Free Movement Regimes (FMRs) establish a mobility pathway that allows nationals of one country to enter, reside, and work in another country. These pathways go beyond traditional migration channels and align with the Global Compact on Migration, whose objective is to make mobility safe, regular and orderly. Despite their widespread use and global significance, they have received limited academic and policy focus.
This blog provides initial insights into how countries benefit from these regimes and highlights some potential risks. The analysis is based on the Freemove project, which is the first to extensively map, analyse, and compare all bilateral and multilateral FMRs globally. Its aim is to identify every FMR in force or adopted from 1992 to 2024 and examine their provisions. By January 2024, it had identified 30 bilateral and 23 multilateral regimes involving 114 countries from all continents—most of the 193 UN member states—illustrating how governments worldwide participate in various arrangements. From this effort, we can draw some early conclusions.
First, free movement regimes provide an opportunity to improve security. Because these regimes widen legal pathways for migration, they reduce migrant smuggling. Smuggling is primarily driven by financial motives, so easing movement restrictions decreases the demand for smugglers’ services. These services are often connected to other illegal activities such as human trafficking. Smuggled migrants may also become victims of trafficking en route, so lowering migrant smuggling can contribute to fighting human trafficking. Overall, free movement regimes can assist in reducing migrant abuse.
Second, free movement regimes make migration regular because individuals are entitled to obtain a residence permit if they fulfil certain conditions, the most important of which is holding the nationality of another country that participates in the free movement regime. This benefits migrants, authorities, and society. The former UN Rapporteur emphasised that migrants in irregular circumstances often face severe living and working conditions, with an increased risk of discrimination, abuse, exploitation, and marginalisation. Simplifying immigration processes for specific nationalities can reduce the workload for immigration and government agencies, making the system more effective.
Third, FMRs do not create open borders; rather, they set various standards and procedures for screening and managing migration flows. In fact, under all free movement regimes, states retain the right to refuse entry to or expel nationals of other participating states who do not meet specific residency requirements.
Fourth, to fully realize their potential, free movement regimes must not only be correctly integrated into domestic law but also widely disseminated and accessible to all stakeholders, including the administration, judges, lawyers, civil society, and migrants. Incorporating these provisions into national migration laws ensures that relevant parties can easily access information about the rights available to nationals of participating states. Without this, legal uncertainty arises, rights may be inaccessible, and the rule of law can be undermined.
Finally, free movement regimes vary significantly. Our analysis indicates that the term FMR should be viewed as an umbrella category covering different models of bilateral and multilateral regimes. These range from the weakest to the strongest in terms of the freedom of movement and residence for citizens of participating states. These models can be employed by states or regional organizations to promote safe, orderly, and regular migration. The weakest model of FMRs restricts movement to specific categories of workers but excludes admission quotas or labour market tests, thus opening migration to a potentially large number of people. CARICOM exemplifies this model. Other regimes extend residence rights beyond workers to include not economically active individuals who are financially self-sufficient, such as those in the Andean Community, MERCOSUR, or the EU. Finally, some regimes offer nearly equal treatment for nationals regarding residence. The Common Travel Area between the United Kingdom and Ireland exemplifies this, where, with few exceptions, citizens of both countries can enter, reside, and work without restrictions.