Prisoners Without Walls

A government need not build prison walls to deprive a person of liberty. It may simply prohibit that person from leaving its territory.

Governments around the world increasingly employ coercive exit bans against citizens and foreign nationals who are already lawfully present within their territory. Rather than placing an individual under formal arrest, authorities simply forbid departure. The individual remains free to travel within the country, yet cannot return home, reunite with family, resume employment, or escape the government’s continuing authority over his daily life.

This practice occupies a troubling space between ordinary legal process and imprisonment. It produces many of the practical consequences of detention while avoiding many of the procedural safeguards that ordinarily accompany detention.

Nothing in this discussion questions the sovereign authority of nations to control their borders or determine who may enter their territory. Every sovereign nation possesses both the right and the responsibility to regulate immigration according to its own laws. Coercive exit bans present an entirely different question. Once a nation has lawfully admitted an individual into its territory, its continued restraint of that person’s liberty becomes an exercise of governmental power over the individual rather than an exercise of border control. The legal question therefore shifts from sovereignty over territory to the justification for restricting the liberty of a human person.

International law recognizes the right at stake. Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own. The Covenant grounds this and other protected rights in the inherent dignity of the human person. Its language extends to citizens and noncitizens alike. The right belongs to “everyone,” and it protects departure from “any country.”

The right to leave is not absolute. Governments may impose restrictions prescribed by law that are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health, public morals, or the rights and freedoms of others. Those exceptions, however, do not confer unlimited discretion. They require a legitimate governmental interest, an individualized justification, and a response proportionate to the particular circumstances.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has explained that freedom of movement is indispensable to the free development of the human person. Likewise, the European Court of Human Rights has held that governments must continually justify restrictions on departure by considering their duration, necessity, proportionality, and the individual’s personal circumstances. Liberty remains the rule. Restriction remains the exception.

These principles expose the central defect in many coercive exit bans. Governments often impose them not because departure presents an immediate threat to justice, but because restraint gives the State leverage.

An exit ban may discourage political criticism by ensuring that a speaker remains subject to the government’s continuing authority. Here, the government exercises control over the individual without proving guilt or obtaining a criminal conviction.

The use of exit bans in connection with political expression presents an especially serious threat to liberty. When the underlying investigation concerns speech rather than violence or other traditionally recognized criminal conduct, the government risks using one restraint on liberty to justify another. Officials investigate expression and then rely upon that investigation to prevent the speaker from leaving the country. The practical effect is to transform an allegation concerning speech into a form of physical restraint.

The reported circumstances involving former United States Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice Morse Tan illustrate these concerns. South Korean authorities have prohibited Ambassador Tan from departing the country while investigating statements concerning the nation’s president. According to public reports, the disputed factual assertions were attributed to prior reporting rather than presented by Ambassador Tan as firsthand knowledge. Whatever the ultimate merits of the investigation, governments should bear an extraordinarily heavy burden before restricting the liberty of a foreign national because of political expression.

The recent experience of American citizen Dena Karari in Iran illustrates the same governmental mechanism in a different setting. Although the surrounding facts differ substantially, the essential feature remains the same. A government may exert extraordinary coercive pressure simply by refusing to permit departure. It can effectively confine an individual without constructing a prison or announcing a formal detention.

From a Christian worldview, the right to leave rests upon a deeper foundation than international treaty law. Scripture teaches that every human being bears the image of God. Human dignity therefore precedes government. Civil authority exists to administer justice, restrain wrongdoing, and preserve ordered liberty. It does not exist to treat human beings as instruments of state policy. Government may exercise lawful jurisdiction over wrongful conduct, but it does not acquire ownership over the people within its territory. This distinction separates the rule of law from rule by law. Under the rule of law, governments employ legal authority to secure justice through established procedures, impartial tribunals, and meaningful judicial review. Under rule by law, officials employ legal procedures to accomplish political objectives. The forms of legality remain, while liberty steadily disappears.

International law has recognized the freedom to leave one’s country. It has not yet developed sufficiently clear safeguards against governments that employ coercive exit bans as instruments of coercion rather than genuine necessities of justice.

The international community should establish clearer standards. Governments should bear the burden of demonstrating a serious underlying offense, a substantial risk that departure would obstruct justice, and the inadequacy of less restrictive alternatives. Independent courts should promptly review every exit restriction. Such orders should remain narrowly tailored, limited in duration, and subject to continuing judicial oversight. Where political expression lies at the heart of the investigation, courts should exercise the greatest vigilance.

