Strefa Schengen w dobie kryzysu imigracyjnego

This article or writing aims to discuss the application of technology and certain mechanism as the impact of a disruptive era on internal border control in the Schengen area. The problem is focused on the internal border system which got reintroduced as a countermeasure against the 2015 Migrant Crisis in Europe. The analysis conducted in this research will measure whether the application of technology gives a practical benefit in alleviating internal border controls or negative impact such as discrimination towards refugees and immigrants in the Schengen area. In order to approach this problem a theoretical reference is used from international relations’ perspective, as a part of the political science greater scope on the issue. The data is collected through library research and analyzed qualitatively. This study concludes that various improvements and improvisation were made in the implementation of border controls. There are several steps taken by the EU for border control checks by utilizing technology such as Visa Information System (VIS), Schengen Information System (SIS), European Travel Information and Authorization System (ETIAS), and FRONTEX. These technologies allow Schengen states to share visa data about individual who enters European Union from its various borders, enable seamless cooperation regarding border controls and law enforcement and visitor tracking between countries. This study conclude that the application of innovative technology on internal border control in Schengen Area is well applied and projectively very useful to tackle the security concerns and conflicting interests within the Schengen area and remove the needs of unnecessarily long physical internal border controls.

In The Immigration Crisis in Europe and the U.S.-Mexico Border in the New Era of Heightened Nativism, Victoria Cartycompares the immigration crises in the European Union and the United States. Beginning in 2014, the Arab Spring upheavals and failed states in Northern Africa and the Middle East overwhelmed many European countries which the European Union system was not prepared for. In the Americas, failed states in Central America such as Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador also led to an unexpected influx of immigrants to the United States, many of them unaccompanied minors, fleeing gangs, violence and poverty. In The Immigration Crisis in Europe and the U.S.-Mexico Border, Carty studies theories of immigration, social movements, and critical race theory to provide a better understanding of the current immigration crises in Europe and the United States. Carty shows that the high volume of immigration in both the EU and the United States has led to a resurgence of nativist sentiments and white supremacy groups.

In The Immigration Crisis in Europe and the U.S.-Mexico Border in the New Era of Heightened Nativism, Victoria Cartycompares the immigration crises in the European Union and the United States. Beginning in 2014, the Arab Spring upheavals and failed states in Northern Africa and the Middle East overwhelmed many European countries which the European Union system was not prepared for. In the Americas, failed states in Central America such as Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador also led to an unexpected influx of immigrants to the United States, many of them unaccompanied minors, fleeing gangs, violence and poverty. In The Immigration Crisis in Europe and the U.S.-Mexico Border, Carty studies theories of immigration, social movements, and critical race theory to provide a better understanding of the current immigration crises in Europe and the United States. Carty shows that the high volume of immigration in both the EU and the United States has led to a resurgence of nativist sentiments and white supremacy groups.

In 2014 the number of issues discussing immigrants in the EU is 24% and by 2015 by 38%. And Euroscepticism is due to immigrants in Sweden at 48% while in Denmark it is 55% and both are Nordic countries. This is the reason why this paper is made. This paper will discuss the impact of Schengen policy on Euroscepticism in the Nordic. The approach that will be used is Globalization, welfare state and national interest. Globalization will be implemented in the form of schengen policy that causes the immigrant crisis in the Nordic. Nordic became the main goal of immigrants because it is a welfare state that has social security. And social security is a national interest maintained by native Nordic communities from immigrant immigrants to emerge euroscepticism. The effect was that a border control policy was made by the Nordic governments to press the immigrants who came and set up border patrols between the Nordic countries themselves. Keywords: Schengen, Immigrant, Euroscepticism, Nordic, Border Control

This article explores the applicability of democratic functionalism as a theoretical framework explaining mechanisms of European Union (EU) politicization during immigration crises. Since most existing studies on the politicization of EU crisis situations focus on the Euro crisis, it is unclear if and how the politicization of EU immigration crises differs. Drawing on a 2011 crisis with legislative implications for the free movement of people in the Schengen Area, the article illustrates that immigration crises are politicized along exclusionary identities rather than along pro-/anti-European lines—as expected by democratic functionalism. Moreover, unlike in the Euro crisis, the 2011 case illustrates how the media can be instrumentalized by governments during immigration crises, with little political mobilization from the public. This case is relevant given the widespread politicization of the 2015 refugee crisis, which conversely attracted close media attention and caused serious public concern. As it stands, democratic functionalism is shown to lack a conceptualization of how much and for how long an issue needs to be contested in the European public sphere for the mechanisms of EU politicization described by the theory to hold.

