Justifying Control: EU Border Security and the Shifting Boundaries of Political Arrangement



In recent years, EU border control activities have experienced a double condition of being constantly on trial and perpetually under scrutiny. Controversies unfold over the costs, feasibility and priorities of border control, the necessity and proportionality of existing, planned or proposed measures, the deadliness and challenges to fundamental rights and freedoms of border control practices. A constant flow of opinions, impact assessments, feasibility studies, activity reports and hearings address concerns related to budgetary discipline, practicality, political opportunity or fit with the core principles and values of the spirit and letter of EU law. While it is always possible to engage with these controversies by adopting an evaluative gaze, that is assessing the extent to which measures, initiatives or plans are reliably assessed and/or live up to their expected outcomes, this chapter argues that much can be gained by examining this double condition in terms of justification. Asking how, rather than whether, a given measure is justified shifts the discussion on EU borders and security more generally in two ways. First, it highlights the political work that mundane and proliferating policy practices such as impact assessments or feasibility studies do. It draws attention to the efforts put into building equivalence between a specific measure and broader practical repertoires of justification and legitimacy. Second, thinking with justification highlights the ways in which EU border control is not only about adopting the ‘right’ measure—the efficient, proportionate or acceptable measure—but also involves shifting the boundaries of what is considered justifiable.


