DOCSLIB.ORG

The CROW Act 2000

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The CROW Act 2000 The CROW Act 2000 a presentation by RICHARD WALD at 39 Essex Street on 15th June 2004 The CROW Act 20001 A HISTORY Early Attempts at achieving freedom to roam 1. In 1884 James Bryce MP introduced the first bill for freedom to roam. The bill was introduced every year until 1914 and failed each time. Following the Depression and increased unemployment, new and greater interest was shown by the public in open areas for recreation. Nowhere was this felt more strongly than in the Peak District. On 24th April 1932 six leaders of the newfound access movement, who bitterly resented restrictions placed upon would-be ramblers by gamekeepers (who were protecting their grouse and the property rights of their masters), staged a now famous ‘mass trespass’ of around 600 ramblers across Kinder Scout. The leaders were jailed but the event caused a national outcry and brought the campaign for freedom to roam further into the public eye. 2. Common land is land over which one or more persons have ‘a right of common2’, over the land in addition to the landowner, or is waste of the manor not subject to rights of common3. The old system of common land offered a certain amount of freedom to roam. 3. Section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925 gave the public a right of access for air and exercise4 over metropolitan and urban commons (see section on commons generally below). 4. In 1936 Arthur Creech-Jones introduced a Private Member’s Bill which became the Access to Mountains Act 1939 comprising walkers’ rights and making trespass a criminal offence in certain circumstances. It was opposed by the Ramblers Association and later repealed. 5. In 1947 the Hobhouse Committee recommended legislation for public access to open countryside. This led to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 under which open country was defined as mountain, moor, heath, down, cliff and foreshore5. Local Authorities were required to survey open countryside, assess the level of access provided and to secure further access by means of 1 This paper is drawn largely from a Chapter on the CROW Act 2000 in Hancox and Wald’s Highways Law & Practice (Butterworths, 2002). 2 Eg to fish, collect wood or peat, graze cattle, walk about 3 Commons Registration Act 1965 s22 ; see also Hampshire County Council v Milburn [1990] 2 WLR 1240 4 which includes horse riding R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex p Billson [1998] 2 All ER 587 5 It is estimated that the NPACA 1949 made 50,000 hectares available for access, leaving 5 million hectares unavailable AND 600,000 available on an informal basis (see the DETR explanatory notes to the CROW Act 2000, paragraph 7). 2 agreements, orders or by purchasing the land. In practice, the legislation has had little effect except in the Peak District National Park, where there is now freedom to roam over 55% of the park. The 1986 Royal Commission on Common Land6 recommended that common land (rural as well as urban) should be open to the public as of right, subject to the restrictions contained in Schedule 2 to the NPACA 19497. 6. In 1968 the Countryside Act sought to widen the scope of the 1949 Act by widening the definition of open country to include woodland and riverside. No new access agreements for such land have since been made under this Act. In 1986 The Common Land Reform Report8 recommended a right of access to (rural) common land on foot for the purpose of quiet enjoyment. 7. Responding to representations made by the Moorland Association, the Conservative Government decided not to enact the proposals of The Royal Commission on Common Land and the Common Land Reform Report. In 1997 however, the Labour government announced its intention to introduce legislation allowing the public freedom to roam on mountain, moor, heath and down and to this end produced its Consultation Paper on Access on 24 February 1998. 8. In 1999 the government proposed this new right of access, known colloquially as the ‘right to roam’. The framework was developed in the light of responses to the public consultation paper, Access to the Open Countryside in England and Wales, published in February 19989 and the results of a study of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs of different approaches for improving access to open countryside. 9. The Act received Royal Assent on 30 November 2000 and covers four main areas of interest: (i) Access to Open Country; (ii) Public Rights of Way; (iii) Nature Conservation; and (iv) Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 10. Some of the provisions of the Act came into force on 30th January 2001, others on 1st April 2001 and others are yet to be effective. Overall it is a complicated piece 6 Report of the Royal Commission on Common Land 1955-1958 (Cmnd 462) 7 The general restrictions in Schedule 2 of the CROW Act 2000 are an expanded version of the NPACA 1949 Schedule 2 restrictions. (see below) 8 Common Land: The Report of the Common Land Forum, CCP215 (1986) 9 This consultation paper estimated the extent of mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land to be between 1.2 and 1.8 million hectares or about 10% of the land area in England and Wales. 