The EU was founded on the project of “Europe without borders”, which means elimination of internal borders between Member States according to Article 26 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The counterpart of this objective has been the transfer of the controls to the external EU borders. In the Schengen area, external borders are controlled by common principles and procedures encompassed in the 2016 Schengen Borders Code. Member States have negotiated the Schengen agreement to maintain such external border controls, with the aim of protecting their citizens from various dangers and guaranteeing their national migration policies towards third-country nationals. Member States have therefore transposed the function of national border controls to the external EU borders. Cross-border cooperation within the EU has developed to reinforce the Schengen Space of free movement and has been jeopardized by the unorganized massive peak arrivals of migrants in 2015. This article analyses whether the 2015 Schengen crisis confirms the security-orientated approach or not, specifically as the crisis confronts the EU with national claims to recover the control of internal borders. It has been argued that this movement is proof of the resilience of Westphalian borders. This article is an attempt to show how European judicial power tried to limit such a national re-appropriation of borders, leading to a functional distinction between internal and external borders that may allow a departure from an exclusive security-orientated approach of external borders of the European Union towards a more cohesive approach to controls at EU external borders.

The creation of pan-European centralised databases that process the personal data of non-EU citizens is inextricably linked with the emergence of ‘a Europe without internal frontiers’. The story begins in the mid-1980s with the evolution of European integration and the addition of borders to the list of responsibilities shared by the Member States and the EU (then European Community). In parallel, a more limited number of Member States decided to abolish their internal border controls within the framework of the so-called Schengen Agreement and Convention:1 a person allowed to enter the territory of one of the participating countries was automatically permitted to circulate within the Schengen area, without being subjected again to checks at the border. As irregular migrants and criminals were not excluded from free circulation, the dismantlement of internal checks was accompanied by so-called compensatory or flanking measures providing for, among other things, a common set of rules on external borders, short-stay visas and asylum applications.2 With the Treaty of Amsterdam, the law developed under the Schengen Convention, the so-called Schengen acquis, was integrated within EU law.3 At the same time, the EU competence in Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) that had been introduced with the Maastricht Treaty was modified to include the overarching objective of establishing an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ).4 Since then, a substantial corpus of legislation regulating access to, stay in and removal from the Schengen area has been progressively constructed.5 Efforts to control the movement of non-EU nationals within the Schengen area have been coupled with efforts to prevent them from reaching the EU external border,6 thus necessitating action outside the physical border.7 In all of these developments, the growing tendency to associate non-EU nationals with irregular migration and criminality has been critical. Asylum and visa applications, as well as entry and exit procedures, have been instrumentalised for the purpose of the prevention and investigation of crimes, particularly of terrorism.8 More broadly speaking, security considerations have had a major impact in determining the objectives and rules of immigration control instruments.9

Since 2014, the refugee crisis has determined a sharp increase in the number of unauthorized arrivals on the Italian shores. However, contrary to what happened in other less affected European Union countries, the Italian government has not reacted with an antiimmigration policy. Rather, it has tried to reconcile the overarching imperative of a full compliance with EU norms regulating external border controls with the observance of the most compelling humanitarian obligations. The results have been mixed. Both the functionalist bias that is inherent in the administrative action and the legislative inertia during the crisis have produced a detrimental impact on the fundamental freedoms of the migrants. The Article addresses four main constitutional challenges: (1) The lack of legislative authorization for the imposition of coercive means in the context of the “hotspot approach”; (2) the deficiencies of the Italian system for the reception of asylum seekers and refugees, which became a source of destabilization of the Dublin system and the Schengen area; (3) the low level of due process protection that is guaranteed to migrants that are subject to return procedures; and (4) the problematic need to cooperate with third countries that do not adequately protect human rights. The Italian case illustrates a distinctive, yet more general trend. For member states who are geographically exposed to migration flows and whose borders overlap with the external borders of the Schengen area, developing an antiimmigration or anti-EU policy would be short-sighted and self-defeating. Those states need more—rather than less—Europe because they cannot stop the migration inflow. And they need to effectively manage it because it is the only way to keep the Schengen area alive—and not to be excluded from it.

As a direct response to the migrations of 2015, seven Schengen member states re-introduced border controls at their national borders, with five of them extending these controls continuously since then. Citing the impact of migration movements, they invoked the clauses of the Schengen Borders Code (SBC) temporarily allowing for such measures in order to counter exceptional threats. Based on a qualitative analysis of the notifications of the member states in question to the European Commission and its response, we examine how migration and migratory movements have been framed as a security issue in order to legitimise the extension of border controls. Drawing on critical security theory and the different conceptualisations of threat-based and risk-based security, we show that despite the frequent invocation of a frame of threat – as mandated by the SBC –, the underlying rationales for upholding border controls are progressively constructed along a frame of risk. This is consistent with a prevalence of risk-based conceptions of security at the level of the European Union. We conclude that the shift from threat-based rationales to risk-based conceptualisations of security undermine the spirit of the Schengen area as an area of free circulation since they tend to normalize the hitherto exceptional measure of internal border controls.

The idea of Schengen as a vast area without (inner) borders has been active since 1984. For a long time, the idea of a “borderless Europe” thrived because external borders of the Schengen area were adequately protected. However, after 2005, when it was said that Schengen had come to epitomise freedom, security, and European success, the first cracks in the mutual trust among the Member States began appearing and became obvious in 2011 during the French-Italian row when France introduced border controls with Italy. The migrant crisis in 2015 with the reintroduction of numerous (and long lasting) inner border controls showed how the Schengen area is in reality fragile. This chapter deals with the current situation in the Schengen area and tries to show whether Schengen can survive as an undisputedly important achievement in the process of Europeanisation. However, while coping with the shortcomings of Schengen and establishing stronger and more efficient controls on the external border, protection of individual human rights must not be neglected.

