Framing immobility: Schengen governance in times of pandemics

ABSTRACT

The uncoordinated closing down of internal borders, lock-downs and quarantines have limited the freedom of movement in Europe as never before. How have EU institutions framed this unprecedented immobility and what lessons can be drawn for Schengen as a highly politicized instrument of governance? Adopting a social constructivist approach, we study how between March and July 2020, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council/European Council have framed the debate around immobility in Europe. This article shows that the emergence of the public health frame has mostly been linked by EU Member States to traditional notions of internal security, demonstrating continuity with prior crises. Appeals to a functional-solidarity frame involving more coordination and non-discrimination were made by the European Commission, mainstream Members of European Parliament (MEPs) as well as some countries such as France and Germany. Justified by the public health emergency and compensated by innovative solutions such as the ‘green lanes’ – proving the adaptability of the EU -, the reintroduction of internal border controls has nonetheless been normalised, raising questions about the future of transnational solidarity.

Acknowledgments

This publication was made possible within the framework of the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence NEXTEUK on the future of EU-UK relations, supported by the Erasmus + funding.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Notes

1. Between 2006 and 2014 there had been 3 to 5 notifications by EU Member States to the European Commission of the temporary reintroduction of internal border controls.

2. 11 notifications by EU Member States were based on this reason in 2016 (out of 13 in total), and 10 notifications were issued each of the following years until 2019.

3. As of 4 November 2020, this includes Austria, France, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Finland and Hungary, all with different motivations ranging from Covid-19 to secondary movements or terrorism.

4. For a full overview of restrictions on freedom of movement, see Dumbrava, C. (2020). ‘Tracking key coronavirus restrictions on movement and social life’. European Parliamentary Research Service, PE 652.018,July 2020.

5. For a full overview of states of emergency, see Binder K. et al (2020). ‘States of emergency in response to the coronavirus crisis: Situation in certain Member States’. European Parliamentary Research Service, PE 649.408, June 2020.

6. Sweden is a different case as preexisting internal border controls were supposed to be implemented until 12 May 2020 and were renewed for an additional six-month period during the pandemic but without mentioning the Covid-19 pandemic.

7. Translated from German

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency [611601-EPP-1-2019-1-UK-EPPJMO-CoE].