Border Controls — Transforming Territorial Borders

  • Valentina Kostadinova
Part of the Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics book series (PSEUP)


This chapter discusses the transformation in the relevant bordering practices and the Commission contribution to this process in the area of border controls, showing the changing inclusion/exclusion dynamics on territorial and identity borders. It highlights as some of the key innovative features of the emerging post-modern bordering practices the hi-tech and selective nature of EU borders. Simultaneously, the chapter also pinpoints the persistence of traditional understandings of border controls, for example, the perceived need for compensatory measures. Also, it argues that in this field, member states have preserved their gate-keeping role, which restricts the scope for Commission action. Nevertheless, the discussion shows important recent instances of Commission entrepreneurial undertakings conducive to de-bordering.


Member State Asylum Seeker Border Control External Border Operational Cooperation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Apap, J., & Carrera, S. (2004). Maintaining Security within Borders: Towards a Permanent State of Emergency in the EU? Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 29(4), 399–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avramopoulos, D. (2014). Fundamental Rights: The Pillar of EU Migration Policy. SPEECH/14/1601, 10 November.Google Scholar
  3. Avramopoulos, D. (2015a). A European Response to Migration: Showing Solidarity and Sharing Responsibility. SPEECH/15/5498, 14 August.Google Scholar
  4. Avramopoulos, D. (2015b). Migration: A Joint European Responsibility. SPEECH/15/4455, 19 February.Google Scholar
  5. Avramopoulos, D. (2015c). Speaking Points by Commissioner Avramopoulos—Borders Package. SPEECH/15/6342, 15 December.Google Scholar
  6. Bache, I., et al. (2015). Politics in the European Union (4th ed.). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  7. Bigo, D. (2006). Liberty, whose Liberty? The Hague Programme and the Conception of Freedom. In T. Balzacq & S. Carrera (Eds.), Security versus Freedom? A Challenge for Europe’s Future (pp. 35–44). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  8. Bovens, L., & Bartsch, A. (2015). Why the Refugee Quota System is Unfair on Poorer Eastern and Southern EU States. Europpblog. Retrieved August 1, 2016, from
  9. Broeders, D. (2007). The New Digital Borders of Europe: EU Databases and the Surveillance of Irregular Migrants. International Sociology, 22(1), 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brouwer, E. (2006). Data Surveillance and Border Control in the EU: Balancing Efficiency and Legal Protection. In T. Balzacq & S. Carrera (Eds.), Security versus Freedom? A Challenge for Europe’s Future (pp. 137–154). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  11. Carrera, S., & Geyer, F. (2007). The Reform Treaty and Justice and Home Affairs: Implications for the Common Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. CEPS Policy Brief, no. 141, August.Google Scholar
  12. Carrera, S., & Gros, D. (2015). No Need for Walls to Equitably Distribute the Refugees. CEPS Commentary, 25 September.Google Scholar
  13. Council of the European Union. (2001). Regulation on Freedom of Movement with a Long-Stay Visa. (EC) No. 1091/2001, 28 May.Google Scholar
  14. ECRE, Amnesty International, HRW. (2004). Refugee and Human Rights Organisations across Europe Express their Deep Concern at the Expected Agreement on Asylum Measures in Breach of International Law. 28 April.Google Scholar
  15. European Commission Communication. (1988). Abolition of Controls of Persons at Intra-Community Borders. COM (88) 640 final, 7 December.Google Scholar