Розглянуто проблему сучасної міграційної кризи в країнах ЄС, основні загрози безпеки зовнішніх кордонів ЄС та загострення міжетнічних конфліктів. Проаналізовано сучасну міграційну політику країн ЄС, розкрито основні підходи до вирішення міграційних проблем, висвітлено проблеми інтеграції мігрантів у європейські суспільства, заходи, які застосовують окремі європейські держави у боротьбі із нелегальною міграцією, а також наголошено на необхідності вдосконалення сучасної міграційної політики країн ЄС, розробки нових умов та принципів адаптації мігрантів, що застосовуватимуться Україною. Відзначено, що прагнення України стати рівноправним членом світової та європейської спільноти вимагає від нашої держави неухильного дотримання міжнародних угод та стандартів у сфері захисту прав людини, одним з яких є свобода вільного переміщення громадян. Україна, в силу свого геополітичного розташування, стала транзитною країною для багатьох шукачів кращого життя. У цьому потоці певний відсоток становлять люди, що змушені шукати притулок. Ці люди не можуть розраховувати на захист своїх урядів, і в цьому відрізняються від інших мігрантів, у яких би тяжких умовах ці мігранти не знаходилися, а також від інших груп людей, які мають потребу в гуманітарному захисті. Також автор намагається проаналізувати питання нелегальної міграції до країн європейського континенту, що було викликано і спровоковано напливом біженців із територій, де активно ведуться військові дії та масові збройні конфлікти; робиться спроба висловлення пропозицій та шляхів їх розв’язання. Також сформульовано поняття «європейська міграційна криза», що застосовується для визначення ситуації, яка склалася в країнах Європейського Союзу внаслідок процесів нелегальної міграції біженців. Проаналізовано ключові проблеми нелегальної міграції, розглянуто основні заходи, що здійснюються ЄС задля врегулювання напливу мігрантів, визначено рівень їх ефективності. Акцентовано увагу на необхідності вдосконалення міграційної політики як на рівні країн-учасниць ЄС, України, так і Європейським Союзом загалом.

<p>Strefa Schengen stanowi terytorium, na którym jest zagwarantowany swobodny przepływ osób. Jest obszarem, na którym została zniesiona kontrola graniczna na granicach wewnętrznych oraz stosowane są ściśle określone, jednolite zasady dotyczące kontroli na granicach zewnętrznych. W związku z powstaniem tzw. deficytu bezpieczeństwa na granicach wewnętrznych wdrożono instrumenty kompensujące owo zniesienie kontroli. Wśród najważniejszych należy wymienić utworzenie Systemu Informacyjnego Schengen w 1995 roku. Uległ on jednak przekształceniu w 2013 roku w System Informacyjny Schengen drugiej generacji w związku z powstaniem nowych i wzrostem już istniejących zagrożeń będących efektem głównie zwiększenia liczby państw członkowskich strefy Schengen. System ten jest obecnie jednym z nadrzędnych instrumentów umożliwiających transgraniczną wymianę danych o osobach i przedmiotach stanowiących zagrożenie dla bezpieczeństwa, zdrowia oraz porządku publicznego. Zapewnia organom wyznaczonym przez kraje (strony porozumienia) dostęp do baz danych gromadzących wpisy dzięki zautomatyzowanej procedurze wyszukiwania. System Informacyjny Schengen drugiej generacji jest złożony z systemu centralnego i podległych mu systemów krajowych w poszczególnych państwach członkowskich, co ma się przyczynić do zapewnienia wysokiego poziomu bezpieczeństwa obywateli Unii Europejskiej oraz strefy Schengen. </p>

The Schengen area is a unique structure and one of the European Union's greatest achievements allowing people to move freely within its borders. However, the factors such as the refugee crisis and the influx of asylum seekers into Europe have led several Member States to reintroduce border controls at their internal borders. The aim of the research is to explore the Schengen area, the challenges of its existence and the need for reform. In order to implement the aim of the research, the authors have determined the following tasks of the research: 1) to explore and analyse the Schengen area and the reforms taking place in it; 2) to explore the challenges of the existence of the Schengen area; 3) based on the results obtained in the research, to draw conclusions and develop proposals. The study summarizes the reforms implemented and planned in the Schengen area, evaluates the existing challenges and relevance of the reforms to overcome them. As a result of the study, the authors conclude that it is necessary to ensure the Member States adopt measures to restore the proper functioning of the Schengen area and do not request extension of the reintroduction of the border control at the internal borders.

The article analyzes the impact of the European immigration crisis on disintegration processes in the European Union. After the presentation of the genesis and development of the immigration crisis in Europe after 2015 author, attempts to show the existing differences between countries in the context of the current immigration crisis. The final part of the study shows the source of the existing differences between the Member States. An attempt was also made to assess the consequences for the European Union of further intensification of disintegration processes.

From Geographic and Territorial Borders to Normative and Personal Borders Rule of Law and the Nature of European Borders