ГЛАСНИК Српског географског друштва 96 (2), 50-64

BULLETIN OF THE SERBIAN GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY 2016

Alfonso Giordano1*

THE NEW POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY OF MIGRATION IN

Abstract: The creation of the Schengen area has modified the political geography of
migration with important implications from a variety of perspectives, all of which affect the
migration management policies of EU member States as well as those of third countries.
On the one hand, the Schengen area established the first supranational border in the
history of Europe; on the other hand, it obliged a small group of countries (those bordering
non-EU States) to monitor the new border, manage refugee flows and repatriate illegal
migrants from third countries, despite often being unprepared to tackle the migration
phenomenon. The policies implemented in both the Mediterranean and continental
countries have revealed a lack of long-term vision in dealing with several migration related
issues. Currently, the absence of a single EU migration policy, the egocentric approach of
some non-Mediterranean European countries and the re-emergence of border walls
characterize the context. Nevertheless, migration flows and terrorism in Europe represent
significant opportunities to strengthen the common European area, rather than weakening
it. Moreover, evidence suggests that such global phenomena are better addressed at a
supranational level rather than on a national basis.

Key words: Schengen, border, mobility, migration policies, Frontex

[email protected]
* LUISS University, Rome, Italy

50
Introduction: between opportunities for European integration and
the challenges of the border

The inseparable link between integration and the border has been evident ever since the
foundations of the European project were laid. Indeed, the Preamble to the Treaty of
Rome declares the intention to "eliminate the barriers which divide Europe"2 and the will
to achieve ever closer union between Member States. This objective required an essential
rethinking of the border concept that may still be necessary today; rather than
representing an element of opposition and division between European actors, the border
must be intended as a shared common area and an element of solidarity between States in
defence of a single external frontier3.
A generic "Europe" has come to be identified by many as "the Mother of all sins" in
the light of the structural difficulties faced under today’s prevailing economic crisis.
However, the benefits acquired through the process of European integration are many
and although often forgotten as soon as they have been obtained, they serve the whole
continent, single States and common citizens alike. Take by way of example the huge yet
incredibly underestimated and mistakenly internalised benefit of peace, that has lasted
over sixty years in an historically belligerent continent, theatre to two world wars; the
freedom of movement without border costs for goods and citizens throughout the whole
of the Union; the Erasmus program that has allowed thousands of young people to have
their qualifications recognised and study in different European countries, getting to know
a range of diverse realities and breaking down prejudices; the introduction of hundreds of
European guidelines and measures regarding the protection of citizens and the
environment, as well as greater liberalisation and competition leading to the reduction of
costs. The whole list would be far too long to reproduce here and would still not include
any of the indirect advantages that this historic project has produced. Naturally, costs
have also been incurred, but these cannot all be attributed to the European Union as we
are popularly led to believe on a regular basis. Objectively, the benefits still far outweigh
the disadvantages.
Recent international events however, above all in terms of migration, have badly
shaken the vision of a unified European area and the protection of its borders, bringing
the European Union to an impasse, stuck half way between the responsibilities of its
respective member States and those of the European institutions themselves. A complex
tangle has ensured that has produced serious consequences for national and pan-
European security concerning two fundamental aspects: the management of Europe’s
external borders – illegal trafficking, irregular migration flows and terrorism – and
reception procedures for those seeking international protection.
Two contrasting and opposing visions and needs have thus arisen: the safeguard of
the European area and the protection of national interests. On the one hand, European
integration has led to the elimination of internal barriers within the European Union,

2 EUR-Lex. Treaty Establishing the Common Economic Community – EEC Treaty. Retrieved from
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=URISERV:xy0023&from=IT
3 In Political Geography, the concepts of border and frontier are notorious for having two different

meanings. For the purposes of this article however, they will be used as synonyms, as is often the
case in much contemporary debate.

51
transcending political, social and economic borders. Freedom of movement is fundamen-
tal to the vision of a Europe without barriers and the construction of a European
community and identity. On the other hand, from an intergovernmental perspective,
territorial security necessarily prevails on the freedom of movement; States have the right
and the duty to exercise their territorial sovereignty though control of their borders and
management of migration flows and it is this control that has recently led to the creation
of both tangible and intangible barriers.
We are thus compelled to ask what will happen to the future of the European project
if national individualism triumphs to the detriment of pan-European unity and solidarity.
There are four main critical factors that may have a susceptible influence in one way or
another on the future of the common European area: the Schengen Agreement for the
Freedom of Movement, the Frontex Agency for Border Management, the Common
Asylum Policy and cooperation with Third Countries.