Free societies distinguish themselves not by the amount of power they possess, but by the discipline with which they exercise it. Sovereign governments possess broad authority to protect their borders and enforce their laws. They do not possess unlimited authority to restrain the liberty of persons whom they have already lawfully admitted into their territory.

Liberty cannot depend upon whether a government chooses to build a prison or merely refuses to unlock the gate.

****************************************************************

Bibliography

Foundational International Instruments

African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Adopted June 27, 1981, entered into force October 21, 1986. Article 12 protects freedom of movement and the right to leave and return to one’s country, subject to restrictions provided by law for specified public interests.

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Protocol No. 4. Sept. 16, 1963, E.T.S. No. 46. Article 2 provides that everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own, and permits restrictions only when they comply with law and serve specified legitimate purposes in a democratic society. (ECHR⁠)

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171. The Preamble grounds the Covenant’s rights in the inherent dignity of the human person. Article 2 requires each state party to secure Covenant rights to persons within its territory and jurisdiction without prohibited discrimination. Article 12(2) protects everyone’s freedom to leave any country. Article 12(3) permits restrictions only when provided by law and necessary to protect national security, public order, public health, morals, or the rights and freedoms of others. Article 19 protects freedom of expression, subject only to limited and necessary restrictions. (OHCHR⁠)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. G.A. Res. 217 A (III), U.N. Doc. A/RES/217(III), Dec. 10, 1948. Articles 1 and 13 recognize the equal dignity of human beings and the right to leave any country, including one’s own.

United Nations Treaty Collection. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Status of Participation. This official depositary record supplies the relevant ratification and accession history of the Covenant’s state parties. (United Nations Treaty Collection⁠)

United Nations Interpretive Authorities

United Nations Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 27, Freedom of Movement, Article 12. U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, Nov. 2, 1999. This is the principal interpretive authority for Article 12. It explains that liberty of movement is indispensable to the free development of the person. It further states that restrictions must not impair the essence of the right, must use precise legal criteria, must satisfy necessity and proportionality, and must represent the least intrusive means available. It also recognizes that international travel ordinarily requires access to appropriate travel documents. (OHCHR Document Store⁠)

United Nations Human Rights Committee. General Comments. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. This source explains the Committee’s role in providing authoritative interpretations intended to assist states in fulfilling their Covenant obligations. (OHCHR⁠)

United Nations Human Rights Committee. Jurisprudence Database. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. This official database collects the Committee’s decisions on individual communications and provides the broader jurisprudential basis for applying the Covenant’s legality, necessity, proportionality, and nonarbitrariness requirements. (Jurisprudence Database⁠)

United Nations Human Rights Committee. Vidal Martins v. Uruguay, Communication No. 57/1979, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/15/D/57/1979. The Committee addressed a government’s refusal to issue a passport in connection with the rights to leave a country and to engage in expression. The matter supports the proposition that states may violate Article 12 by using control over travel documents to prevent international departure. (Cambridge University Press & Assessment⁠)

Regional Tribunal Decisions

European Court of Human Rights. Riener v. Bulgaria, App. No. 46343/99, Judgment of May 23, 2006. The Court found that a prolonged travel ban imposed to secure payment of tax obligations violated Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. It faulted authorities for failing to reassess the measure in light of its duration, the applicant’s individual circumstances, her family ties abroad, and the continuing proportionality of the restriction. (HUDOC⁠)

European Court of Human Rights. Guide on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights. Updated February 28, 2026. The guide synthesizes the Court’s decisions concerning freedom of movement and the right to leave a country. It addresses what constitutes an interference and explains the requirements of legality, legitimate purpose, necessity, proportionality, procedural safeguards, and continuing judicial review. (ECHR-KS⁠)

Economic Community of West African States Court of Justice. Passport Renewal and Freedom of Movement Decision. The court held that unjustified failure to process a passport application violated protected rights of movement and return, illustrating that control over travel documents can amount to an unlawful interference with international mobility. (Community Court of Justice⁠)

Scholarship and Institutional Analysis

Harvey, Colin, and Robert P. Barnidge Jr. The Right to Leave One’s Own Country Under International Law. International Organization for Migration. This study examines the treaty foundations of the right to leave, state practice, the Human Rights Committee’s interpretation of Article 12, and permissible limitations on international movement. (International Organization for Migration⁠)

Congressional-Executive Commission on China. Annual Report 2024. The report documents exit bans imposed on foreign businesspersons under opaque circumstances and discusses their broader implications for legal transparency and the rule of law. (CECC⁠)

Congressional-Executive Commission on China. Annual Report 2025. The report describes continuing threats posed by wrongful detention, arbitrary exit bans, and coercive legal measures directed at American citizens and lawful permanent residents. (CECC⁠)

