一个悖论的制造:申根的内外

Christina Oelgemöller, L. A. D. Vries, K. Groenendijk
{"title":"一个悖论的制造:申根的内外","authors":"Christina Oelgemöller, L. A. D. Vries, K. Groenendijk","doi":"10.1504/IJMBS.2020.10028677","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is now a large literature discussing 'Fortress Europe' and the character of the Schengen Area, especially how it has established freedom of movement inside at the expense of easy access from the outside. This article challenges this metaphor by going back to the early negotiations around Schengen and shedding light on some of the concerns raised at the time regarding 'compensatory measures', the un/desirable and technological solutions. We do so through a genealogical reading of documents from two different but related archival sources that allows insight into the perceptions of policy-makers at the time when Schengen was negotiated, now that these documents have become partially accessible. We show that consensus around the freedom and regulation of movement internally and control of access at the boundaries was crafted simultaneously - rather than as a 'compensatory measure' - and in the context of efforts to identify the un/desirable and find technological solutions to the 'problem' of free movement. We also discuss how this has transformed our understanding of the place and meaning of freedom of movement such that today it is both taken for granted and under attack.","PeriodicalId":90549,"journal":{"name":"International journal of migration and border studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The crafting of a paradox: Schengen inside and out\",\"authors\":\"Christina Oelgemöller, L. A. D. Vries, K. Groenendijk\",\"doi\":\"10.1504/IJMBS.2020.10028677\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There is now a large literature discussing 'Fortress Europe' and the character of the Schengen Area, especially how it has established freedom of movement inside at the expense of easy access from the outside. This article challenges this metaphor by going back to the early negotiations around Schengen and shedding light on some of the concerns raised at the time regarding 'compensatory measures', the un/desirable and technological solutions. We do so through a genealogical reading of documents from two different but related archival sources that allows insight into the perceptions of policy-makers at the time when Schengen was negotiated, now that these documents have become partially accessible. We show that consensus around the freedom and regulation of movement internally and control of access at the boundaries was crafted simultaneously - rather than as a 'compensatory measure' - and in the context of efforts to identify the un/desirable and find technological solutions to the 'problem' of free movement. We also discuss how this has transformed our understanding of the place and meaning of freedom of movement such that today it is both taken for granted and under attack.\",\"PeriodicalId\":90549,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of migration and border studies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of migration and border studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMBS.2020.10028677\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of migration and border studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMBS.2020.10028677","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

现在有大量文献讨论“欧洲堡垒”和申根区的特点,特别是它是如何以牺牲从外部方便进入为代价,在内部建立行动自由的。这篇文章通过回顾早期围绕申根的谈判来挑战这一比喻,并阐明了当时提出的关于“补偿措施”、联合国/可取的和技术解决方案的一些担忧。我们通过对来自两个不同但相关的档案来源的文件进行家谱阅读来做到这一点,这使得我们能够深入了解申根谈判时决策者的看法,现在这些文件已经部分可以访问了。我们表明,围绕内部行动自由和监管以及边界出入控制的共识是同时形成的,而不是作为一种“补偿措施”,而且是在努力确定不可取的因素并找到解决自由行动“问题”的技术解决方案的背景下形成的。我们还讨论了这是如何改变我们对行动自由的位置和意义的理解的,以至于今天它既被视为理所当然,又受到攻击。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The crafting of a paradox: Schengen inside and out
There is now a large literature discussing 'Fortress Europe' and the character of the Schengen Area, especially how it has established freedom of movement inside at the expense of easy access from the outside. This article challenges this metaphor by going back to the early negotiations around Schengen and shedding light on some of the concerns raised at the time regarding 'compensatory measures', the un/desirable and technological solutions. We do so through a genealogical reading of documents from two different but related archival sources that allows insight into the perceptions of policy-makers at the time when Schengen was negotiated, now that these documents have become partially accessible. We show that consensus around the freedom and regulation of movement internally and control of access at the boundaries was crafted simultaneously - rather than as a 'compensatory measure' - and in the context of efforts to identify the un/desirable and find technological solutions to the 'problem' of free movement. We also discuss how this has transformed our understanding of the place and meaning of freedom of movement such that today it is both taken for granted and under attack.
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