Schengen: from the creation of the European area to endangered

The creation of the Schengen area – material embodiment of the abstract concept of a
European space – represents one of the most important and tangible results of the project
for European integration, whose final objective is the realisation of an area of freedom,
security and justice (European Communities, 1997). The Schengen Agreement focuses
specifically on a pact of mutual trust and solidarity between member States that has led to
the abolition of barriers and controls along its internal borders; for all intents and
purposes external borders have been "moved" to coincide almost entirely with those of
the whole Schengen area. This implies that every single country, particularly those
situated along the area’s external frontier, assumes responsibility for the control of the
Schengen borders in the interests of the other member States to ensure the highest levels
of internal security. This fundamental commitment implies the ability - and the trust of
the other countries – to control borders (airport borders, land borders and maritime
borders) and to cooperate with all relative State and supranational actors.
The explicit and implicit implications of the Schengen Agreement comprise a variety
of positive elements, but also and above all many weaknesses. By allowing the free
movement of people within its member States, Schengen has radically changed the
political geography of mobility and individual State migration policies have acquired a
previously unheard of supranational dimension. The security and management of
Schengen borders in airports is relatively straightforward, as for example in Austria; land
and maritime borders under significant migratory pressure are, however, much harder to
control, as is the case with Poland and Italy respectively. At the same time, checks at
internal national borders have gradually been abolished, providing foreign immigrants
with the same advantages as EU citizens, whether they be regular or illegal (Morehouse &
Blomfield, 2011).
Essentially, the Schengen Agreement has given rise to a contradiction in terms that
lies at the heart of Europe: on the one hand the Agreement claimed to establish a
supranational border for the first time in the history of Europe; on the other, it handed
the onus of managing that border to a limited number of States, those bordering with
extra-EU countries who also had to assume responsibility for the identification and

52
repatriation of irregular migrants from Third Countries. This difficult situation has been
further complicated by the fact that the initial five signatory States 4 of the Schengen
Agreement have become twenty-six today, twenty-two of which are part of the European
Union and four of which are non-members5. The EU members not part of the Schengen
Agreement include Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia and Romania6, for whom the Treaty has not
yet taken effect and Ireland and the United Kingdom 7 who did not adhere to the
Agreement by exercising the opt-out clause.
The extension of the borders of the Schengen area has produced particularly
ambiguous results. Freedom of movement has increased to our advantage with a
significant economic impact – tourist flows and economic actors have been facilitated –
yet there has also been a rise in the level of risk to internal security and the onus and
responsibility on States that border with extra-Schengen countries has increased, while
perhaps the most worrying result has been the weakening of mutual trust and solidarity
between member States. Evidently, the "original sin" inherent in the Schengen Agreement
from the very beginning –by which (it is worth repeating) only a limited number of States
has been given the onus of controlling a supranational European border – has had serious
political, social and juridical consequences, not just for EU nations and those that border
third countries in the Mediterranean particularly, but indirectly for the whole of the rest
of the Union (Giordano, 2015).
The recent migratory emergency has thus created a profound crisis in the already
complex equilibrium between the need to safeguard freedom of movement within the area
and the need of each single State to protect its own territorial borders from transborder
dangers. The latter principle is indeed protected by the Schengen Border Code that
expressly declares the right to reinstate border controls in the exceptional event of serious
risks to public order and national security8. Although this exception can only be applied
for a maximum of thirty days – provided the other EU countries and European
institutions9 have been informed – it sanctions the right for every State to unilaterally
reinstate internal borders, defaulting on the Schengen acquis at their own discretion.
Obvious examples include the actions undertaken by countries such as Hungary,
Germany, Austria and France who, by reinstating checks along their common borders,
have created an authentic domino effect, calling into question everything that has been
achieved so far. Hungary for example, recently become an important entry point for
migration flows from Africa and the Middle East due to its border with the extra-
Schengen Serbia, has adopted a series of measures that totally violate the principles of

4 Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

the membership of Romania and Bulgaria, justified by concerns raised about these two countries and
their ability to control their external borders, particularly regarding Romania and the borders along
the Black Sea.
7 The specific consequences of Brexit will be the object of discussion for many years to come.
8 EC regulation, N. 562/3006 of the European Parliament and the Council, 15th March 2006.
9 According to the Code: "EU countries and the Commission should consult, at least 10 days before

the date for the reintroduction of border controls, with a view to organising, where appropriate,
mutual cooperation between the Member States and to examining the proportionality of the
measures to the events giving rise to the reintroduction of border control and the threats to public policy
or internal security. The decision to reintroduce border control at internal borders shall be taken in a
transparent manner and the public informed in full thereof, unless there are overriding security reasons for not
doing so".

