The first European Union's (EU) enlargement of the twenty-first century coincides with a period of international tension and transition. Tensions have been apparent over: the war in Iraq, the 'War on Terror', immigration, organised crime, ethnic confrontation, human rights, energy resources and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The EU has made genuine progress in developing its security policies since the launch of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) in the Treaty on European Union (TEU). This book examines the impact that enlargement will have on leadership within the EU, a pre-requisite for policy coherence. It focuses on what has been Europe's most significant region in terms of security challenges and international responses since the end of the Cold War: the Balkan. The book provides an overview of the foreign policy priorities and interests of the new member states (NMS), highlighting areas of match and mismatch with those of the EU fifteen. Counter-terrorism has emerged from the shadows of the EU's Third Pillar, and has been propelled to the forefront of the EU's internal agenda, driven by the demands of the 'War on Terror'. The book discusses the core elements of the EU's emerging common external border management, with a focus on the creation of the EU's new External Borders Agency and the Schengen Borders Code. While the first two are declarative partnership and declarative negativism, the last two reflect the struggle between pragmatism and Soviet-style suspicion of Western bureaucrats.
The EU’s emerging common external border management
After exploring the historical and political background of
co-operation between EU member states on external border issues, this
chapter will identify and analyse the core elements of the
Union’s emerging common external border management, with a
particular focus on the creation of the EU’s new External Borders
Agency and the SchengenBordersCode. It will end with an evaluation of
the progress made
Contesting the meaning of the 2015 refugee crisis in Sweden
threat against general order and internal security’ and said that since ‘other
measures have been deemed insufficient to counter this threat, inner border
control will be effected in accordance with article 25 of the SchengenBorderCode’. (‘Receiving Refugees’, pp. 109–110)
The Migration Agency, in fact, had written a letter to the Ministry of Justice
on 11 November 2015 urging the enforcement of border controls. In this
letter, the Migration Agency pointed to the importance of maintaining the
official Swedish policy of ‘managed migration and the police
-producing countries ( UNHCR 2015 ). Article 26 of the SchengenBorderCode (which
Ireland has opted into) obliges member states to fine any carriers who
carry passengers who are not in possession of the necessary documents.
There exists at present no legal way for a person fleeing to enter the
EU in order to apply for asylum. Of those granted international
protection, 90% arrived through irregular means ( van
Syrian refugees at the borders of Europe and the struggle to choose where
), with Greece, Italy and Spain being the main access points into Europe. In spite of the presence of legal barriers imposed by the SchengenBorderCode and Dublin III Regulation, once the refugees reached the southern European countries, most of them attempted and managed to continue their journeys through so-called internal secondary movements with the aim of reaching central and northern EU countries and being able to choose their final destinations (Denaro, 2016a, 2016d, 2016e ).
effect.’ Article 2(5)
of the SchengenBordersCode defines ‘persons enjoying the
right of free movement under Union law’ as follows:
EL-ENANY PRINT.indd 189
Union citizens within the meaning of Article 20(1) TFEU, and
third-country nationals who are members of the family of a
Union citizen exercising his or her right to free movement
to whom Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council applies; third country nationals and their
family members, whatever their nationality, who, under
after the ‘long summer of migration’ in
2015. After the terrorist attack in Paris in November 2015, fears
about a large influx of people seeking protection provoked several
European countries to suspend the Schengen Convention on the
abolition of internal border controls. In the case of the French-Italian
border (as discussed in chapter 3) this arrangement lasted much
longer and extended further than the temporary suspensions
normally allowed by the SchengenBordersCode.
The Hotspot approach,1 the EU-Turkey agreement and further
plans for externalising asylum
. Ct. Justice (2012).
137 Case C-9/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:483, Eur. Ct. Justice (2017), reference on preliminary ruling. This case challenged the intra-Schengen border-checks practice of the German Bundespolizei under Articles 20 and 21 of Regulation 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of March 15, 2006, establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (SchengenBordersCode), 2006 O.J. (L 105) 1 (EU), and Article 2 of the German Bundespolizeigesetz [BPolG] [Federal Police Law], October 19, 1994, BGBl. I
exercise their power if they deem it necessary. When Germany reintroduced border controls in the autumn of 2015, it used article 26 of the SchengenBordersCode, which grants states the capacity to ‘temporarily reintroduce[e] border control at the internal borders in the event that a serious threat to public policy or internal security has been established’ (DG Migration and Home Affairs 2020 ). Moreover, member states do not always implement or comply with the EU roles they adopt in this policy area. A 2014 report on EU return policy, for example, shows numerous
Given the significant similarities and differences between the welfare states of Northern Europe and their reactions to the perceived 'refugee crisis' of 2015, the book focuses primarily on the three main cases of Denmark, Sweden and Germany. Placed in a wider Northern European context – and illustrated by those chapters that also discuss refugee experiences in Norway and the UK – the Danish, Swedish and German cases are the largest case studies of this edited volume. Thus, the book contributes to debates on the governance of non-citizens and the meaning of displacement, mobility and seeking asylum by providing interdisciplinary analyses of a largely overlooked region of the world, with two specific aims. First, we scrutinize the construction of the 2015 crisis as a response to the large influx of refugees, paying particular attention to the disciplinary discourses and bureaucratic structures that are associated with it. Second, we investigate refugees’ encounters with these bureaucratic structures and consider how these encounters shape hopes for building a new life after displacement. This allows us to show that the mobility of specific segments of the world’s population continues to be seen as a threat and a risk that has to be governed and controlled. Focusing on the Northern European context, our volume interrogates emerging policies and discourses as well as the lived experiences of bureaucratization from the perspective of individuals who find themselves the very objects of bureaucracies.