3 of legislation, made more so by the large amount of it which is to be enacted by regulations as yet unwritten. Purpose of the CROW Act 2000 11. The purpose of this Act is to create a new statutory right of access on foot to certain types of open land, to modernize the public rights of way system, to strengthen nature conservation legislation, and to facilitate better management of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (“AONBs”). There are provisions for local authorities to establish byelaws and give greater powers of enforcement to a variety of relevant bodies. It seeks to balance the new rights with responsibilities on all parties and there will be codes of practice produced to explain these to landowners and users. B ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE Pre-existing position 12. Whilst there is often de facto access in uncultivated areas, there is no general right to roam in England and Wales, except along public highways. Where access is allowed , this has tended to be • pursuant to an Act of Parliament, or • by the granting of rights by landowners or • by specific agreements between land-owners and land-users. 13. Local inhabitants of an area may also acquire a right to use village greens for ‘lawful sport and pastimes’ where there has been a history of such use. Common Land 14. It is worth emphasizing that (without the CROW Act applying) the existence or registration10 of rural common land does not necessarily imply either public ownership or any public rights. On the contrary most common land is privately owned and the rights of commoners to use it are limited to specific groups of people and to specific activities (e.g. to graze cattle, collect wood or peat etc.). Section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925 conferred on the public a right of access for air and exercise (including horse-riding11) over metropolitan and urban commons. Section 193(2) provides that landowners can declare by deed that the 10 Under the Commons Registration Act 1965 11R v SSETR, ex p Billson [1998] 2 All ER 587. 4 provisions shall apply to any of their land which is subject to rights of common. This subsection is to be repealed by the CROW Act 2000 since wider powers of dedication conferred by s16 of the CROW Act 2000 render these LPA 1925 provisions redundant. Town and Village Greens 15. The Commons Registration Act introduced a system of registering of any area of land: (i) which has been allotted under any Act for the exercise/recreation of local inhabitants; (ii) upon which local inhabitants have a customary right to enjoy sports and pastimes; (iii) upon which local inhabitants have enjoyed such sports and pastimes as of right for at least 20 years12 16. Following the judgment in the case of R v Oxfordshire CC, ex p Sunningwell PC [1999] 3 WLR 160, it is now much easier to register new village/town greens under the third of these categories. First, the case expanded the notion of ‘sports and pastimes’ to include such informal activities as berry picking, kite-flying and tobogganing. Second, it established that ‘as of right’ simply means without force, secrecy or permission (no subjective belief or intention on the part of the user is required). Finally the case held that predominant, rather than exclusive use by local inhabitants is enough to found a right to register. 17. Section 98 of The CROW Act 2000 (which amended the Commons Registration Act 1965, s22) has adapted the test to be applied in relation to the third of these categories in that it is now sufficient that ‘a significant number of the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality’ have used it for at least 20 years for lawful sports and pastimes. Consequently registration authorities no longer need to enquire whether use is made of land by people outside the locality. Access by agreement 18. Various schemes exist under which landowner can permit public access to their land in exchange for payment. These are run by government departments13, statutory agencies14 and local authorities15. 12 Commons Registration Act 1965 13 eg the Countryside Access Scheme for set-aside land, The Access Tier in Environmentally Sensitive Areas (operated by DEFRA).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Property Outlaws Eduardo M
    Cornell Law Library Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository Cornell Law Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 5-1-2007 Property Outlaws Eduardo M. Peñalver Cornell Law School, [email protected] Sonia K. Katyal Fordham Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation Peñalver, Eduardo M. and Katyal, Sonia K., "Property Outlaws" (2007). Cornell Law Faculty Publications. Paper 28. http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/28 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PROPERTY OUTLAWS EDUARDO MOISitS PE&ALVERt & SONiA K. KATYAL" Most people do not hold those who intentionallyflout property laws in par- ticularly high regard. The overridingly negative view of the property lawbreaker as a "wrongdoer" comports with the status of property rights within our charac- teristically individualist, capitalist, political culture. This reflexively dim view of property lawbreakers is also shared, to a large degree, by property theorists, many of whom regard property rights as a relatively fixed constellation of enti- tlements that collectively produce stability and efficiency through an orderly sys- tem of ownership. In this Article, Professors Peihalverand Katyal seek partially to rehabilitate the reviled characterof the intentional property lawbreaker, and to show how property outlaws have played an important role in the evolution and transfer of property entitlements.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change... Health) and the Community