53
"responsibility" and "solidarity" on which the Schengen Agreement is based. Over recent
years, unable to contrast the mass arrival of migrants along its external borders, it first
adopted penal measures against irregular and illegal immigrants, such as prison
detention and deportation – clearly violating the Common Asylum Policy and the Charter
of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – and has since erected a fence along the
whole of the border with Serbia to check the flow of migrants coming across the Balkans,
one of today’s most well-trodden migration routes (Šantić, 2015), thus breeding feelings
of profound mistrust in other EU member countries.
Moreover, despite Germany’s initial reception of non-registered asylum seekers, in
June 2015 it decided to reinstate controls along the border with the Czech Republic,
Poland and Austria, thus initiating reciprocal actions in those countries who also
reintroduced controls along their own borders, as did Holland shortly after. In a chain
reaction, other European countries reintroduced checks along their borders within the
European area: Germany with Austria, Austria with Italy and Hungary, Slovakia with
Austria and Hungary, the Czech Republic with Austria, and Denmark with Germany. This
trend is almost certainly destined to increase given current migration flows and, not least,
the tragic episodes of terrorism that have led to the intensification of nationalist
movements.
Truth be told, EU States have always considered immigration an exclusively national
responsibility and have therefore failed to put the provisions of the Schengen Agreement
into practice in the application of the Convention. This same legislation did not stop at the
straightforward abolition of borders, instead it stipulated a set of compensatory measures
to stop the freedom of movement from transforming itself into an open invitation for
illegal trafficking of goods or people. In fact, in this case article 17 of the Schengen
Agreement (Eur-Lex, 2000) speaks clearly: "with regard to the movement of persons, the
Parties shall endeavour to abolish checks at common borders and transfer them to their
external borders. To that end they shall endeavour first to harmonise, where necessary,
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions concerning the prohibitions and
restrictions on which the checks are based and to take complementary measures to
safeguard internal security and prevent illegal immigration by nationals of States that are
not members of the European Communities".
In other words, the Schengen Agreement should not be intended solely as a
guarantee for the freedom of movement, rather its ratification foresees a commitment to
achieve uniformity in sectors fundamental to security such as the visa system, cooperation
between police forces and the sharing of important information and responsibilities.
Although some level of uniformity exists today in certain areas of the Schengen acquis,
there is still a lack of consistency in the protection of external borders that represents a
weakness in the system, as well as threatening the security of its internal borders. This
has produced an increase in mistrust between member States and therefore the
reinstatement of controls within the area. It will thus be necessary to work effectively on
coordination between competent institutions and, as a last case hypothesis, plan a reform
of the Schengen system that introduces real sanctions against those States who
contravene the obligations of the Agreement.
Even more worrying than the escalation of border controls within the Schengen area
is the construction of walls, barriers and fences along borders between EU countries, an
authentic step back in time that was not thought possible after the decades of free

54
movement that have brought so many benefits to European States. The Eighties ended
with a Europe proud to have dismantled the Berlin Wall, yet this barrier was an exit
border designed to stop Eastern Germans from emigrating to the West; the government
of East Germany forced citizens to remain within its own territory, restricting their
freedom of movement. Today’s walls are entry borders, that is, they are intended to stop
unwanted people from entering the country, such as those born in unfortunately poor
countries or persecuted in various ways by their governments. This is particularly true in
Eastern Europe where more and more anti-immigration barriers are being erected. For
the first time since before the Second World War, an area once known as "the time bomb
of Europe" is again marked by militarised borders. Hungary has recently finished building
a wall along the border with Serbia, while both Bulgaria and Greece have erected
analogous barriers along their respective borders with Turkey and Macedonia has done
the same along the border with Greece. The one objective that all these States share is to
stop illegal immigrants from entering their own national territories.
The European crisis has not only affected territories on the external borders of the
continent. One example is the dreaded idea of a wall between Austria and Italy.
Construction at Brennero has been blocked for now, yet Austrian military controls have
greatly increased. The Austrians believe that the Italians are not capable of properly
managing migratory traffic and it is difficult to contradict them. The point is that the
border with the blue of the sea cannot be barricaded with trench barriers 10. Another new
wall is also being studied by the British government to stop the transit of migrants from
France across the Calais pass. A barbed wire fence has already been erected with a view to
transforming it into a more solid barrier; indeed, London has announced that work will
shortly begin on a reinforced concrete wall.
At this point, we need to ask ourselves what motivates States to build barriers,
returning to times of closure and opposition that have historically led to tragedy. As
transit countries that do not represent the final destination of those migrating,
governments often claim they are not able to sustain the cost of reception procedures. In
each of these countries however, it is evident that the pressure exercised by anti-
immigration movements represented in parliaments have become the thorn in the side of
governments who are thus forced to respond. Clearly, statistics tell us that walls help
prevent migrants trying to cross borders at specific points, sometimes reducing their
number drastically. However, rather than stopping migration waves, they simply deviate
them towards other less controlled or harder to control borders. Recent research shows
that the construction or strengthening of walls will not change or interrupt the flows.
What counts are the reasons that lie behind the decision to depart: new wars, revolts,
famine (Giordano, 2013) and the worsening of unfavourable climactic conditions
(Giordano & Pagano, 2013) determine the scale of migration.

