申根改革的竞争愿景与宪法限制:安全化、逐步超国家化和申根作为身份创造项目的失败

Jonas Bornemann
{"title":"申根改革的竞争愿景与宪法限制:安全化、逐步超国家化和申根作为身份创造项目的失败","authors":"Jonas Bornemann","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.99","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Schengen integration has been home to different visions from the outset. In this vein, it owes much of its success to the fact that it has been both practical and symbolic in nature. However, this equilibrium of different visions has been upset following a series of crises. By prioritizing security considerations over alternative visions of Schengen, some Member States have reintroduced internal border controls on a quasi-permanent basis. Current reform proposals seek to address this situation but may be unable to revive the co-existence of the different visions underpinning the earlier phases of Schengen integration. Rather, as this investigation suggests, the reform that is currently being discussed would reaffirm the nature of Schengen integration as a pan-European security project. While this goes hand-in-hand with elements of supranational governance and coordination, it may impair the role of Schengen as an identity-creating project. This investigation analyzes the elements of the reforms discussed, presents them in the light of different visions of Schengen, and draws attention to possible constitutional limits of its reform.","PeriodicalId":503760,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":"524 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Competing Visions and Constitutional Limits of Schengen Reform: Securitization, Gradual Supranationalization and the Undoing of Schengen as an Identity-Creating Project\",\"authors\":\"Jonas Bornemann\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/glj.2023.99\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Schengen integration has been home to different visions from the outset. In this vein, it owes much of its success to the fact that it has been both practical and symbolic in nature. However, this equilibrium of different visions has been upset following a series of crises. By prioritizing security considerations over alternative visions of Schengen, some Member States have reintroduced internal border controls on a quasi-permanent basis. Current reform proposals seek to address this situation but may be unable to revive the co-existence of the different visions underpinning the earlier phases of Schengen integration. Rather, as this investigation suggests, the reform that is currently being discussed would reaffirm the nature of Schengen integration as a pan-European security project. While this goes hand-in-hand with elements of supranational governance and coordination, it may impair the role of Schengen as an identity-creating project. This investigation analyzes the elements of the reforms discussed, presents them in the light of different visions of Schengen, and draws attention to possible constitutional limits of its reform.\",\"PeriodicalId\":503760,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"German Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"524 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"German Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.99\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"German Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.99","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

申根一体化从一开始就有不同的设想。因此,申根一体化的成功在很大程度上要归功于它的实用性和象征性。然而,在一系列危机之后,这种不同愿景之间的平衡被打破了。一些成员国将安全考虑置于申根的其他愿景之上,重新实行了准永久性的内部边境管制。目前的改革提案试图解决这一问题,但可能无法恢复申根一体化早期阶段不同理念的共存。相反,正如本次调查所表明的,目前正在讨论的改革将重申申根一体化作为泛欧安全项目的性质。虽然这与超国家治理和协调的要素相辅相成,但可能会损害申根作为一个创造身份认同项目的作用。本研究分析了所讨论的改革要素,根据对申根的不同看法对其进行了介绍,并提请注意其改革可能受到的宪法限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Competing Visions and Constitutional Limits of Schengen Reform: Securitization, Gradual Supranationalization and the Undoing of Schengen as an Identity-Creating Project
Schengen integration has been home to different visions from the outset. In this vein, it owes much of its success to the fact that it has been both practical and symbolic in nature. However, this equilibrium of different visions has been upset following a series of crises. By prioritizing security considerations over alternative visions of Schengen, some Member States have reintroduced internal border controls on a quasi-permanent basis. Current reform proposals seek to address this situation but may be unable to revive the co-existence of the different visions underpinning the earlier phases of Schengen integration. Rather, as this investigation suggests, the reform that is currently being discussed would reaffirm the nature of Schengen integration as a pan-European security project. While this goes hand-in-hand with elements of supranational governance and coordination, it may impair the role of Schengen as an identity-creating project. This investigation analyzes the elements of the reforms discussed, presents them in the light of different visions of Schengen, and draws attention to possible constitutional limits of its reform.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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