  16. European Commission Communication. (1992). Abolition of Border Controls. SEC (92) 877 final, 8 May.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission Communication. (1993a). Determining the Third Countries whose Nationals Must be in Possession of a Visa when Crossing the External Borders of the Member States. COM (93) 684 final, 10 December.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission Communication. (1995). The Right of Third-Country Nationals to Travel in the Community. COM (95) 346 final, 12 July.Google Scholar
  19. European Commission Communication. (1998a). Follow-up to the Recommendations of the High-Level Panel on the Free Movement of Persons. COM (1998) 403 final, 1 July.Google Scholar
  20. European Commission Communication. (1998b). Towards an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. COM (1998) 459 final, 14 July.Google Scholar
  21. European Commission Communication. (2001a). A Common Policy on Illegal Immigration. COM (2001) 672 final, 15 November.Google Scholar
  22. European Commission Communication. (2001b). The Conditions of Entry and Residence of Third Country Nationals for the Purpose of Paid Employment and Self-Employed Economic Activities. COM (2001) 386 final, 11 July.Google Scholar
  23. European Commission Communication. (2001c). The Right of Citizens of the Union and Their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely within the Territory of the Member States. COM (2001) 257 final, 29 June.Google Scholar
  24. European Commission Communication. (2004a). Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: Assessment of the Tampere Programme and Future Orientations. COM (2004) 401 final, 2 June.Google Scholar
  25. European Commission Communication. (2004b). The Visa Information System (VIS) and the Exchange of Data between Member States on Short-Stay Visas. COM (2004) 835 final, 28 December.Google Scholar
  26. European Commission Communication. (2005a). A Strategy on the External Dimension of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. COM (2005) 491 final, 12 October.Google Scholar
  27. European Commission Communication. (2005b). The Exchange of Information under the principle of Availability. COM (2005) 490 final, 12 October.Google Scholar
  28. European Commission Communication. (2006a). A Community Code on Visas. COM (2006) 403 final, 19 July.Google Scholar
  29. European Commission Communication. (2006b). Policy Priorities in the Fight against Illegal Immigration of Third Country Nationals. COM (2006) 402 final, 19 July.Google Scholar
  30. European Commission Communication. (2007a). Green Paper on the Future Common European Asylum System. COM (2007) 301 final, 6 July.Google Scholar
  31. European Commission Communication. (2011c). On Enhanced Intra-EU Solidarity in the Field of Asylum—An EU Agenda for Better Responsibility-Sharing and More Mutual Trust. COM (2011), 835 final, 2 December.Google Scholar
  32. European Commission Communication. (2015a). A European Agenda on Migration. COM (2015) 240 final, 13 May.Google Scholar
  33. European Commission MEMO. (2005a). Proposal for a Framework Decision on Exchange of Information under the Principle of Availability. MEMO/05/367, 12 October.Google Scholar
  34. European Commission MEMO. (2005b). Schengen: From SIS to SIS II. MEMO/05/188, 1 June.Google Scholar
  35. European Commission MEMO. (2006a). Eurodac: A European Union-wide Electronic System for the Identification of Asylum-seekers. MEMO/06/334, 19 September.Google Scholar
  36. European Commission MEMO. (2010a). The European Asylum Support Office Starts its Activities. MEMO/10/618, 26 November.Google Scholar
  37. European Commission MEMO. (2010b). Schengen Border Code: Application of the Rules Providing for the Absence of Control on Persons Crossing the Internal EU Borders. MEMO/10/488, 13 October.Google Scholar
  38. European Commission MEMO. (2011a). Commissioner Malmström Welcomes Political Agreement to Amend the FRONTEX Regulation. MEMO/11/449, 22 June.Google Scholar
  39. European Commission MEMO. (2011b). EU Migration and Asylum Policies: Main Achievements and the Way Ahead. MEMO/11/329, 24 May.Google Scholar
  40. European Commission MEMO. (2011c). Statement by Cecilia Malmström, EU Commissioner for Home Affairs, on the Announced Permanent Customs Controls in Denmark. MEMO/11/296, 13 May.Google Scholar
