dw.com
Schengen Agreement at 40: Internal Border Controls Undermine Free Movement
The 40th anniversary of the Schengen Agreement is threatened by increased internal border controls within the EU, particularly in Germany and the Netherlands, implemented to manage irregular migration, despite criticism from Luxembourg and ongoing debates about their effectiveness.
- What are the long-term implications of the current challenges to the Schengen system for the future of European integration and cross-border cooperation?
- The upcoming 40th anniversary of the Schengen Agreement may be overshadowed by the current challenges. The effectiveness of internal border controls is debated, with some suggesting they are largely ineffective while creating logistical issues. The long-term solution lies in strengthening external border controls and reforming asylum procedures, which remain a work in progress, likely delaying complete restoration of the borderless vision.
- What is the immediate impact of increased internal border controls within the Schengen Area on the principles of free movement and cooperation among member states?
- The Schengen Agreement, signed in Schengen, Luxembourg in 1985, is facing challenges due to increased internal border controls implemented by several EU countries to manage irregular migration. This is causing friction, as exemplified by Luxembourg's criticism of these measures, which are seen as undermining the core principle of free movement.
- How do the recent actions of Germany and the Netherlands regarding internal border controls reflect the broader challenges of managing migration flows within the EU?
- The reintroduction of internal border controls, particularly by Germany and the Netherlands, reflects a struggle to balance the ideals of the Schengen area with the realities of managing migratory flows. This is despite the EU's assertion that such controls should be exceptional. The inconsistent application and limited effectiveness of these measures raise concerns about their long-term viability and impact on the Schengen system.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the story around the challenges to the Schengen Agreement, emphasizing the increased border controls and criticisms from Luxembourg's interior minister. The headline and introduction immediately establish a negative tone, focusing on the potential failure of the agreement rather than its successes. This framing shapes the reader's perception towards a pessimistic view of the future of the Schengen zone.
Language Bias
The article uses language that leans towards highlighting the negative aspects of the Schengen Agreement's current state. Words and phrases such as "omrachen" (clouded), "неприемлемо" (unacceptable), and "утратило свой блеск" (lost its shine) contribute to a sense of crisis. While the article does cite sources, the selection of quotes and emphasis given to criticism could be perceived as biased. More neutral alternatives might include terms like 'challenges,' 'concerns,' or 'obstacles' instead of words implying immediate failure.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the challenges to the Schengen Agreement, particularly the increased border controls. While it mentions the expansion to include Romania and Bulgaria, it doesn't delve into the potential benefits or long-term positive impacts of this expansion, creating an unbalanced perspective. The article also omits discussion of alternative solutions to border control, such as increased investment in external border security or improved cooperation with transit countries.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between maintaining the ideal of free movement within the Schengen Area and the need for border controls to manage migration. It implies that these two goals are mutually exclusive, neglecting the possibility of finding a balance or alternative solutions.
Sustainable Development Goals
The reintroduction of border controls within the Schengen Area undermines the principle of free movement and cooperation, hindering the goal of strong institutions and regional stability. The article highlights concerns from Luxembourg