Since 2015, the collapse of the EU's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice has been widely discussed due to the re-impositions of internal border controls which seemingly undermine the premise of Schengen as a borderless area. Yet, three years later, Schengen is still alive. Employing Krasner's conceptualisation of sovereignty, this article offers a systematic analysis of why Schengen seems to be so resilient by addressing three common, yet inaccurate critiques. Firstly, it claims that re-impositions of internal controls cannot be seen as a violation of Schengen but, contrarily, as an inherent part of it. Secondly, states do not use re-impositions to selfishly regain their sovereignty. Rather, they follow the Schengen Acquis, and re-impositions are but a corrective to the legislation not being observed adequately. Indeed, what seems to define Schengen is the wish to follow the rules, not to change them. Thirdly, as current events demonstrate, if the Schengen area is to be endangered, it will be due to insufficient external border controls, not due to re-impositions or a lack of solidarity.
Od přijetí Lisabonské smlouvy zkoumají odborníci, zda v sektoru energetické politiky dochází k bližší spolupráci mezi členskými státy a institucemi Evropské unie (EU). Překvapivě málo pozornosti bylo však v tomto kontextu doposud věnováno konceptu aktérství, konkrétně pak otázce, zda se EU daří rámovat energetický diskurz v členských státech. Tato stať si klade za cíl zjistit, zda lze EU vnímat jako rámujícího aktéra v českém energetickém diskurzu a zda se její rámující moc liší napříč tématy a žánry politického diskurzu. Metodologicky vychází studie z diskurzně-historického přístupu. Výsledky analýzy poukazují na fakt, že rámování se neliší napříč tématy, ale spíše v závislosti na typu žánru. Zároveň probíhá rámování jak explicitně, tak implicitně, a to při souhlasu i nesouhlasu ČR s politikami EU.
Schengen has faced many difficulties since the very beginning but has proven its resilience. Although scholars tend to associate problems in the Schengen Area with a lack of solidarity, they fail to examine the concept of solidarity thoroughly. This article explores how solidarity in Schengen is perceived by the EU institutions and which of its aspects are emphasised. The methodological framework is based on the Discourse-Historical Approach which enables scholars to study solidarity in Schengen within a broad socio-political context. The theoretical background draws on the concept of solidarity. It follows from the analysis that solidarity in Schengen is inherently linked to external borders. Solidarity connected with internal controls is mentioned rarely, which contradicts the existing research on Schengen. Hence, a more detailed approach to solidarity is needed to interpret the resilience of Schengen. Moreover, the question to be raised is not how much solidarity is expressed or delivered within Schengen but rather which solidarity is concerned?
The article deals with the concept of solidarity in the context of the current refugee crisis. Specifi cally, employing the Discourse-Historical Approach, it explores how solidarity is constructed in the discourse of the EU and in two member states, in Poland and in the Czech Republic which have been very critical of the EUropean approach to refugees from the beginning of the refugee crisis in 2015. As the fi ndings suggest, relocations seem to be the only contested aspect of a more complex solution. On all other initiatives, there is an agreement between the EU and Poland and the Czech Republic even though the discourse might seem escalated at fi rst sight. Moreover, drawing on the theoretical overview, the balancing of solidarity as a value with national interests and focus on security seems to be in line with the theoretical conceptualisation of international solidarity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.