  41. European Commission MEMO. (2011d). Statement by Cecilia Malmström, EU Commissioner for Home Affairs, following the Preliminary Ruling of the European Court of Justice on the Transfer of Asylum Seekers under the EU Dublin Regulation. MEMO/11/942, 21 December.Google Scholar
  42. European Commission MEMO. (2011e). Asylum Proposals: A More Proactive and Effective Common European Asylum System. MEMO/11/365, 1 June.Google Scholar
  43. European Commission MEMO. (2011f). Statement by Commissioner Malmström: More Leadership Needed in Member States to Defend Solidarity, Tolerance and Mutual Respect. MEMO/11/443, 22 June.Google Scholar
  44. European Commission MEMO. (2011g). Statement of Cecilia Malmström, European Commissioner for Home Affairs, following the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on the Transfer of Asylum Seekers under the EU Dublin Regulation. MEMO/11/35, 21 January.Google Scholar
  45. European Commission MEMO. (2012a). Improving Visa Procedures. MEMO/12/838, 7 November.Google Scholar
  46. European Commission MEMO. (2013a). A Common European Asylum System. MEMO/13/532, 12 June.Google Scholar
  47. European Commission MEMO. (2013b). Commissioner Malmström Welcomes Agreement on Schengen Proposals. MEMO/13/475, 30 May.Google Scholar
  48. European Commission MEMO. (2013c). EU Action in the Field of Migration and Asylum. MEMO/13/862, 9 October.Google Scholar
  49. European Commission MEMO. (2013e). Statement by EU Commissioner Cecilia Malmström on the Endorsement by Coreper of the Asylum Procedures Directive and the EURODAC Regulation. MEMO/13/293, 27 March.Google Scholar
  50. European Commission MEMO. (2014). Frequently Asked Questions: The EU Return Policy. MEMO/14/243, 28 March.Google Scholar
  51. European Commission MEMO. (2015a). Questions and Answers on the European Agenda on Migration. MEMO/15/4957, 13 May.Google Scholar
  52. European Commission Press Release. (2005a). SIS II: Commission Presents a Set of Proposals for Enlarging the Schengen Area to the New Member States. IP/05/651, 1 June.Google Scholar
  53. European Commission Press Release. (2005b). Schengen Area—The Commission Proposes to Facilitate Cross-Border Surveillance and “Hot Pursuit” between Member States. IP/05/970, 19 July.Google Scholar
  54. European Commission Press Release. (2007a). EU’s Biometric Database Continues to Ensure Effective Management of the Common European Asylum System. IP/07/1347, 18 September.Google Scholar
  55. European Commission Press Release. (2010a). Asylum Procedures: Commission Identifies Shortcomings in Existing Common Standards. IP/10/1100, 8 September.Google Scholar
  56. European Commission Press Release. (2010b). Commission Responds to Calls for Stronger EU Border Management Agency. IP/10/184, 24 February.Google Scholar
  57. European Commission Press Release. (2010c). EU’s Biometric Database Continues to Ensure Effective Management of the Common European Asylum System. IP/10/1023, 3 August.Google Scholar
  58. European Commission Press Release. (2010d). International Protection for Third Country Nationals: Unsatisfying Divergences in Member States’ Implementation of Rules. IP/10/744, 16 June.Google Scholar
  59. European Commission Press Release. (2010e). Schengen Borders Code Evaluated: Commission Concerned about Reported Difficulties for Travellers. IP/10/1329, 13 October.Google Scholar
  60. European Commission Press Release. (2010f). Travelling Without Borders: Commission Proposes Stronger Monitoring of Respect of Schengen Rules. IP/10/1493, 16 November.Google Scholar
  61. European Commission Press Release. (2011a). A Credible, Fair and Effective EU Migration Policy: The Way Forward. IP/11/629, 24 May.Google Scholar
  62. European Commission Press Release. (2011b). European Parliament Adopts Commission Proposal for Stronger EU Border Management Agency. IP/11/1020, 13 September.Google Scholar