    THE JOURNAL OF THE SCHOOL OF FORESTRY & ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES SPRING 2006 environment YALE Conservationists Thinking Big to Save the Last Great Places INSIDE: Gift for Land Conservation page 11 Spurring Action on Climate Change page 15 Developing World Gaining Access to Online Research page 19 letters To the Editor: Editor’s Note: Below are excerpts from national spokesman for taking meaningful, I read your article about forests as a a letter sent to Yale University President national action on climate change. remedy for global warming [“As a Remedy Richard Levin on February 7 and We believe that the president of Yale can to Global Warming, Do Forests Matter?,” President Levin’s response. get some attention, particularly if you turn Fall 2005] and was perplexed, because your own commitment to rallying the nowhere in the article was the fact that the Dear President Levin, commitments of the presidents of other carbon taken up by a tree part remains out We were struck by a juxtaposition of major U.S. universities to join you in calling of circulation as long as that tree part is two articles in the January 29 for meaningful action on climate change not degraded to its con- Washington Post, one a headline that reflects our most current scientific stituent molecules or article entitled “Debate on knowledge. elements. This should Climate Shifts to Issue of V. A LARIC SAMPLE be a major tenet of the Irreparable Change,” and the PRESIDENT tree-based sequestration other on how the State of the PINCHOT INSTITUTE WASHINGTON, D.C. argument, and it should Union address has become M.F.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Common Rights' - What Are They?
    'Common Rights' - What are they? An investigation into rights of passage and rights of land use (or rights of common) Alan Shelley PG Dissertation in Landscape Architecture Cheltenham & Gloucester College of Higher Education April2000 Abstract There is a level of confusion relating to the expression 'common' when describing 'common rights'. What is 'common'? Common is a word which describes sharing or 'that affecting all alike'. Our 'common humanity' may be a term used to describe people in general. When we refer to something 'common' we are often saying, or implying, it is 'ordinary' or as normal. Mankind, in its earliest civilisation formed societies, usually of a family tribe, that expanded. Society is principled on community. What are 'rights'? Rights are generally agreed practices. Most often they are considered ethically, to be moral, just, correct and true. They may even be perceived, in some cases, to include duty. The evolution of mankind and society has its origins in the land. Generally speaking common rights have come from land-lore (the use of land). Conflicts have evolved between customs and the statutory rights of common people (the people of the commons). This has been influenced by Church (Canonical) law, from Roman formation, statutory enclosures of land and the corporation of local government. Privilege, has allowed 'freemen', by various customs, certain advantages over the general populace, or 'common people'. Unfortunately, the term no longer describes a relationship of such people with the land, but to their nationhood. Contents Page Common Rights - What are they?................................................................................ 1 Rights of Common ...................................................................................................... 4 Woods and wood pasture ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Opportunities and Challenges Presented by a Land-Based Commons Approach
    Technical Committee on “Land Tenure and Development” The opportunities and challenges presented by a land-based commons approach Societies are currently having to adapt to multiple global reflection, which was facilitated and formalised by Cirad’s issues in a context of political, economic and ecological Green research unit with support from the International crises. The ‘land-based commons’ approach places col- Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), are lective action at the heart of efforts to evaluate and resolve presented in this publication. complex problems, by addressing these issues through Part 1 identifies action situations where it would be the analysis of local contexts and the structure of different useful to consider the opportunities and challenges of- international frameworks. The