10 Furthermore, it is important to recall that Italy assumed responsibility for the noble task of
rescuing tens of thousands of refugees from the risk of drowning and death with the Operation Mare
Nostrum, while many European countries preferred to stand back and look the other way, ignoring
the tragedies being consumed in the Mediterranean, as if they were a solely an Italian problem. It is
also true that Italy failed to respect the rules of the Dublin Regulation by allowing some migrants to
pass through without carrying out checks, although everyone now agrees that the Dublin Regulation
has produced some grotesque results – as will be further explained in the rest of this article. It is
likewise true that the issue regarding the Brennero wall was raised by Austria at the same time as a
large migration flow – although it was much reduced at the time – and the approaching presidential
elections in the country.

55
 Migration flows cannot be managed through the erection of barriers as routes change
continuously in response to conditions. When one entrance is closed another one is
sought and in the meantime, no solution has been found that addresses either the ethical
issues that lie behind the departure of migrants, nor the practical problems of managing a
border to protect one’s territory. This is exactly what has been observed at Europe’s
borders over recent years. Migrants, and above all traffickers, have shown that they can
adapt to the changes introduced by the physical or legal barriers erected by individual
States. What emerges from most studies and research and that weighs more heavily than
any other consideration, is the European Union’s basic evasion of the issue. Let it be clear:
this is due to the existence of twenty-eight different and in some cases contrasting
national policies, as well as the national resistance of European States guided by
governments afraid of antagonising their electorates. It is also clear that no single
European electorate sharing the same objectives exists and that nation States respond to
the requests of their own populations, thus creating walls, trenches and barriers between
their territories. The question becomes even more complex when we are dealing with the
sea.

Frontex: bordering on chaos?

While Schengen was meant to facilitate freedom of movement within European territory,
the second link in the chain of a single European migration policy should have been the
Frontex Agency and the guarantee of external border management. The Agency was
created with the aim of setting up a transnational body for the management of borders in
collaboration with the member States of the EU, the Associated members of the Schengen
area and Third Country partners, yet the Agency has still not fully achieved its operational
objectives. For exquisitely geographical reasons, as well as the habitual fondness for
national sovereignty, not all member States were interested in the creation and above all
funding of a supranational border control authority. Once established, Frontex thus
remained in the shadows at length for the same reasons that delayed its creation. Aside
from its deficiencies in personnel and budget, the Agency was localised in Warsaw,
Poland, far from what have turned out to be today’s "hottest" immigration routes based in
the Mediterranean11.
Today, the Mediterranean has become a "migratory region" (Schmoll et al., 2015).
Nearly all the main migration routes towards the EU involve the Mediterranean region.
First is the Central Mediterranean route starting in North Africa, particularly Libya, used
by those escaping from sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East towards Italy. Second is
the Eastern Mediterranean route from Turkey towards Greece and Bulgaria, crossing the
Balkans. Third is the Western Mediterranean route from North Africa to Spain.
In this context, protracted migration flows towards Europe have made efforts to
improve Frontex even more urgent. One attempt in this direction is a proposal advanced

11It is not surprising then that between 2005 and 2010, due to stringent statutory indications,
Frontex was mostly limited to carrying out intelligence operations, collecting shared information on
migration flows and training customs officials. In parallel, Frontex began to coordinate transnational
missions for patrolling European borders, along with the assistance of third States, although the
leadership of these was always entrusted exclusively to authorities in the host country.