Border control Security European Union Justification 


  1. Adler, E., & Pouliot, V. (2011). International practices. International Theory, 3(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amicelle, A., Aradau, C., & Jeandesboz, J. (2015). Questioning security devices: Performativity, resistance, politics. Security Dialogue, 46(4), 293–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amoore, L. (2006). Biometric borders: Governing mobilities in the war on terror. Political Geography, 25(3), 336–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aradau, C., & Van Munster, R. (2007). Governing terrorism through risk: Taking precautions, (un)knowing the future. European Journal of International Relations, 13(1), 89–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balzacq, T. (2005). The three faces of securitization: Political agency, audience and context. European Journal of International Relations, 11(2), 171–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balzacq, T., Basaran, T., Bigo, D., Guittet, E.-P., & Olsson, C. (2010). Security practices. In R. A. Denemark (Ed.), International studies encyclopedia online. Wiley-Blackwell: Malden, MA. doi: 10.1111/b.9781444336597.2010.x.Google Scholar
  7. Bigo, D. (1996). Polices en réseaux: l’expérience européenne. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
  8. Bigo, D. (2002). Security and immigration: Towards a critique of the governmentality of unease. Alternatives, 27(Special issue), 63–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bigo, D. (2008). Security: A field left fallow. In M. Dillon & A. W. Neal (Eds.), Foucault on security, politics and war (pp. 93–114). Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Bigo, D. (2011). Pierre Bourdieu and international relations: Power of practices, practices of power. International Political Sociology, 5(3), 225–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bigo, D. (2014). The (in) securitization practices of the three universes of EU border control: Military/Navy–border guards/police–database analysts. Security Dialogue, 45(3), 209–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bigo, D., Carrera, S., González Fuster, G., Guild, E., de Hert, P., Jeandesboz, J., & Papakonstantinou, V. (2011). Towards a new EU legal framework for data protection and privacy. Brussels: European Parliament. PE 453.216.Google Scholar
  13. Bigo, D., Carrera, S., Hayes, B., Hernanz, N., & Jeandesboz, J. (2012). Evaluating current and forthcoming proposals on JHA databases and a smart borders system at EU external borders. Brussels: European Parliament. PE 462.513.Google Scholar
  14. Boltanski, L. (2011). On critique: A sociology of emancipation. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  15. Boltanski, L., & Claverie, E. (2007). Du monde social en tant que scène d’un procès. In N. Offenstadt & S. Van Damme (Eds.), Affaires, scandales et grandes causes: De Socrate à Pinochet (pp. 395–452). Paris: Stock.Google Scholar
  16. Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (1999). The sociology of critical capacity. European Journal of Social Theory, 2(3), 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Bourdieu, P. (1994). Rethinking the state: Genesis and structure of the bureaucratic field. Sociological Theory, 12(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. c.a.s.e. collective. (2006). Critical approaches to security in Europe: A networked manifesto. Security Dialogue, 37(4), 443–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ciută, F. (2009). Security and the problem of context: A hermeneutical critique of securitisation theory. Review of International Studies, 35(2), 301–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cox, R. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium—Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. De Hert, P., & Bellanova, R. (2011). Transatlantic cooperation on travellers’ data processing: From sorting countries to sorting individuals. Washington: Migration Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  24. Didier, E. (2014). Introduction: Alain Desrosières, savant essentiel et homme de qualité. In A. Desrosières (Ed.), Prouver et gouverner: Une analyse politique des statistisques publiques. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  25. Epstein, C. (2007). Guilty bodies, productive bodies, destructive bodies: Crossing the biometric borders. International Political Sociology, 1(2), 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. European Commission. (2004). Proposal for a Regulation to the European Parliament and to the Council concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data between Member States on short stay-visasExtended impact assessment. Brussels: European Commission, SEC. 2004. 1628.Google Scholar
  27. European Commission. (2011). Smart bordersOptions and the way ahead. Brussels: European Commission, COM. 2011. 680 final.Google Scholar
  28. European Commission. (2013a). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) to register entry and exit data of third country nationals crossing the external borders of the Member States of the European Union. Brussels: European Commission, COM. 2013. 95 final.Google Scholar
  29. European Commission. (2013b). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Registered Traveller Programme. Brussels: European Commission, COM. 2013. 97 final.Google Scholar
  30. European Commission. (2013c). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 as regards the use of the Entry/Exit System (EES) and the Registered Traveller Programme (RTP). Brussels: European Commission, COM. 2013. 96 final.Google Scholar
  31. European Data Protection Supervisor. (2013). Smart borders: Key proposal is costly, unproven and intrusive. Brussels: EDPS. Press Release 2013/08.Google Scholar
  32. Haahr, J. H., & Walters, W. (2005). Governing Europe: Discourse, governmentality and European integration. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Herz, J. (1950). Ideational internationalism and the security dilemma. World Politics, 2(2), 157–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Huysmans, J. (1998). Security! What do you mean? From concept to thick signifier. European Journal of International Relations, 4(2), 226–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Huysmans, J. (2006). The politics of insecurity: Fear, migration and asylum in the EU. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Huysmans, J. (2014). Security unbound: Enacting democratic limits. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Jagd, S. (2011). Pragmatic sociology and competing orders of worth in organizations. European Journal of Social Theory, 14(3), 343–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jeandesboz, J. (2015). Putting security in its place: EU security politics, the European neighbourhood policy and the case for practical reflexivity. Journal of International Relations and Development. doi: 10.1057/jird.2015.11.Google Scholar
  39. Jeandesboz, J., Bigo, D., Hayes, B., & Simon, S. (2013). The Commission’s legislative proposals on Smart Borders: Their feasibility and costs. Brussels: European Parliament. PE 493.026.Google Scholar
  40. Lahire, B. (2012). Monde pluriel: Penser l’unité des sciences sociales. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  41. Neal, A. (2009). Securitization and risk at the EU border: The origins of Frontex. Journal of Common Market Studies, 47(2), 333–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schouten, P. (2014). Pragmatic sociology and competing orders of worth in organizations. European Journal of Social Theory, 14(3), 343–359.Google Scholar
  43. Waever, H. (1995). Securitization and desecuritization. In R. Lipschutz (Ed.), On security (pp. 46–86). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Waever, O., (2004, March 17–20). Aberystwyth, Paris, Copenhagen: New ‘schools’ in security theory and their origins between core and periphery. Montreal: Annual Convention of the International Studies Association.Google Scholar
  45. Waever, O. (2011). Politics, security, theory. Security Dialogue, 42(4–5), 465–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zürn, M., & Checkel, J. T. (2005). Getting socialized to build bridges: Constructivism and rationalism, Europe and the nation-state. International Organization, 59(4), 1045–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université libre de Bruxelles, REPIBruxellesBelgium

Personalised recommendations