aim is to facilitate the fered by a land-based commons approach. Part 2 then emergence of institutional arrangements that involve the proposes various entry points that could be used to different groups and communities of interest working to mobilize scientific, cultural and social knowledge and The opportunities tackle issues at the local level, and contribute to policies highlight the different solidarity regimes that support and that can address these questions effectively. mobilize commons. Part 3 discusses the analytical This work on land-based commons is part of much framework for this procedure, which questions some of and challenges broader transdisciplinary reflection by the French Coo- the underlying assumptions that shaped previous initia- peration ‘Land Tenure and Development’ Technical tives to address land issues. Finally, Part 4 sets out six Committee (LTDTC), which has contributed to thinking guiding principles that were developed to facilitate im- presented by a land-based about ongoing changes in land and development over plementation of the land-based commons approach and the last 20 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Indicators for Relational Values of Nature's Contributions to Good
    Ecosystems and People ISSN: (Print) 2639-5916 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbsm22 Indicators for relational values of nature’s contributions to good quality of life: the IPBES approach for Europe and Central Asia Matthias Schröter, Esra Başak, Michael Christie, Andrew Church, Hans Keune, Elena Osipova, Elisa Oteros-Rozas, Stefanie Sievers-Glotzbach, Alexander P. E. van Oudenhoven, Patricia Balvanera, David González, Sander Jacobs, Zsolt Molnár, Unai Pascual & Berta Martín-López To cite this article: Matthias Schröter, Esra Başak, Michael Christie, Andrew Church, Hans Keune, Elena Osipova, Elisa Oteros-Rozas, Stefanie Sievers-Glotzbach, Alexander P. E. van Oudenhoven, Patricia Balvanera, David González, Sander Jacobs, Zsolt Molnár, Unai Pascual & Berta Martín-López (2020) Indicators for relational values of nature’s contributions to good quality of life: the IPBES approach for Europe and Central Asia, Ecosystems and People, 16:1, 50-69, DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2019.1703039 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2019.1703039 © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa Published online: 10 Jan 2020. UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 628 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbsm22 ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 2020, VOL. 16, NO. 1, 50–69 https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2019.1703039 REVIEW: THE SCIENCE-POLICY INTERFACE OF ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE Indicators for relational values of nature’s contributions to good quality of life: the IPBES approach for Europe and Central Asia Matthias Schröter a,EsraBaşakb, Michael Christie c, Andrew Church d,HansKeunee,f, Elena Osipovag, Elisa Oteros-Rozash,i, Stefanie Sievers-Glotzbachj, Alexander P.
    [Show full text]
  • Lomfeld 2017 Property
    Bertram Lomfeld A Political Grammar of Property Law Preliminary Draft 02/2017 DELIBERATING PROPERTY: A POLITICAL GRAMMAR OF PROPERTY LAW Bertram Lomfeld 1 Political Properties: What? Who? Why? 2 Justificatory Reasons for Property 3 A Bundle of Property Rights 4 A Bundle of Property Duties 5 Property As Deliberation 6 Applying the Grammar: Some Tentative Case Studies Some people understand property as a natural human right. Meant to depoliticize property it is perhaps one of the most political arguments one could take. This paper is starting from an opposite perspective, i.e. fundamental value pluralism. Starting from value pluralism, it is impossible to define a ‘universal’ core of property either on a conceptual or a normative (justificatory) level. To understand property as a clear ‘human right’ might still allow for a conceptual ‘structural’ pluralism, 1 but it accepts only private autonomy and subjective freedom as justificatory basis. For an economic perspective, the core function of property rights is the internalization of social cost.2 So, it all depends on the perspective: ‘How one defines the core of property depends on what values one thinks property serves‘.3 This paper attempts to sketch a more freestanding genuinely pluralistic property theory relying on a ‘deliberative’ discourse theory.4 The strategy of a ‘deliberative legal theory’ is pragmatic and idealistic at the same time.5 Considering law as a constitutive structure of social cooperation, it analyzes social practices of law and theory discourses (scholarship, legislation and judicial cases). It deconstructs or ‘liquefies’ monistic normative principles or policies and tries to reconstruct them as an integrative yet plural ‘political grammar’ for legal argumentation.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientist Letter to Senate on Natural Resources
