Border entry reveals gap in international human rights law, new analysis argues

A new analysis suggests that international human rights law is incomplete, as it protects migrants once they are within a state's jurisdiction but does not recognize a general right to enter another country. This gap in the legal framework is according to a study published in the International Journal of Migration and Border Studies.

The author argues that while international law recognizes freedom of movement within states, cross-border movement is largely governed by national discretion. The paper proposes an alternative where people have a right to immigrate and are therefore entitled to cross a border, subject to justified restrictions. However, this right does not currently exist in international law.

Recognizing such a right would not eliminate existing limits on immigration but would change the legal question at the border crossing, treating entry restrictions as limitations on a human right that need justification. The authors suggest that immigration should be treated as part of human rights law to bridge this gap, aligning cross-border movement closer to the legal framework applied to freedom of movement within states.