56
by the European Commission to create a European Border and Coast Guard12 that ensures
the reinforced and shared management of the Union’s external borders. The Commission
intends the new system to take on a decisive role in the control of Europe’s external
frontiers, allowing it to surpass the structural limits of Frontex, which aside from those
already cited, include the impossibility of autonomously carrying out repatriation
operations or managing the border, both of which still require explicit intervention
requests from the member States concerned (Franko & Gundhus, 2015).
The newly improved version of the Agency should thus be able to monitor borders
through periodic risk and vulnerability assessments. Current deficiencies should be
overcome by equipping the Agency with a Rapid European Border Guard Team, a
technical pool and the doubling of available staff. The operational deficit would thus seem
to have been resolved by allowing for direct and indirect interventions conceded by the
new system. In fact, where deficiencies in national asylum systems are revealed, Frontex
would be invested with the power to make member States intervene in a timely and
appropriate manner. In the case of emergency situations, potentially dangerous to the
integrity of the Schengen area, the Agency would have the authority to intervene to ensure
the implementation of actions on the ground.
Although the new system apparently presents possible solutions for the management
of external borders, it has at least two weak points: operational autonomy and
management of procedures for asylum application. One of the main criticisms made
against Frontex was its lack of operational staff and its lack of autonomy in operations
due to its dependence on support from member countries. Over the years, particularly
during migration emergencies, Frontex Agency has benefitted from an increase in terms
of budget, however this cannot be used to consolidate operational tools, nor increase
personnel. For example, 775 border guards were requested from Frontex in 2015 but only
447 were despatched, many of which were temporary (Carrera & den Hertog, 2016).
The new Agency intends to overcome previous difficulties thanks to the contributions
of individual member States. This would mean a renewed dependence on the support of
member countries both in terms of staff and resources, because the new provisions of the
European proposal do not involve the creation of a truly supranational border guard team
under the direct control of either the new Agency or Frontex. In fact, operational
personnel would remain under the authority of the contributing Member State,
coordinated by the Agency.
In this sense, the new proposal will not resolve the most significant structural
impediment of today’s Frontex system, that of operating under a constant state of
emergency. The new proposal does not foresee the creation of a completely autonomous
border control unit that can support and improve security along the external borders of
the area. One of the motivations that lies at the basis of this incomplete reform is once
again member States’ lack of interest in conceding a part of their national sovereignty.
The constitution of an entirely European unit would mean sending citizens from other
member countries to control one’s own national borders and this does not fit well with the
territorial jealousies of national political authorities.

The European Border and Coast Guard will bring together the Coast Guard and European Border
12

Agency created by Frontex and the authorities responsible for border management of the single
member States.

57
 Another aspect that appears revolutionary on a first reading is the possibility for
Frontex or the new Agency to intervene directly in the territory of a member State without
a direct invitation from the latter. On careful examination, however, it emerges that the
two European agencies are obliged to agree a shared action plan with national authorities.
Added to this, there is currently no coercive mechanism that makes the Member State
collaborate with the Agencies. In light of the above, the proposal is far from representing
an efficient and autonomous system for the security of external borders that moves
beyond the emergency based action of Frontex or the future Coast Guard and European
Border Agency.
The above situation is even more evident regarding the management of the flow of
refugees; greater provisions in terms of budget, personnel and technical tools remain
inefficient when introduced into a flawed context where European asylum standards are
not respected within all member States, thus deepening the current climate of mistrust
and lack of solidarity. For this reason, the European Asylum Support Office could play a
focal role in supporting those States that provide primary assistance to asylum seekers
throughout all necessary recognition and relocation procedures. Furthermore, the EASO
could represent a useful tool for improving the quality and skills of national personnel,
raising the standard of local reception and protection systems for asylum seekers and
contrasting the unbridled wave of intolerance that has recently characterised the whole of
the Schengen area.

Dublin: a short-lived nationalist game

This brings us to the third critical factor listed in the introduction to this article: the EU
Common Asylum Policy. It is worth remembering that with the Dublin Regulation, signed
on 15th June 1990 in the Irish capital, the fifteen Member States of the then European
Community agreed to establish a common set of rules for the processing of asylum
applications within the European area. The objectives it set were essentially two: to
reduce the number of "refugees in orbit", when asylum seekers are sent from one State to
another due to repeated refusals to assume responsibility on the part of the governments
involved and to reduce the phenomenon of "asylum shopping", when asylum seekers
present applications for asylum in more than one State. The ways in which the Dublin
Regulation was to have achieved these objectives were: specific criteria for the
identification of one State that is responsible for the examination of the asylum
application; the obligation of individual States to process the applications they are
responsible for and the reciprocal exchange of information.
To place this issue within its wider context it is essential to recall that the Treaty of
Amsterdam in 1999 changed asylum legislation within the EU, transferring it to
Community Law through a regulation of the Council on 18th February 2003, applied as of
1st September 2003. This regulation, the so-called Dublin II, substitutes the Dublin
Regulation of 1990 with the aim of improving, strengthening and systematising
cooperation between member States in this delicate field. Specifically, the regulation is
based on the principle that the first member State the asylum seeker enters is responsible
for examining his/her application (so-called "one stop, one shop").
Facts demonstrate that over the last decade the rules set by the Dublin Regulation for
a common asylum policy in the EU exist on a purely formal level as the basis for an

