Some proponents of a right to freedom of international movement base their claim on the recognized human right to domestic freedom of movement. As a matter of consistency, freedom of movement should include the right to cross state borders. The strength of this strategy consists in its parsimony: the argument does not rely on a global view of the original position and evades the “relational” objection against a global scope of justice. However, this parsimony comes at a price. First, the argument is not compatible with a “political” conception of human rights. Hence, this paper defends an “orthodox” conception. Second, moving to the state of one's personal choice either does not entail further entitlements (thus limiting the appeal of the claimed right) or it does trigger additional human rights claims (amounting to a right to choose the bearer of the corresponding positive duties). I argue in favor of the latter.
