Schengen, Free Movement and Crises: Links, Effects and Challenges

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 DEMOGRAPHY
S. Mantu
{"title":"Schengen, Free Movement and Crises: Links, Effects and Challenges","authors":"S. Mantu","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This special issue builds on a seminar organised by the Centre for Migration Law (Radboud University, the Netherlands) on 4 November 2020 that set out to reflect on the relationship between Schengen and its free movement regime in the context of two crises: firstly, the so-called 2015 migration crisis that led to the reintroduction of internal border controls to deal with pressures at the external borders of the EU and secondary movements, and secondly, the 2020 COVID-19 crisis that prompted the majority of Schengen states to reintroduce internal border controls as part of their efforts to prevent the spread of the virus. Although ‘crisis’ and ‘reform’ are routinely associated with the Schengen system,1 its resilience stands out, too. Rather than seeing crises as leading to the demise of the Schengen system, they seem to function more as productive moments leading to new forms of governance and new practices.2 The articles of this special issue reflect on how Schengen’s crises have reshaped some of its founding principles, its operation and governance, while paying particular attention to the position of individuals and their rights. The reintroduction of internal border controls in the Schengen area is neither novel nor exceptional, but the scale upon which this has happened in the context of the Corona pandemic is new. According to a recent European Parliamentary Research Service briefing on the Schengen Borders Code (SBC), compared to the period 2006–2014, when internal border controls were","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Migration and Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340110","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This special issue builds on a seminar organised by the Centre for Migration Law (Radboud University, the Netherlands) on 4 November 2020 that set out to reflect on the relationship between Schengen and its free movement regime in the context of two crises: firstly, the so-called 2015 migration crisis that led to the reintroduction of internal border controls to deal with pressures at the external borders of the EU and secondary movements, and secondly, the 2020 COVID-19 crisis that prompted the majority of Schengen states to reintroduce internal border controls as part of their efforts to prevent the spread of the virus. Although ‘crisis’ and ‘reform’ are routinely associated with the Schengen system,1 its resilience stands out, too. Rather than seeing crises as leading to the demise of the Schengen system, they seem to function more as productive moments leading to new forms of governance and new practices.2 The articles of this special issue reflect on how Schengen’s crises have reshaped some of its founding principles, its operation and governance, while paying particular attention to the position of individuals and their rights. The reintroduction of internal border controls in the Schengen area is neither novel nor exceptional, but the scale upon which this has happened in the context of the Corona pandemic is new. According to a recent European Parliamentary Research Service briefing on the Schengen Borders Code (SBC), compared to the period 2006–2014, when internal border controls were
申根、自由流动和危机:联系、影响和挑战
本期特刊以2020年11月4日由移民法中心(荷兰内梅亨大学)组织的研讨会为基础,该研讨会旨在反思在两个危机背景下申根及其自由流动制度之间的关系:首先是所谓的2015年移民危机,导致重新引入内部边境管制,以应对欧盟外部边界和二次流动的压力;其次是2020年的COVID-19危机,促使大多数申根国家重新引入内部边境管制,作为防止病毒传播的努力的一部分。虽然“危机”和“改革”通常与申根体系联系在一起,但申根体系的弹性也很突出。我们并不认为危机会导致申根体系的消亡,它们似乎更像是产生新治理形式和新实践的富有成效的时刻本期特刊的文章反映了申根危机如何重塑了其一些基本原则、运作和治理,同时特别关注个人的地位及其权利。在申根地区重新实施内部边境管制既不新颖也不例外,但在冠状病毒大流行的背景下,这种情况的规模是新的。根据欧洲议会研究服务处最近关于申根边境法规(SBC)的简报,与2006-2014年期间的内部边境管制相比
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Migration and Law is a quarterly journal on migration law and policy with specific emphasis on the European Union, the Council of Europe and migration activities within the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. This journal differs from other migration journals by focusing on both the law and policy within the field of migration, as opposed to examining immigration and migration policies from a wholly sociological perspective. The Journal is the initiative of the Centre for Migration Law of the University of Nijmegen, in co-operation with the Brussels-based Migration Policy Group.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信