58
informal and tacit compromise between Mediterranean and Northern European states.
Despite restrictions established by Dublin, the Mediterranean European States are
substantially alone in having taken on the costly onus of receiving and guaranteeing initial
assistance to asylum seekers, while maintaining a lax approach to those who refuse to
register themselves because they wish to formally apply for asylum in Northern Europe.
This is the only way to explain, with Eurostat and UNHCR statistics at hand, why Sweden
is the EU country that hosts the highest number of refugees per-head. While in absolute
terms in 2014 the European queen of reception of refugees was Germany who received
more than 202 thousand asylum applications, a third of the 625 thousand registered in
the whole of the EU (Mautz, 2015).
This game of do ut des holds few advantages for either side and only persists because
it is unanimously considered the lesser evil in comparison to the only possible alternative:
a real common asylum policy. In brief, the EU states have preferred to adopt an
inefficient, badly performing system, rather than concede their respective national
competences in this field. This evidently defective system puts the existence of a common
good such as the freedom of movement at serious risk. Guaranteed by the Schengen
agreement, this system was feasible as long as the number of new arrivals to Europe
remained at least manageable if not low (Terranova, 2015). It began to show dangerous
shortcomings after 2011, under the gusts of the perfect storm sparked by the Arab Spring
(Giordano, 2011) and the break out of war in Syria that has upset the entire geopolitical
equilibrium of the Southern shores of the Mediterranean, unleashing the most serious
refugee crisis in Europe since the post war period of the Second World War (Tsourdi & De
Bruycker, 2015).
Whatever the political-institutional outcome of these years of ferment, today’s
geopolitical changes and conflicts evidently hold serious consequences for Europe and its
southern shores. This necessitates a rethinking of the relationship between the two areas
and a change of feeling towards the Euro-Mediterranean question on the part of
individual countries, particularly within the context of a holistic European vision. Over
the years the European Community (and the later European Union), has attempted to
establish different forms of relationship and cooperation with the so-called Third
Mediterranean Countries (TMCs), often dictated by internal European circumstances or
international political conditions that have variously influenced the area – most pointedly
American. After the first generation of post-colonial "Association Agreements", the
Barcelona Declaration gave birth to the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, which at least
in its intentions, represented the first real multilevel and multisector agreement. Next
came the Union for the Mediterranean, after which various political initiatives followed,
each trying to provide a stabilising setting for the Euro-Mediterranean area yet often
lacking in any real fundamental strategy. The marked failure of these policies is clear to
all, be they experts or simple observers.
To talk about the Mediterranean, or rather the Euro-Mediterranean Area, intended
as those countries that border the shores of Mare Nostrum, we must try and moderate our
idyllic visions of true harmony, while also moving beyond those infernal images that
admit nothing more than increasingly embittered conflict. The Euro-Mediterranean area
must be understood as a highly complex place whose different elements continuously
evolve and influence each other. These elements must be carefully understood and
interpreted to formulate the best and most feasible policies for the area.

59
 The difficulties the EU has encountered in trying to manage migration flows from
Syria and Africa has pushed the Union into looking for new solutions that contemplate
support from Third Countries. It is within this context that the EU-Turkey Action Plan
has been developed, as well as an Italian proposal known as Migration Compact.

