欧洲的“其他”开放边境区:英国脱欧阴影下的共同旅游区

Q1 Social Sciences
G. Butler, G. Barrett
{"title":"欧洲的“其他”开放边境区:英国脱欧阴影下的共同旅游区","authors":"G. Butler, G. Barrett","doi":"10.1017/CEL.2018.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In recent years, the Schengen Area—and the suppression within its territory of border controls—has become a strong focus of attention. This article focuses on another region of Europe where such controls have been suppressed: the Common Travel Area (‘CTA’). Historically, both Ireland and the United Kingdom have rejected membership of the Schengen system—albeit securing certain ‘opt-in’ rights—and instead maintained the CTA between their respective jurisdictions. The CTA has, however, garnered relatively little public attention until recently, when concerns as to the implications of Brexit for the maintenance of an open border between Ireland and Northern Ireland have gained ground, and threatened to be a deal breaker in the negotiations under Article 50 TEU on UK exit from the EU (‘Brexit’). This article examines the background to the CTA, exploring its surprisingly fluid legal framework; its development in the legal systems of Ireland and the United Kingdom; and subsequently, how it was exempted from what is now EU law as the Schengen arrangements were integrated into the Union. The recent introduction of the British-Irish Visa Scheme, which formalises some visa rules regarding citizens of third states, and which tends in the direction of consolidating CTA arrangements, is also examined. The article further explores the challenges that confront the CTA in coping with the outcome of the June 2016 Brexit referendum, which should result in the UK leaving the European Union in March 2019, and the implications of Brexit for the CTA. Finally, it seeks to identify some key characteristics of the CTA in light of experience to date.","PeriodicalId":52109,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies","volume":"20 1","pages":"252 - 286"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/CEL.2018.10","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Europe’s ‘Other’ Open-Border Zone: The Common Travel Area under the Shadow of Brexit\",\"authors\":\"G. Butler, G. Barrett\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/CEL.2018.10\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In recent years, the Schengen Area—and the suppression within its territory of border controls—has become a strong focus of attention. This article focuses on another region of Europe where such controls have been suppressed: the Common Travel Area (‘CTA’). Historically, both Ireland and the United Kingdom have rejected membership of the Schengen system—albeit securing certain ‘opt-in’ rights—and instead maintained the CTA between their respective jurisdictions. The CTA has, however, garnered relatively little public attention until recently, when concerns as to the implications of Brexit for the maintenance of an open border between Ireland and Northern Ireland have gained ground, and threatened to be a deal breaker in the negotiations under Article 50 TEU on UK exit from the EU (‘Brexit’). This article examines the background to the CTA, exploring its surprisingly fluid legal framework; its development in the legal systems of Ireland and the United Kingdom; and subsequently, how it was exempted from what is now EU law as the Schengen arrangements were integrated into the Union. The recent introduction of the British-Irish Visa Scheme, which formalises some visa rules regarding citizens of third states, and which tends in the direction of consolidating CTA arrangements, is also examined. The article further explores the challenges that confront the CTA in coping with the outcome of the June 2016 Brexit referendum, which should result in the UK leaving the European Union in March 2019, and the implications of Brexit for the CTA. Finally, it seeks to identify some key characteristics of the CTA in light of experience to date.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52109,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"252 - 286\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/CEL.2018.10\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/CEL.2018.10\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/CEL.2018.10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要近年来,申根区及其境内边境管制的镇压已成为人们关注的焦点。这篇文章关注的是欧洲另一个此类控制被抑制的地区:共同旅行区(“TA”)。从历史上看,爱尔兰和英国都拒绝加入申根体系——尽管确保了某些“选择加入”的权利——而是在各自的司法管辖区之间维持CTA。然而,直到最近,英国脱欧对维护爱尔兰和北爱尔兰之间开放边界的影响引起了公众的关注,并有可能破坏根据第50条标准箱就英国退出欧盟(“脱欧”)进行的谈判。本文考察了CTA的背景,探讨了其令人惊讶的流动性法律框架;其在爱尔兰和联合王国法律体系中的发展;随后,随着申根安排融入欧盟,它如何被免除现在的欧盟法律的约束。最近引入的英国-爱尔兰签证计划也受到了审查,该计划正式制定了一些关于第三国公民的签证规则,并倾向于巩固CTA安排。文章进一步探讨了CTA在应对2016年6月英国脱欧公投结果时面临的挑战,该公投将导致英国于2019年3月脱离欧盟,以及脱欧对CTA的影响。最后,它试图根据迄今为止的经验来确定CTA的一些关键特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Europe’s ‘Other’ Open-Border Zone: The Common Travel Area under the Shadow of Brexit
Abstract In recent years, the Schengen Area—and the suppression within its territory of border controls—has become a strong focus of attention. This article focuses on another region of Europe where such controls have been suppressed: the Common Travel Area (‘CTA’). Historically, both Ireland and the United Kingdom have rejected membership of the Schengen system—albeit securing certain ‘opt-in’ rights—and instead maintained the CTA between their respective jurisdictions. The CTA has, however, garnered relatively little public attention until recently, when concerns as to the implications of Brexit for the maintenance of an open border between Ireland and Northern Ireland have gained ground, and threatened to be a deal breaker in the negotiations under Article 50 TEU on UK exit from the EU (‘Brexit’). This article examines the background to the CTA, exploring its surprisingly fluid legal framework; its development in the legal systems of Ireland and the United Kingdom; and subsequently, how it was exempted from what is now EU law as the Schengen arrangements were integrated into the Union. The recent introduction of the British-Irish Visa Scheme, which formalises some visa rules regarding citizens of third states, and which tends in the direction of consolidating CTA arrangements, is also examined. The article further explores the challenges that confront the CTA in coping with the outcome of the June 2016 Brexit referendum, which should result in the UK leaving the European Union in March 2019, and the implications of Brexit for the CTA. Finally, it seeks to identify some key characteristics of the CTA in light of experience to date.
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
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
期刊介绍: The Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies (CYELS) offers authors and readers a space for sustained reflection and conversation about the challenges facing Europe and the diverse legal contexts in which those challenges are addressed. It identifies European Legal Studies as a broad field of legal enquiry encompassing not only European Union law but also the law emanating from the Council of Europe; comparative European public and private law; and national law in its interaction with European legal sources. The Yearbook is a publication of the Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge.
×
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