freedom of movement in France is ruled both by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and the Schengen Agreement of 1990, promoting freedom of movement and no more borders controls for European citizen on the European territory.
In theory, citizens in France are free to travel without any police control on the national territory. Although until the 1980s any person (either tourists or French citizens) had to fill up an information sheet then given to the police, writing on it its personal situation before booking a hotel room. This law does not exist anymore however.<ref>According to the official website of the French Republic; see the second sentence on the fourth paragraph.</ref>
Since the Schengen Agreement in 1990, freedom of movement slightly spread to 25 countries of the European Union (Cyprus is not a member yet; Ireland maintains an opt-out), and to Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein as these countries own an associated status towards the EU. As European citizens, French people are free to go to one European country to another without restrictions.<ref>The Schengen Agreement For some reasons, police controls are still recommended. See Title II, chapter 1, article 2.</ref>
France is one of the most welcomed countries in the world. Citizens are indeed able to travel to 186 destinations in the world, making France one of the most welcomed countries according to the Henley passport index.<ref> These are the world’s most powerful passports to have in 2024. World Economic Forum. 31 January 2024. Note:This ranking does not take in count restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic.</ref>
Ireland
In Ireland, the Thirteenth Amendment was adopted in November 1992 by referendum in order to ensure freedom of movement in the specific circumstance of a woman traveling abroad to receive an abortion. However, with the successful repeal of the Eighth Amendment of the Irish Constitution on 25 May 2018, which ensures the right to an abortion, this previous amendment is no longer necessary.
Italy
In Italy, freedom of movement is enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution, which states:<ref name=":1">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref>
"Every citizen has the right to reside and travel freely in any part of the country, except for such general limitations as may be established by law for reasons of health or security. No restriction may be imposed for political reasons. Every citizen is free to leave the territory of the republic and return to it, notwithstanding any legal obligations."<ref name=":1" />
Poland requires all Polish citizens (including foreign citizens who are, who can be claimed to or are suspected to hold Polish citizenship) to enter and depart Poland using Polish travel documents.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>
Russia
Article 27 of The Russian Constitution states that "1.Every who legally stays in the territory of the Russian Federation shall have the right to free travel, choice of place of stay or residence. 2.Everyone may freely leave the Russian Federation. Citizens of the Russian Federation shall have the right to freely return to the Russian Federation."<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref>
Freedom of movement of Russian citizens around the country is legally limited in a number of situations, including the following:
In closed cities (mainly nuclear research centers). Special permits are necessary for both visiting and settling there.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref>
In certain areas near Russia's international border.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref>
In areas with declared state of emergency.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref>
In the interests of justice (imprisonment, bailiff's order, arrest, undertaking not to leave during a criminal investigation etc.).<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
Since the abandonment of propiska system in 1993, new legislation on registration of residence was passed. Unlike propiska, which was a permit to reside in a certain area, registration of residence as worded in the law is merely notification.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> According to the Russian legislation, there are two types of registration which a person may obtain simultaneously. Permanent registration is obligatory and gives the right for property ownership, temporary registration can be received for a period of time due to rental contract. However, administrative procedures developed "in implementation" of the registration law imposed some conditions on registration which effectively made it depend on the landlord's assent. Since landlords are often not willing to register tenants or guests in their properties due to tax payments, many internal migrants are prevented from performing their legal duty to register.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Before 2004, it was common for police to fine those having failed to register within 3 working days at a place of stay. In 2004, the maximum permitted registration lag was raised to 90 days making prosecution infeasible, removing practical obstacles to free movement.
The Russian citizens' right to leave Russia may be legally suspended on a number of reasons including:
The case of obtaining access to classified documents while working for the state or the military, during the time when access is granted and up to 5 years afterwards. This limitation is commonly included as a provision in one's contract of employment.
Detention on being prosecuted as a defendant or suspicion of committing a crime.
Military conscription.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref>
According to the 62 article of the Russian Constitution, citizen of Russia may have the citizenship of a foreign State (dual citizenship), but that does not "free him from the obligations stipulated by the Russian citizenship".<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref> Russian citizens possessing foreign citizenship may not enter or leave Russia on foreign travel documents. Russian consular offices do not grant visas to foreign passport holders who are (or are suspected to be) Russian citizens.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref>
Serbia
Everyone has the right to move and settle freely in the Republic of Serbia, to leave it, and to return to it.
Freedom of movement and residence and the right to leave the Republic of Serbia may be restricted by the law if this is necessary for the conduct of criminal proceedings, protection of public order and peace, prevention of the spread of infectious diseases, or defense of the Republic of Serbia.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref>
The freedom of a citizen to travel abroad may be restricted due to his / her citizenship duty or criminal investigation or prosecution.
Citizens can neither be deported nor denied entry into the country.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref>
United Kingdom
Britons have long enjoyed a comparatively high level of freedom of movement. Apart from Magna Carta, the protection of rights and liberties in this field has tended to come from the common law rather than formal constitutional codes and conventions, and can be changed by Parliament without the protection of being entrenched in a constitution.
It has been proposed that a range of specific state restrictions on freedom of movement should be prohibited under a new or comprehensively amended Human Rights Act.<ref name=":11" /> The new basic legal prohibitions could include: road tolls and other curbs on freedom of travel and private vehicle ownership and use; personal identity cards (internal passports, citizenship licenses) that must be produced on demand for individuals to access public services and facilities; and legal requirements for citizens to register changes of address or partner with the state authorities.<ref name=":11">"The Legal Protection Of Democracy & Freedom: The Case For A New Written Constitution & Bill Of Rights", in Lewis F. Abbott, British Democracy: Its Restoration & Extension, ISR/Google Books, 2006. Template:ISBN. [1].</ref>
North America
Canada
The Constitution of Canada contains mobility rights expressly in section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The rights specified include the right of citizens to leave and enter the country and the right of both citizens and permanent residents to move within its boundaries. However, the subsections protect poorer regions' affirmative action programs that favour residents who have lived in the region for longer. Section 6 mobility rights are among the select rights that cannot be limited by the Charter's notwithstanding clause.
{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell,6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), freedom of movement has been judicially recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref> However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).<ref name="Symposium1">Duster, Michael J. "Criminal Justice System Reform Symposium: Note: Out of Sight, Out of Mind: State Attempts to Banish Sex Offenders." Drake Law Review. 53:711 (Spring 2005).</ref><ref name="Note">"Note: Membership Has Its Privileges and Immunities: Congressional Power to Define and Enforce the Rights of National Citizenship." Harvard Law Review. 102:1925 (June 1989).</ref>
The State Department refused to issue passports to citizens who declined to swear that they were not Communists.<ref name=":Gao">Template:Cite book</ref>Template:Rp This practice was ended following the 1958 Supreme Court Case Kent v. Dulles.<ref name=":Gao" />Template:Rp
Oceania
Australia
No federal Australian legislation guarantees freedom of movement within the Commonwealth of Australia. Various Australian laws restrict the right on various grounds.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}} - No longer Active
</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web
}}</ref> Until 1 July 2016, Norfolk Island had immigration controls separate from those of the remainder of Australia and a permit was required for Australian citizens or residents to enter. In August 2014 the Australian Commonwealth Government proposed regulating the rights of Australian citizens to travel to and from designated areas associated with terrorism.<ref>Template:Cite news
</ref>
