In this article, we analyse the measures during the Covid-19 pandemic with which the Nordic countries Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland have placed restrictions based on the Free Movement Directive 2004/38/ec and reintroduced internal border controls stipulated in the Schengen Borders Code (Regulation 2016/399). Although currently regulated by these EU rules, Nordic free movement dates back to the common Nordic labour market and Nordic passport union established in the 1950s. Already in the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, all Nordic countries except Sweden decided to reintroduce stricter internal border controls and restrict the entry of EU citizens into their countries. The article analyses these restrictions and illustrates that the countries interpret EU rules differently, lack a common Nordic approach to EU law in the field of free movement, and compromise even the rule of law.
Tackling terrorism was the prime justification in the European Commission’s proposal for the recently adopted anti-money laundering Directive 2018/1673, the first directive on money laundering focused on criminal law rather than administrative measures. We utilize the theory of collective securitization to illustrate how the EU seeks to connect the criminalization of money laundering to the fight against terrorism, requiring, for example, the extension of the criminalization of self-laundering. As an example of how the securitizing rhetoric has not convinced the Member States, we discuss the case of Finland, which is willing to extend its criminalization of self-laundering, even though the legal economy rather than protection from terrorism is considered to constitute the object of legal protection. We demonstrate that the use of terrorism-focused securitization is problematic especially in the context of criminal law, because it challenges the traditional understanding of the objects of legal protection as the basis of criminalization.
This article examines how free movement and mobility are represented in Finnish upper secondary level EU textbooks. There were three such books in use at the time of writing, published in 2007, 2010 and 2014. My methodology is based on the discourse-historical approach outlined by Ruth Wodak, focusing particularly on the various discursive strategies present in the books. I have divided the groups addressed into four levels of mobility thus; ‘EU movers’, ‘restricted EU movers’, ‘migrants’ and ‘refugees’. The EU movers were the most positively viewed group; their mobility was often related to work and studies. ‘Restricted EU movers’ refers to citizens of the countries that joined the EU in the twenty-first century, whose ‘invasion’ was allegedly feared by the older member states. Migrants outside the EU were described, inter alia, as a ‘flow of millions of poor people’ eager to enter Europe. Refugees, in turn, were conflated with people applying for asylum without valid grounds, creating a ‘refugee flow’ dealing with which member states needed to assist each other. Overall, this article concurs with the findings of previous studies: school books tend to present those moving within Europe as more agreeable, with less acceptable stereotypical characteristics being attached to extra-EU migrants and minority groups such as the Roma.
The results show that differentiated integration (DI) is a very low-salience issue in Finland. It has mainly appeared in parliamentary debates but almost never in government programmes, Prime Minister (PM) speeches or European Council statements. The salience of DI models has been highest during a few specific debates in the parliament. In general, Finnish politicians emphasised that the optimal solution in European integration would be to have all states on board but differentiated integration can be an option in order to move forward in certain fields. Finland has wanted to remain in core Europe and participate in all significant integration projects, including most forms of differentiated integration. During the period analysed since 2004, participation in the Prüm Convention and Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) seem to be the only DI instances that some politicians opposed. Usually, it has seemed self-evident that Finland is involved in new initiatives. In the case of PESCO, the Finnish government even took some credit for the launch of cooperation.
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.