  63. European Commission Press Release. (2011c). EUROSUR: ‘Connecting the Dots’ in Border Surveillance. IP/11/1528, 12 December.Google Scholar
  64. European Commission Press Release. (2011d). More Efficient and Secure Visa System goes Live. IP/11/1169, 11 October.Google Scholar
  65. European Commission Press Release. (2011e). Schengen: EU Commission Proposes a European Approach to Better Protect Citizens’ Free Movement. IP/11/1036, 16 September.Google Scholar
  66. European Commission Press Release. (2011f). The Commission Proposes more Efficient Rules for Border Crossing. IP/11/275, 10 March.Google Scholar
  67. European Commission Press Release. (2011g). Asylum Policy: Less Talk more Solidarity. IP/11/1493, 2 December.Google Scholar
  68. European Commission Press Release. (2012a). Commission Carries out the First Schengen ‘Health check’. IP/12/481, 16 May.Google Scholar
  69. European Commission Press Release. (2013a). ‘Smart Borders’: Enhancing Mobility and Security. IP/13/162, 28 February.Google Scholar
  70. European Commission Press Release. (2013b). Commission Reports on EU Free Movement. IP/13/496, 3 June.Google Scholar
  71. European Commission Press Release. (2013c). EUROSUR Kicks Off: New Tools to Save Migrants’ Lives and Prevent Crime at EU Borders. IP/13/1182, 29 November.Google Scholar
  72. European Commission Press Release. (2014a). Shaping the Future of Home Affairs Policies—The Next Phase. IP/14/234, 11 March.Google Scholar
  73. European Commission Press Release. (2014b). Commission Reports on the State of the Schengen Area. IP/14/605, 26 May.Google Scholar
  74. European Commission Press Release. (2014c). A New Era for Justice and Home Affairs Policies. IP/14/2266, 1 December.Google Scholar
  75. European Commission Press Release. (2015a). Commission Issues Opinion in Temporary Reintroduction of Controls at Internal Borders: Germany and Austria Acting in Compliance with Schengen Border Code. IP/15/5900, 23 October.Google Scholar
  76. European Commission Press Release. (2015b). Commission Makes Progress on a European Agenda on Migration. IP/15/4545, 4 March.Google Scholar
  77. European Commission Press Release. (2015c). European Commission Stands by Italy in Coping with Migratory Pressure on Lampedusa. IP/15/4453, 19 February.Google Scholar
  78. European Commission Press Release. (2015d). Managing the Refugee Crisis: Immediate Operational, Budgetary and Legal Measures under the European Agenda on Migration. IP/15/5700, 23 September.Google Scholar
  79. European Commission Press Release. (2015e). Refugee Crisis: European Commission Takes Decisive Action. IP/15/5596, 9 September.Google Scholar
  80. European Commission Press Release. (2016a). Commission Adopts Schengen Evaluation Report on Greece and Proposes Recommendations to Address Deficiencies in External Border Management. IP/16/211, 2 February.Google Scholar
  81. European Commission Press Release. (2016b). Commission Discusses Draft Schengen Evaluation Report on Greece. IP/16/174, 27 January.Google Scholar
  82. Frattini, F. (2005a). The Fight against Terrorism. SPEECH/05/474, 2 September.Google Scholar
  83. Frattini, F. (2005b). The Hague Programme: Our Future Investment in Democratic Stability and Democratic Security. SPEECH/05/377, 23 June.Google Scholar
  84. Gotev, G. (2015). Junker: Commission won’t Change its Migration Agenda. EurActiv, 4 June.Google Scholar
  85. Guild, E. (2005). Who is Entitled to Move and who is in Charge? Understanding the Legal Framework of European Labour Migration. In D. Bigo & E. Guild (Eds.), Controlling Frontiers: Free Movement into and within the Europe (pp. 100–139). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  86. Guild, E., & Carrera, S. (2013). EU Borders and Their Controls. Preventing Unwanted Movement of People in Europe? CEPS Essay, no. 6, November.Google Scholar
  87. Guild, E., et al. (2015). Enhancing the Common European Asylum System and Alternatives to Dublin. CEPS Paper, no. 83, September.Google Scholar