Beyond the border, the need for cooperation with Third Countries

When faced with manifold and manifest issues it is easy to imagine that their origins
begin in other parts of the world and that their relative solutions must lie with someone
else, the United States for example. The supranational nature of these issues suggests that
this is clearly not the case; solutions must be found in supranational approaches between
European States and possible Third Countries. In truth, some early European projects
represented potentially good ideas that floundered in the resurgent nationalism of the
beginning of the century.
The EU-Turkey Action Plan came out of a long consultation period that culminated
in the extraordinary meeting between representatives of the Council of Europe and
Turkey on 29th November 2015. On paper, the agreement was an attempt to readdress the
inadequate European response to migration flows by developing a program with Turkey,
a transit country for many of the Syrian refugees headed for Europe. Through cooperation
with the Erdogan government, the EU aimed to contain the flows of hopeful refugees
headed to European States, in exchange for concessions regarding financial support for
the realisation of projects for Syrian refugees in Turkey, commitment to speeding up
procedures for the recognition of visas for the free movement of Turkish citizens within
the Schengen area, and the renewal of negotiations for Turkish membership of the EU.
Thus, the Ankara government agreed to provide support to the Union.
The Action Plan runs along two main lines: on the one hand the provision of support
to Syrians in Turkey, creating an environment that favours their integration within
Turkish society through technical and financial assistance and reduces the so-called push
factors; on the other hand, the strengthening of controls to stop the flow of irregular
immigrants towards Europe. The EU recognised the important efforts of the Turkish
government, which hosts up to two million refugees in a population of approximately
seventy-four million inhabitants, by approving funding for three billion euro to sustain
the partner country in the improvement of socio-economic conditions for Syrian refugees,
to facilitate their inclusion within Turkish society and favour their access to the job
market and public services (De Marcilly & Garde, 2016).
The EU-Turkey plan also provided for improved cooperation and faster procedures
for the resettlement of those irregular migrants who do not fulfil the conditions necessary
for recognition of refugee status. According to the provisions of the agreement, on 20th
March 2016 all irregular migrants that had arrived in Greece were transferred to Turkey.
Furthermore, on the basis of this temporary "one-for-one"13 mechanism, for every Syrian
resettled in Turkey from Greece, a citizen of the same nationality will be resettled in the
EU. In this case, the agreement reached by the EU does not seem to be a particularly
strong or definitive response to such a complex situation. Although the efforts undertaken

13According to the terms of the agreement, it is a temporary mechanism that will be suspended once
72,000 people have been resettled.

60
to improve the capacity of the Turkish asylum system are necessary, they cannot
substitute the responsibilities of European governments.
The package of proposals commonly known as Migration Compact and presented to
European institutions by the Italian government on 15th April 2016 is more wide reaching.
Its objective is to resolve today’s migration crisis through the definition of collaborative
strategies with Third Countries, particularly in Africa, many of which are the home
countries or transit countries of the migrants in arrival on the coasts of Southern Europe.
Due to its geographical position, Italy is one of the countries most exposed to the arrival
of migrants escaping across the Mediterranean (Giordano, 2016a). Over the years, several
attempts have been made to combat and resolve irregular migration in the Mediterranean
Sea through the conclusion of a series of bilateral agreements with departure countries
and lobbying in Brussels for the establishment of an efficient and concrete European
migration policy.
The new Italian proposal is part of this framework; however, clarification is necessary
in that the definitive text adopted by the Commission and approved by the Council is the
product of a compromise between EU States. In fact, the most ambitious and interesting
aspect of the proposal has disappeared from the final document: a sort of maxi regional
investment plan that aimed at creating ways of facilitating the access of African countries
to capital markets through the issuing of European debt, the so-called EU-Africa bonds,
under the supervision of the European Investment Bank and other international
institutions. This innovative aspect of the Italian proposal was devalued by a series of "do
ut des"14 between Member States until it was essentially deleted from the final document.
Evidence lies in the fact that the new European strategy for dealing with the migratory
phenomenon has been downgraded from the status of "policy" to that of "approach". This
apparently terminological detail, put down in black and white by bureaucrats in Brussels,
has completely transformed the initial proposal. At the end of the day, the approach
"essentially consists in a more coordinated and focused use of pre-existing tools and
resources" (Fortuna, 2016), that fixes the need to establish and strengthen bilateral
partnerships between the EU and third countries based on a non-innovative principle that
ties the security of external borders to cooperation and development mechanisms.
In any case, by taking the EU-Turkey agreement as an example for the management
of migration flows from the Eastern Mediterranean route and reaffirming the need for a
concrete and coherent external European commitment, the Italian government’s project
aims at redrawing European policies on relationships with Third Countries and
identifying common solutions to stop or reduce the flow of migrants towards the northern
shores of the Mediterranean. The proposal for collaboration with Third Countries is
structured in four points: greater border controls, the reduction of migration flows,
cooperation regarding repatriation and readmission, and the strengthening of work to
contrast human trafficking (Rubio Grubel, 2015). A focal point remains the development
of a model for Third Countries in which financial and operational support from the EU
corresponds to precise commitments from extra-EU countries, as for example
participation in search and rescue missions in collaboration with the European border
and coast guard. The Union would thus offer resources and means in the form of capacity
building and technological support for the fulfilment of commitments. Lastly, to speed up

