Differentiated Implementation of Controls: The Internal Border Regimes of Schengen

IF 2.5 3区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Politics and Governance Pub Date : 2023-06-15 DOI:10.17645/pag.v11i3.6785
J. Fürst
{"title":"Differentiated Implementation of Controls: The Internal Border Regimes of Schengen","authors":"J. Fürst","doi":"10.17645/pag.v11i3.6785","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The use of temporary internal border controls in the Schengen Area reached a new record during the outbreak and spread of the Covid-19 pandemic. Several member states chose to introduce internal border controls that had not done so up until that point, while others have had continuous border controls in place since the refugee crisis in 2015. Other member states have never or only rarely used this temporary opt-out from the principle of free movement of persons inside Schengen. This development has raised the question of whether we are moving towards the disintegration of the Schengen Area as member states make very different choices regarding controls towards their EU neighbours. Comparing the use of internal border controls by all member states, the article suggests the concept of differentiated implementation to explain the variations in internal border regimes among Schengen member states. Focusing on two dimensions of control, the control of movement originating internally or externally to the EU, a typology is developed that conceptualises differentiated implementation as four types of internal border regimes. The analysis illustrates these four types by applying them to the use of controls up until 2022, identifying the grouping of member states. The proposed typology of internal border regimes presented represents an ambition to conceptualise the differences in internal border control use that have previously often been understood as a general problem of the Schengen regime.","PeriodicalId":51598,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics and Governance","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v11i3.6785","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The use of temporary internal border controls in the Schengen Area reached a new record during the outbreak and spread of the Covid-19 pandemic. Several member states chose to introduce internal border controls that had not done so up until that point, while others have had continuous border controls in place since the refugee crisis in 2015. Other member states have never or only rarely used this temporary opt-out from the principle of free movement of persons inside Schengen. This development has raised the question of whether we are moving towards the disintegration of the Schengen Area as member states make very different choices regarding controls towards their EU neighbours. Comparing the use of internal border controls by all member states, the article suggests the concept of differentiated implementation to explain the variations in internal border regimes among Schengen member states. Focusing on two dimensions of control, the control of movement originating internally or externally to the EU, a typology is developed that conceptualises differentiated implementation as four types of internal border regimes. The analysis illustrates these four types by applying them to the use of controls up until 2022, identifying the grouping of member states. The proposed typology of internal border regimes presented represents an ambition to conceptualise the differences in internal border control use that have previously often been understood as a general problem of the Schengen regime.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有区别地实施管制:申根内部边界制度
在2019冠状病毒病大流行爆发和传播期间,申根地区临时内部边境管制的使用创下了新纪录。有几个成员国选择引入在此之前从未实施过的内部边境管制,而另一些国家自2015年难民危机以来一直实施边境管制。其他成员国从未或只是很少使用这种暂时退出申根内部人员自由流动原则的选择。这一事态发展引发了一个问题,即我们是否正在走向申根地区的解体,因为成员国在对其欧盟邻国的管制方面做出了截然不同的选择。通过比较所有申根成员国内部边境管制的使用情况,本文提出了差别化实施的概念来解释申根成员国内部边境制度的差异。着眼于控制的两个维度,即对欧盟内部或外部流动的控制,开发了一种类型学,将差异化实施概念化为四种类型的内部边境制度。该分析通过将这四种类型应用到2022年之前的控制使用中来说明这四种类型,确定了成员国的分组。提出的内部边界制度的类型学代表了将内部边界管制使用的差异概念化的雄心,这些差异以前通常被理解为申根制度的一般问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Politics and Governance
Politics and Governance POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
99
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Politics and Governance is an innovative offering to the world of online publishing in the Political Sciences. An internationally peer-reviewed open access journal, Politics and Governance publishes significant, cutting-edge and multidisciplinary research drawn from all areas of Political Science. Its central aim is thereby to enhance the broad scholarly understanding of the range of contemporary political and governing processes, and impact upon of states, political entities, international organizations, communities, societies and individuals, at international, regional, national and local levels. Submissions that focus upon the political or governance-based dynamics of any of these levels or units of analysis in way that interestingly and effectively brings together conceptual analysis and empirical findings are welcome. Politics and Governance is committed to publishing rigorous and high-quality research. To that end, it undertakes a meticulous editorial process, providing both the academic and policy-making community with the most advanced research on contemporary politics and governance. The journal is an entirely open-access online resource, and its in-house publication process enables it to swiftly disseminate its research findings worldwide, and on a regular basis.
期刊最新文献
Territorial Configurations of School‐to‐Work Outcomes in Europe Strategies for Engaging and Outreaching NEETs in Italy: Insights From Active Labour Policies Public Policy Europeanisation in Response to the Covid‐19 Crisis: The Case of Job Retention Schemes NextGenerationEU and the European Semester: Comparing National Plans and Country‐Specific Recommendations Tested by the Polycrisis: Reforming or Transforming the EU?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1