#Opinion by Maria Zakharova
Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas on Twitter has urged European countries to stop issuing tourist visas to Russians adding that “visiting Europe is a privilege, not a human right.”
Are you surprised that a high-ranking official of an EU member state can talk such nonsense verging on nationalism? It makes sense. She did not become prime minister through her own merit, but inherited the position dynastically, by birthright, getting it all through connections – her place in the party, and her position in the Government.
So, since Kaja was not paying attention in college, I will have to enlighten her on Telegram.
In 1975, the OSCE participating States (then CSCE) declared they were making it “their aim to facilitate freer movement and contacts<…>among persons, institutions and organisations of the participating States,” recognising this as an important factor in strengthening friendly relations and trust between people.
In Vienna in 1989, all participating States committed to “respect the right of everyone to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State, and to leave any country”; it was confirmed in 1990 in Copenhagen.
Ensuring freedom of movement is therefore one of the central commitments enshrined in the founding documents of the OSCE. This freedom has become a reality that hundreds of millions of people in all states of the region just take for granted.
Freedom of movement is clearly articulated in international human rights law. Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) establishes everyone’s right to liberty of movement within a state, and says everyone shall be free to leave any country and return to their own. General Comment No. 34 emphasises that these provisions of the Covenant protect the rights of all residents of the State, including foreigners.
Rules relating to freedom of movement are also contained in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It should be added that freedom of movement is a sine qua non for the enjoyment of a wide range of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including those not subject to derogation (the right to life and freedom from torture, etc.).
When most states mandated severe travel restrictions in the context of COVID-19, including lockdowns and border closures, those measures were motivated by the need to protect the population from a dangerous disease and to guarantee their right to life and the right to healthcare. Although certain restrictions on freedom of movement during a state of emergency are permitted under international law, including those that ensure public safety and health, these restrictions, like any other derogation from conventions, must be strictly necessary, proportionate to the interest being protected and non-discriminatory.
CCPR General Comment No. 27 explains in detail that restrictions on the freedom of movement (Article 12) are permissible, but any restrictions must be provided for by law, with specific conditions and time limits for restricting the rights specified (in any case, the time period should be the shortest possible), as well as available remedies in the context of such restrictions. Any laws or policies affecting freedom of movement in participating States must meet these legal criteria if they introduce or apply derogations from or restrictions on rights protected under Article 12.
Finally, during times of armed conflict, in addition to human rights law, the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law (the law of armed conflict) apply, as do soft law instruments such as the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, which provide a framework the parties to the conflict can use in relation to freedom of movement.
Sit down, Kaja. You have failed your test.