Why a Vaccine Passport Is a Bad Idea –I. Butler, L. Ravo

While governments around the world are rightly focusing on vaccination strategies to protect people from COVID-19, a debate has heated up as to what the vaccine will entail for our civil liberties – including our right to move freely in the EU.

No EU country has yet chosen to make the vaccination compulsory. Although, politicians around Europe have floated the idea that only those who have been vaccinated should be able to enjoy access to services and venues that have been restricted to curb the spread of coronavirus. The Greek prime minister has gone further and called for a standardized EU digital vaccine certificate to be used by individuals to travel with no restrictions between EU countries (…).

Requiring a person be vaccinated before they can go to public places, like schools or bars, could lead to a two-tier society. It is likely that some groups in society will have slower access to vaccination, because of existing inequalities, lack of awareness, the effects of corruption or political favoritism. In such circumstances, vaccine passports will exacerbate the division between those who already enjoy a favored position in society and those who are on its margins.

If governments add free movement to the list of liberties only available to those who get the vaccine, this will add to the social division within countries. But there are three other reasons why requiring a vaccine passport for EU travel is a bad idea.

First, it could create a division between citizens of different EU countries. That is, citizens in countries that roll out the vaccine more slowly will end up with restrictions on free movement compared to citizens in countries that vaccinate more quickly. It’s also not clear whether a vaccination certificate would only be issued for vaccinations that have been carried out with a vaccine approved by the European Medial Agency. Currently, the Russian and Chinese vaccines don’t have this approval. And Hungary, which says the EU has not allocated it enough doses of other vaccines, seems to intend to use these.

Creating a division between EU countries whose citizens can travel more would undermine what is probably the EU’s most tangible benefit in the eyes of the public. But it could also feed into Euroscepticism. In 2017, several Central and Eastern European governments used the horse meat scandal to stoke anti-EU sentiment. Their argument: the EU was treating its citizens as second-class by allowing the sale of inferior quality products, compared to those in Western Europe. We can expect Eurosceptic politicians to again cry foul if it looks like the EU is taking free movement away from certain countries.

Second, a vaccination passport may also prove counter-productive. There’s no clear data yet on the extent to which vaccination campaigns will be effective in halting or reducing the transmission of the disease. The World Health Organization has warned that the use of vaccine passports at this stage to enable unhindered travel could endanger public health by creating a false sense of security.

Third, there are inevitably risks to travelers’ privacy if the vaccine certificate is in digital form. Governments won’t only have to ensure that they keep individuals’ data safe, but also that this is not shared or misused for other purposes. If the vaccination certificate is required for traveling between countries, it will mean that all 27 governments will have to have interoperable systems with equally strong data protection systems. And the EU data protection chief already expressed skepticism about the feasibility of this.

Will it happen?

Some EU Commissioners seem open to the idea. Governments are divided. Some, like Malta and Portugal, whose economies are similarly oriented to tourism as Greece’s, seem to like the idea. Certain EU countries, like Poland, are already moving to putting the idea in practice solo. But others, like France and Romania, expressed serious disquiet.

What should the EU do?

The EU should do all it can to avoid vaccination passports becoming an attractive option for governments. Governments are less likely to resort to such measures if there is an overwhelming public take-up of the vaccine and feasible alternatives for safe travel are in place. The Commission could:

1 – Offer to coordinate EU-wide measures for safe travel, such as increased testing facilities, and urge governments to accept certification of a recent negative test as sufficient to allow travel.

2 – Encourage governments to use EU pandemic recovery funds for vaccination programs aimed at parts of the population that would otherwise be more difficult to reach. Such as those living in rural or less affluent areas that are far from hospitals and clinics. The EU could also invest in further educational campaigns about the benefits of the vaccine. This would help to counter disinformation campaigns that make people reluctant to vaccinate.

3 – Invest further in research on the degree and duration of immunity and transmission reduction rates induced by vaccine.


Israel Butler is the Head of Advocacy and Linda Ravo is an Advocacy Consultant at Civil Liberties Union for Europe (Liberties). This article was published originally here and it was reproduced with kind permission from Liberties.

To quote this article, please use the following reference: Israel Butler, Linda Ravo (2021). “Why a Vaccine Passport Is a Bad Idea”.https://crisesobservatory.es/why-a-vaccine-passport-is-a-bad-idea/

The OCC publishes a wide range of opinions that are meant to help our readers think of International Relations. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and neither the OCC nor Saint Louis University can be held responsible for any use which may be made of the opinion of the author and/or the information contained therein.