Comparative European Politics

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 192–208 | Cite as

EU migration policy and border controls: from chaotic to cohesive differentiation

  • Ariane Chebel d’AppolloniaEmail author
Original Article


The EU’s migration policy is comprised of a series of initiatives, agreements, regulations, and common standards in various fields—involving different states that participate to different degrees while attempting to address common issues. The resulting complex multilayered framework is commonly analyzed from two opposing perspectives about the continued differentiated integration of the EU and its member states. The first one focuses on issues raised by the chaotic nature of flexible arrangements or an “à la carte” integration in the field of migration. From this perspective, differentiated integration is symptomatic of an existential crisis fueled by EU states unwilling to move toward an “ever closer union.” The second perspective, in contrast, refers to differentiation in migration policy as the inevitable model of differentiated integration in other policy areas—based on the revival of coalition building as a tool of governance in a multispeed Europe. From this perspective, differentiated integration is legitimized as the most effective remedy to prevent the risk of disintegration. The article provides a critical evaluation of differentiated integration in order to analyze the implications of the still unfolding migration crisis. Its aim is to identify a more feasible—and ideally more ethical—institutional system of “cohesive differentiation.”


Migration Border controls Cohesive differentiation Schengen Dublin regulations Asylum crisis 



  1. Adler-Nissen, Rebecca. 2011. Opting Out of an Ever Closer Union: The Integration Doxa and The Management of Sovereignty. West European Politics 34(5): 1092–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agamben, Giorgio. 2005. State of Exception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Balzacq, Thierry, and Sagrario Carrera. 2006. Security Versus Freedom? A Challenge for Europe’s Future. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  4. Benhabib, Seyla. 2004. The Law of the peoples, Distributive Justice, and Migrations. Fordham Law Review 72(5): 1761–1787.Google Scholar
  5. Bigo, Didier. 2005. Frontier Controls in the European Union: Who is in Control? In Controlling Frontiers: Free Movement Into and Within Europe, ed. Didier Bigo and Guild Elspeth. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  6. Bigo, Didier. 1994. The European Internal Security Field: States and Rivalries in a Newly Developing Area of Police Intervention. In Policing Across National Boundaries, ed. M. den Boer and M. Anderson. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  7. Boswell, Christina, and Andrew Geddes. 2011. Migration and Mobility in the European Union. NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chebel d’Appollonia, Ariane. 2012. Frontiers of Fear: Immigration and Insecurity in the United States and Europe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. European Agenda on Migration. 2015. Accessed 19 Mar 2018.
  10. European Commission. 2018. “Security Union: Political Agreement Reached on a Stronger Schengen Information System”. Accessed 3 Sept 2018.
  11. European Commission. 2017a. Revised European Neighbourhood Policy, Press Release (May 18, 2017). Accessed 25 Mar 2018.Google Scholar
  12. European Commission. 2017b. White Paper on the Future of Europe. Accessed 25 Mar 2018.
  13. European Commission. 2017c. The Road From Rome: Managing Migration. Accessed 25 Mar 2018.
  14. European Commission. 2017d. Preserving and Strengthening the Schengen Area. Accessed 25 Mar 2018.
  15. European Commission. 2016a. Study on the Temporary Protection Directive. Brussels: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs. Accessed 22 Mar 2018
  16. European Commission. 2016b. Back to Schengen. A Roadmap. Brussels, 4.3.2016, COM (2016) 120 final. Accessed 22 Mar 2018.
  17. European Commission. 2016c. Towards a Reform of the Common European Asylum System and Enhancing Legal venues to Europe. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council, COM (2016) 197 final. Accessed 20 Mar 2018.
  18. European Commission. 2015. Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union. Accessed 20 Mar 2018.
  19. European Council. 2014. Conclusions, 26–27 June. Accessed 21 Mar 2018.
  20. European Parliament. 2018. Annual Report on the Functioning of the Schengen Area. PV 29.05/2018-18. Accessed 15 Sept 2018.
  21. European Parliament. 2017. Recast Eurodac Regulation. Accessed 15 Sept 2018.
  22. European Parliament. 2016a. Draft Report on Improving the Functioning of the European Union Building on the Potential of the Lisbon Treaty. Accessed 20 Sept 2018.
  23. European Parliament. 2016b. Cost of Non-Schengen: The Impact of Border Controls Within Schengen on The Single Market. Accessed 20 Sept 2018.
  24. Fossum, John Erik. 2015. Democracy and Differentiation in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 22(6): 799–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holzinger, Katharina, and Frank Schimmelfennig. 2012. Differentiated Integration in the European Union: Many Concepts, Sparse Theory, Few Data. Journal of European Public Policy 19(2): 292–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huysmans, Jef. 2005. The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, Migration, and Asylum in the EU. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Immergut, Ellen. 2011. Democratic Theory and Policy Analysis: Four Models of Policy, Politics and Choice. Zeitschrift fur Public Policy 1: 69–86.Google Scholar
  28. Koenig, Nicole. 2015. “A Differentiated View of Differentiated Integration,” Policy Paper, 140. Berlin: Jacques Delors Institute.Google Scholar
  29. Lavenex, Sandra. 2018. Failing Forward’ Towards Which Europe? Organized Hypocrisy in the Common European Asylum System. Journal of Common Market Studies 56(5): 1195–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leruth, Banjamin, and Christopher Lord. 2015. Differentiated Integration in the European Union: A Concept, A Process, A system Or A theory? Journal of European Public Policy 22(6): 754–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leuffen, Dirk, Berthold Rittberger, and Frank Schimmelfennig. 2013. Differentiated Integration. Explaining Variation in the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  32. Lindberg, Leon N., and Stuart A. Scheingold. 1970. Europe’s Would Be Polity: Patterns of Change in the European Community. Englewoods Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  33. Lord, Christopher. 2015. Utopia or Dystopia? Towards a Normative Analysis of Differentiated Integration. Journal of European Public Policy 22(6): 783–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lowi, Theodore. 1972. Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice. Public Administration Review 32(4): 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Morillas, Pol. 2017. Shapes of a Union: From Ever Closer Union to Flexible Differentiation after Brexit. Notes Internacionals CIDOB 166: 1–6.Google Scholar
  36. Papagianni, Georgia. 2006. Institutional and Policy Dynamics of EU Migration Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pirozzi, Nicoletta, Tortola, Pier Dominico, Vai, Lorenzo. 2017. “Differentiated Integration: A Way Forward for Europe,” EU60: Re-founding Europe, Instituto Affari Internationali.Google Scholar
  38. Rome Declaration. 2017. Accessed 6 Oct 2018.
  39. Schimmelfennig, Frank, Leuffen Dirk, and Rittberger Berthold. 2015. The European Union as a System of Differentiated Integration: Interdependence, Politicization, and Differentiation. Journal of European Public Policy 22(6): 764–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stubb, Alexander. 1996. A Categorization of Differentiated Integration. Journal of Common Market Studies 34(2): 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Munster, Rens. 2009. Securitizing Immigration: The Politics of Risk in the EU. NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Verhofstadt, Guy et al. 2018. “Let’s Reinvent Europe to Reclaim its Promise and Heal its Divisions,” The Guardian, September 2018. Accessed 30 Nov 2018.
  43. Warleigh-Lack, Alex. 2015. Differentiated Integration in the European Union: Towards a Comparative Regionalism Perspective. Journal of European Public Policy 22(6): 871–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Urban and Public Service, School of Public Affairs and AdministrationRutgers UniversityNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations