The international system of obligatory passports, which associates an individual with specific citizenship and mobility rights, is not only unfair but also dangerous in the event of an emergency. But should passports be abolished?
To answer this question, I first distinguish between two concepts of passports, then reformulate the question of abolition as an ethical dilemma of mobility.
First, I distinguish between two concepts of passports: call them "passports to" and "passports from". It may come as a surprise that both types of passports actually existed in history. The first, which I call "passport to", existed before the First World War, when passports were not required to cross borders. This type of passport was more like a letter of recommendation that the sovereign gave to a subject, citizen or even foreigner, so that foreign authorities can assist the traveler with "shelter and food" during the journey. The second type of passport has existed since WWI and certifies that the holder possesses a given identity and citizenship. After the Armistice, public opinion and the League of Nations sought to abolish this type of passport, unsuccessfully (Dumitru, 2023 a,b).
Second, the question “should passports be abolished?” can now be reframed as “should both types of passports be abolished?”. In the event of an emergency, the ethical dilemma is how do the two types of passports compare in terms of mobility. "Passport to" facilitates mobility of some but without denying passage to others; "passport from" confers identity and citizenship for all but allows restrictions on mobility. In the event of an emergency, if passports were to be maintained , the first kind seems to be more of a “passport to safety” than the second one.
