Considering the dynamics of current international types of contract labour migration it is the recognition of multiple and constant interconnections and networks across international borders that has made the framework of transnationalism popular and suitable for the inclusion of labour circulation and movements that are more than just uni or bi-directional (Glick Schiller, Basch, Szanton Blanc 1995; Pries 1998,). These include the shift from the consideration that contract labour across national borders would have only been sought out in order to achieve economic advancement (Portes 1997), to the inclusion of social and cultural aspects, for example that migrants as well as circulating contract workers lead dual lives with regular contact between migrant and home community (Portes Guarnizo, Landoldt 1999). The new concept also includes multiple circular movements that can lead to frequent and strong links between countries, common identities, and to the development of transnational spaces, mobile livelihoods and transnational communities (Duany 2002; Portes 2003; Vertovec 2001, 2003; Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2003). Of particular interest for the circumstances of seafarers is the aspect of negotiation of common identities that had been recognised by Vertovec (2001), and that social practices between migrants and their communities at home could be regarded as articulations of transnationality (Lee 2007; Levitt, DeWind and Vertovec 2003).

These notions on transnational space and mobility have led to geographical space becoming an increasingly fluid concept. Crang, Dwyer and Jackson (2003:445) argue that it is not the boundaries of the nation states but the processes that matter: ‘the nation state continues to play a key role in defining the terms in which transnational processes are played out’. These authors, however, feel that transnational space should also include ‘fluid maritime space’ and this could be expressed by Leontis’ (1997:181) concept of emporion, which is based on an old Greek meaning of circulations of ‘traffic in merchandise, especially by ship’. Other authors, for example Gilroy (1993), Young (1998), and Steinberg (1999) have in different geographical contexts also referred to movements, especially by ship, and involving international communities, as connecting and continuing relationships, including social-cultural and economic ones, that have been made in the different spaces of home, across and abroad (Borovnik 2005:136).

Expanding on such discussion, Crang, Dwyer and Jackson (2004) continue by emphasising processes and connecting spaces, by defining transnationalism as a dynamic, complex, multi-dimensional and multi-inhabited encompassing field. It is because of this definition that we can now conclude that international seafarers and their families are no longer on the ‘edges’ of transnationalism, but are fully fledged members of transnational practice. It may be easily recognised that seafarers are encompassed in a field that occupies a dynamic and complex mobile livelihood onboard ship, under agreements and regulations of different national context, needed in order to make international employment possible. This dynamic space is multi-dimensional both in a geographic and socio-cultural sense; and it is multi-inhabited by the varying nationalities of ship-owners, managers, officers and multinational crews, and the fact that ships are registered under so called ‘foreign’ or international flags.