    Dear Senator, We the undersigned signatories, leading researchers and practitioners from the various biological and earth science disciplines, are writing to urge the Senate to pass legislation that will reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and begin to substantively address the impacts of climate change on our communities, wildlands and wildlife this year. The science is clear: we must both reduce greenhouse gas pollutants and safeguard wildlife and natural resources already impacted from climate change. The time to act is now. The increase in human-caused emissions is responsible for driving climatic changes worldwide, and negatively impacting both human and natural systems. Climate change is already causing serious damage and disruptions to wildlife and natural ecosystems, threatening the collapse of natural systems that cross ecological or biological thresholds. This collapse will result in the loss of the environmental goods and services they provide to society, as well as the loss of the biological diversity that sustains their production. The warming of rivers, streams, lakes and wetland, the changes in natural disturbance regimes and increased incidence of pest and disease outbreaks, and changes in the seasonal timing of both plant and animal life history events such as reproduction, migration, and species ranges are disrupting ecological communities. Profound changes such as the melting polar ice caps and glaciers, acidification of the oceans, rise in sea levels, and an increasing incidence of intensified storms, drought and catastrophic fires will stress natural systems and have devastating implications for people, our treasured landscapes and wildlife. Wildlife, natural resource and water managers will be increasingly challenged by species assemblages and climate-related stressors that have never previously occurred.
    [Show full text]
  • Before the Tragedy of the Commons: Early Modern Economic Considerations of the Public Use of Natural Resources
    409 Before the Tragedy of the Commons: Early Modern Economic Considerations of the Public Use of Natural Resources Nathaniel Wolloch* This article distinguishes between the precise legal and economic approach to the commons used by Hardin and many other modern commentators, and the broader post-Hardinian concept utilized in environmentally-oriented discussions and aiming to limit the use of the commons for the sake of preservation. Particularly in the latter case, it is claimed, any notion of the tragedy of the commons is distinctly a modern twentieth-century one, and was foreign to the early modern and even nineteenth-century outlooks. This was true of the early modern mercantilists, and also of classical political economists such as Adam Smith and even, surprisingly, Malthus, as well as of Jevons and his neoclassical discussion aimed at maximizing the long-term use of Britain’s coal reserves. One intellectual who did recognize the problematic possibility of leaving some tracts of land in their pristine condition to answer humanity’s need for a spiritual connection with nature was J. S. Mill, but even he regarded this as in essence almost a utopian ideal. The notion of the tragedy of the commons in its broader sense is therefore a distinctly modern one. Was there a concept of the tragedy of the commons before William Forster Lloyd in 1833, the precedent noted by Garrett Hardin himself?1 If we mean by this an exact concept akin to the modern recognition that population pressure leads to the irrevocable depletion and even destruction of irreplaceable natural resources, then the answer by and large is negative.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Statutory Guidance Note on Vehicular
    Vehicular access across Common Land and Town or Village Greens: Non-Statutory Guidance Note Revised October 2007 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Nobel House 17 Smith Square London SW1P 3JR Telephone 020 7238 6000 Website: www.defra.gov.uk © Crown copyright 2007 Copyright in the typographical arrangement and design rests with the Crown. This publication (excluding the departmental logo) may be re-used free of charge in any format or medium, provided that it is re-used accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as crown copyright and the title of the publication specified. Information about this publication and further copies are available from: ELM Common Land (Registration) Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Area 5A, Ergon House Horseferry Road London SW1P 2AL Tel: 020 7238 6272 Fax: 020 7238 4929 Email: [email protected] This document is also available on the Defra website. Published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs October 2007 (Version 1.1) VEHICULAR ACCESS ACROSS COMMON LAND AND TOWN OR VILLAGE GREENS Status of guidance This guidance note is non-statutory and has no legal effect. It provides guidance about vehicular access across common land and town or village greens following the repeal of section 68 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. It does not provide a comprehensive explanation of every issue. Defra cannot provide advice on individual circumstances. Anyone needing this should consider taking independent expert advice. Introduction 1. Most home owners with a garage or standing for a car expect to be able to drive on and off their premises without any difficulty.
