The Right to the World Joseph Nevins Department of Earth Science and Geography, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, NY, USA; jonevins@vassar.edu Abstract: The global number of refugees, asylum seekers, and those displaced within their countries are at record levels in the post-World War II era. Meanwhile, efforts by relatively wealthy and powerful nation-states to exclude unwanted migrants through enhanced territorial control have reached unprecedented heights, producing great harm–most notably premature death–for many. The factors driving out-migration from homelands made unviable, coupled with multiple forms of violence experienced by migrants, demonstrate the need for an expansion of rights–conceived of as both entitlements and sites of struggle. So, herein, I assert the need for “the right to the world”–specifically a right to mobility and a just share of the Earth’ s resources–to help realize the promise of a dignified life for all. In making the case for such, the article offers a critical analysis of the contemporary human rights regime and of the “right to the city”. Keywords: human rights, mobility, nation-state, refugees, right to the city, right to the world Introduction On World Refugee Day 2016 (20 June), the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported that the number of forcibly displaced persons—a category that includes refugees, asylum seekers, and those displaced within their countries—had reached more than 65 million persons at the end of 2015, a record high in the agency’ s history (Edwards 2016). This was a marked increase over the record set in 2013 (and in 2014), when the figure reached more than 50 million persons worldwide for the first time since World War II’ s end (Edwards 2014). These figures are conservative in that the UNHCR’ s notion of “forcibly” is limited by the international refugee regime, one that defines a refugee as someone fleeing political persecution or physical violence. Per this logic, those fleeing deprivation, insecurity, and poverty of the everyday, “normal” sort—normal in terms of reigning political-economic conditions within their home country—are mere migrants whereas refugees are compelled to leave their homelands. As UNHCR (2015) explains: “Migrants, especially economic migrants, choose to move in order to improve the future prospects of themselves and their families. Refugees have to move if they are to save their lives or preserve their freedom”. Putting aside the simplistic notion of choice implied by the UNHCR (see Evans and Bauman 2016), the true number of people migrating—particularly across international boundaries—due to conditions in their homelands that make life of a sort imagined as just by various international human rights conventions is considerably higher than the UN agency estimates. The record-setting figures reflect in part what has come to be known as a migrant or refugee crisis. While the vast majority of refugees are located in low- and Antipode Vol. 49 No. 5 2017 ISSN 0066-4812, pp.1349–1367 doi: 10.1111/anti.12324 © 2017 The Author. Antipode © 2017 Antipode Foundation Ltd.