  88. Hix, S., & Høyland, B. (2011). The Political System of the European Union (3rd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  89. Hobbing, P. (2006). Integrated Border Management at the EU Level. In T. Balzacq & S. Carrera (Eds.), Security versus Freedom? A Challenge for Europe’s Future (pp. 155–181). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  90. Huysmans, J. (2000). The European Union and the Securitization of Migration. JCMS, 38(5), 751–777.Google Scholar
  91. Jeandesboz, J. (2008). Reinforcing the Surveillance of EU Borders: The Future Developments of Frontex and EUROSUR. Research Paper, no. 11, August.Google Scholar
  92. Lavenex, S. (2015). Justice and Home Affairs: Institutional Change and Policy Continuity. In H. Wallace, M. Pollack, & A. Young (Eds.), Policy-Making in the European Union (7th ed., pp. 367–387). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  93. Leonard, S. (2009). The Creation of FRONTEX and the Politics of Institutionalisation in the EU External Borders Policy. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 5(3), 371–388.Google Scholar
  94. Malmström, C. (2010a). Current Challenges and Opportunities in Harmonising Asylum and Migration and the Role of Civil Society. SPEECH/10/342, 24 June.Google Scholar
  95. Malmström, C. (2010b). Establishing the Common European Asylum System by 2012—An Ambitious but Feasible Target. SPEECH/10/425, 14 September.Google Scholar
  96. Malmström, C. (2011a). Strengthening the Area without Internal Border Controls to Guarantee Free Movement. SPEECH/11/585, 16 September.Google Scholar
  97. Malmström, C. (2011b). The European Asylum Support Office: Implementing a more Consistent and Fair Asylum Policy. SPEECH/11/453, 19 June.Google Scholar
  98. Malmström, C. (2013a). ‘Smart Borders’: For an Open and Secure Europe. SPEECH/13/172, 28 February.Google Scholar
  99. Malmström, C. (2013b). Progress in EU Migration Policy since 1999. SPEECH/13/702, 13 September.Google Scholar
  100. Malmström, C. (2014a). The Future of Home Affairs: An Open and Secure Europe. SPEECH/14/206, 11 March.Google Scholar
  101. Malmström, C. (2014b). Common European Asylum System: Challenges and Perspectives. SPEECH/14/244, 24 March.Google Scholar
  102. Metcalfe-Hough, V. (2015). The Migration Crisis? Facts, Challenges and Possibilities. ODI Briefing, October.Google Scholar
  103. Neal, A. (2009). Securitization and Risk at the EU Border: The Origins of FRONTEX. JCMS, 47(2), 333–356.Google Scholar
  104. Niemann, A. (2008). Dynamics and Countervailing Pressures on Visa, Asylum and Immigration Policy Treaty Revision: Explaining Change and Stagnation from the Amsterdam IGC to the IGC for 2003–04. JCMS, 46(3), 559–591.Google Scholar
  105. Rittberger, B., & Wonka, A. (2015). EU Agencies. In J. Richardson & S. Mazey (Eds.), European Union: Power and Policy-making (pp. 233–257). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  106. Sterkx, S. (2008). The External Dimension of EU Asylum and Migration Policy: Expanding Fortress Europe? In J. Orbie (Ed.), Europe’s Global Role—External Policies of the European Union (pp. 117–138). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  107. Tampere European Council. (1999). Presidency Conclusions. Retrieved April 18, 2016, from
  108. Traynor, I., & Kingsley, P. (2015). EU Governments Push through Divisive Deal to Share 120000 Refugees. The Guardian, 22 September.Google Scholar
  109. University of Pittsburg. (n.d.). Archive of European Integration. Retrieved February 22, 2016, from,_Security_and_Justice_in_the_EU.html
  110. van Houtum, H., & Boedeltje, F. (2009). Europe’s Shame: Death at the Borders of the EU. Antipode, 41(2), 226–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Vitorino, A. (2003a). Migration as a Resource to be Managed for the Mutual Benefit of Sending and Receiving Countries. SPEECH/03/417, 18.09.2003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valentina Kostadinova
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Economics and International StudiesUniversity of BuckinghamBuckinghamUK

Personalised recommendations