    [Show full text]
  • Contracting the Right to Roam
    Contracting the Right to Roam Wallace McNeish and Steve Olivier © 2017, Palgrave Macmillan, reproduced with permission of Palgrave Macmillan This extract is taken from the author's original manuscript and has not been edited. The definitive, published, version of record is available in the Palgrave Handbook of Leisure Theory, edited by K. Spracklen et al., available from: http://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9781137564788 Contracting the Right to Roam Wallace McNeish and Steve Olivier Introduction This chapter critically examines the issue of free recreational access to the environment – the right to roam, from the perspective of political philosophy. We begin by setting the right to roam within a comparative socio-legal context that indicates how ongoing social and economic change has moved it to centre stage in the increasingly contested sphere of what Rojek (2001; 2010) calls leisure politics. We then move on to consider the political- philosophical debate that has traditionally revolved around rights and duties pertaining to private property, and the conception of the social contract. In recent decades the emergence of environmental ethics – and in particular conceptions of environmental sustainability and environmental justice, have added extra dimensions of complexity to the philosophical terrain upon which the right to roam is contested. Two very different versions of the social contract will be juxtaposed to bring the key arguments into high relief. On the one hand we consider Hardin’s influential eco-Hobbesian Tragedy of the Commons (2000, [1968]) thesis. This positions human beings as possessive, selfish and competitive individuals who will inevitably be responsible for generalized environmental degradation, unless their restless desires (including to roam) are held in check by a coercive Green Leviathan.
    [Show full text]
  • National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Draft Business Plan for the Path of the Pronghorn March 24, 2009
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Draft Business Plan for the Path of the Pronghorn March 24, 2009 NFWF Pronghorn Biz Plan.indd 1 8/12/09 11:29:01 AM What Is a Business Plan? A business plan serves two broad, primary functions. First, it provides specific information to those (e.g., prospective investors) not familiar with the proposed or existing business, including its goals and the management strategy and financial and other resources necessary to attain those goals. Second, a business plan provides internal guidance to those who are active in the operation of the business, allowing all individuals to understand where the business is headed and the means by which it will get there. The plan helps keep the business from drifting away from its goals and key actions through careful articulation of a strategy. In the context of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s conservation efforts, business plans represent the strategies necessary to meet the conservation goals of Keystone and other initia- tives. Each business plan emphasizes the type(s) and magnitude of the benefits that will be realized through the initiative, the monetary costs involved, and the potential obstacles (risks) to achieving those gains. Each of the Foundation’s business plans has three core elements: Conservation Outcomes: A concrete description of the outcomes to which the Foundation and grantees will hold ourselves accountable. Implementation Plan with Strategic Priorities and Performance Measures: A description of the specific strategies that are needed to achieve our conservation outcome and the quantitative measures by which we will measure success and make it possible to adaptively revise strategies in the face of underperformance.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Rights to Migration?
    Draft only (and a very baggy and messy one at that). Please do not cite or quote without permission. Natural Rights to Migration? Christopher Bertram Department of Philosophy, University of Bristol [email protected] INTRODUCTION It is often claimed that states enjoy, as a consequence of their sovereign sta- tus, the right to control the passage of outsiders through their territory and that they have a discretion to admit or to refuse to admit outsiders, whether those outsiders be tourists, business travelers, would-be economic migrants, or even refugees. Or, to be more exact, such limitations on that right to control are derived from the agreement of states to treaties and conventions, agree- ment which they could have withheld and could yet revoke. As a statement of the legal position this is not completely uncontroversial,1 but my aim in this paper is not to make a contribution to international law or law at all. Rather, my concern is with political philosophy and with the issue of whether 1See, for elaboration the discussion in Nafziger (1983). 1 2 any state, or state-like entity, could, in fact, have the moral right to exclude foreigners who wish to enter its territory. Whilst some people think it obvious that states have such rights to con- trol and limit movement, to others, this claim can seem utterly mysterious. Borders are not natural features of the world – though they may track such features – and the idea that some people have the right to declare an arbi- trary line and the right to forbid others from crossing it, and that those others have the moral duty to comply and not to cross without permission can seem simply bizarre.
    [Show full text]