Congressional-Executive Commission on China. China Monitor No. 1. Dec. 17, 2025. The Commission reports that the use of arbitrary exit bans against American citizens and residents has continued to expand. (CECC⁠)

James W. Foley Legacy Foundation. Wrongfully Detained Americans in China. Submission to the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, September 2024. The submission explains that governments may use exit bans to compel cooperation with investigations, pressure family members, settle civil disputes, and obtain political leverage over foreign governments. It also discusses the absence of adequate notice, clear time limits, and effective remedies in many cases. (CECC⁠)

Human Rights Watch. China: Right to Leave Country Further Restricted. Feb. 18, 2025. This report documents the growing use of arbitrary barriers to international departure and explains how administrative controls can restrict movement without conventional incarceration. (Human Rights Watch⁠)

Human Rights Watch. “We Will Find You”: A Global Look at How Governments Repress Nationals Abroad. Feb. 22, 2024. This report analyzes governmental efforts to silence, threaten, punish, or deter critics beyond national borders and supplies broader context for the relationship among restrictions on movement, political coercion, and suppression of dissent. (Human Rights Watch⁠)

United States Department of State. China Travel Advisory. Updated March 12, 2026. The advisory warns American travelers about legal and security risks in China, including restrictions that may prevent persons from departing the country. (Travel State⁠)

Contemporary Illustration Involving Morse Tan

Chosun Daily. “Professor Morse Tan Referred to Prosecutors for Defamation Charges.” July 1, 2026. This report states that South Korean police referred Tan to prosecutors without detention on allegations of defaming President Lee Jae Myung through online communications. (조선일보⁠)

Chosun Daily. “Court Rejects Morse Tan’s Second Departure Ban Suspension Request.” July 6, 2026. This report documents the continued departure restriction and the Seoul Administrative Court’s rejection of Tan’s request to suspend the second ban. (조선일보⁠)

Korea Times and Yonhap News Agency. “Court Denies Suspension of Exit Ban Against U.S. Scholar Under Probe for Defaming Lee.” June 4, 2026. This report states that a Seoul court declined to suspend the Ministry of Justice’s exit ban and describes the investigation as involving alleged defamation of South Korea’s president. (Korea Times⁠)

WORLD News Group. “An Ally’s Prisoner.” This reporting and accompanying interview provide Tan’s account of the allegations, his attribution of the contested factual assertions to prior reporting, the political nature of the underlying expression, the exit restrictions, the proceedings challenging those restrictions, and the consequences for his family and professional life.

Because some material in the Tan matter remains disputed and the investigation has not resulted in a final adjudication, the essay properly describes these circumstances as publicly reported allegations rather than established facts.

Contemporary Illustration Involving Dena Karari

NBC News. “Trump Announces Release of U.S. Citizen Held in Iran Since 2024.” July 15, 2026. The report identifies Dena Karari as the American citizen released after being subjected to what her attorney described as a coercive exit ban. It reports that she was not continuously held in a conventional prison but underwent repeated interrogations and remained unable to leave Iran. (NBC New York⁠)

The Wall Street Journal. “Iran Allows U.S. Citizen It Held for More Than a Year to Leave.” July 16, 2026. The report states that Iran prevented Karari from leaving for approximately a year and a half, interrogated her repeatedly, accused her of espionage and collaboration with a hostile power, and initially prevented her departure even after the expiration of a court-ordered exit ban. (The Wall Street Journal⁠)

CBS News. “U.S. Citizen Departs Iran After Being Barred from Leaving for Over a Year.” July 2026. This report corroborates Karari’s departure and the allegations that she had been trapped in Iran under espionage-related accusations. (CBS News⁠)

Biblical and Natural-Law Foundations

The Holy Bible. Genesis 1:26–27. Humanity’s creation in the image of God supplies the essay’s theological foundation for inherent human dignity and the proposition that government does not create or own the human person.

The Holy Bible. Romans 13:1–4. Civil authority possesses a legitimate but limited responsibility to restrain wrongdoing and administer justice.

The Holy Bible. Micah 6:8. The command to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God supports the moral responsibilities of those exercising public authority.

The Holy Bible. Acts 5:29. The declaration that obedience to God takes precedence over obedience to men reflects the ultimate limits of governmental authority over conscience and moral agency.

Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England, Introduction, Section 2, “Of the Nature of Laws in General.” Blackstone explains that human law derives its legitimacy from, and may not contradict, the higher law governing human nature and moral duty.

The Declaration of Independence. July 4, 1776. The Declaration recognizes that persons possess un