14 Italian expresion for "Tit for tat"

61
repatriation operations or the concession of visas the EU is willing to create screening
systems within Third Countries through which it will be possible to make an initial
distinction between economic migrants and asylum seekers, thus streamlining the asylum
application process.
The geopolitical situation has however considerably worsened over recent years. The
southeastern shore of the Mediterranean leaves us few reasons to be cheerful. While
Tunisia guides its own democratic experiment among fears and shocks, Libya is in a state
of total disintegration. Egypt is resigned to the repressions of Al Sisi, while Syria has sunk
into another year of civil war. Post-coup Turkey seems to be in decisive disagreement with
the United States and the EU, while Lebanon flounders under the weight of all its
refugees. The Mediterranean is burning and there is no partner on the horizon to bring
down the temperature. All this is the result of a continued, short-sighted refusal to
formulate an effective single policy for immigration which approaches the issue as a
structural problem, rather than an emergency, that we will be dealing with for many years
to come.

Conclusions

Today’s migratory movements at the frontiers of Europe are unlikely to stop in the near
future. It is also evident that the management of these movements and their political,
social and economic consequences must necessarily be European. Given Europe’s ageing
population and the increasing costs of social security (Giordano, 2016b), European
countries need to insert people of working age into their economic systems; immigration
can provide this contribution, but it cannot represent the only solution.
Likewise, the migratory phenomenon, as old as man himself, cannot only be tackled
as a problem nor as simple tragedy, as often happens today; nothing will be achieved by
putting up walls, except for an exacerbation of the problem itself. A cultural shift is
necessary: migrations are inevitable, useful to a certain extent and in some cases, even
indispensable. It is only by facing up to reality that we will be able to adopt the right
measures for keeping migration within acceptable limits, regulating it with humanity,
managing it without confusion, making it beneficial for reception countries and countries
of origin alike and definitively protecting our borders.
It is therefore clear that there will be no progress beyond today’s chronic instability
unless Europe – or better, the European States – get back on their feet and provide a
mature and informed policy for the management of the Mediterranean area and the
governing of relationships with the southeast shores of what should be considered a
common sea. As can evidently be seen from recent events, the Mediterranean must
likewise return to being one of the main priorities for all Europeans, restoring balance to
a Europe that is all too often busy looking elsewhere, both geographically speaking and to
satisfy short term national interests.
In conclusion, greater awareness is necessary on the part of all European states to
overcome national egocentricities and guarantee the existence of those values acquired
thanks to the European integration process, such as peace, democracy, the rights of man,
the state of law, freedom and mobility. These are the values that drive migrants to cross
European borders and integrate within European society, those very same values that,
one hopes, are undeniable for Europeans themselves.

62
References

Carrera, S. & den Hertog, L. (2016). A European Border and Coast Guard: What’s in a name? CEPS
Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe, 88, Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.
Retrieved from
https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/LSE%20No%2088%20SC%20and%20LdH%20EBCG.pdf
De Marcilly, C. & Garde, A. (2016). The EU-Turkey Agreement and its Implication. An Unavoidable
but Conditional Agreement. European Issues Policy Paper, 396, Paris: Fondation Robert
Shuman. Retrieved from http://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/doc/questions-d-europe/qe-396-
en.pdf
European Communities (1997). Treaty of Amsterdam, Protocol B. Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities.
Eur-Lex (2000). The Schengen acquis. Official Journal, L239, 22/09/2000, 13-18.
Fortuna, G. (2016). Cosa resta del Migration Compact. Limes, Rivista italiana di geopolitica, 7, 228-
229.
Franko, K. & Gundhus, H. (2015). Policing Humanitarian Borderlands: Frontex, Human Rights and
the Precariousness of Life. British Journal of Criminology, 55 (1), 1-18.
Giordano, A. (2016a). Free Movement, Border Control and Asylum in Europe. Geopolitics of the
Italian Peninsula in the European Migration Policy Framework. In: Refugees Adrift? Responses
to Crises in the MENA and Asia, MEI Essay Series, Middle East-Asia Project. Washington:
Middle East Institute. Retrieved from http://www.mei.edu/content/map/free-movement-
border-control-and-asylum-europe-geopolitics-italian-peninsula-european-migration
Giordano, A. (2016b). Nuovi centri e nuove periferie. Geografia umana e riconfigurazione del sistema
mondo. In De Vecchis, G. & Salvatori, F. (Eds) Geografia di un nuovo umanesimo (89-
115). Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Giordano, A. (2015). Movimenti di popolazione. Una piccola introduzione. Rome: Luiss University
Press.
Giordano, A. (2013). L’insostenibile nesso prezzi agricoli, crisi alimentari e migrazioni. Bollettino
della Società Geografica Italiana, 6(1), 77-99.
Giordano, A. (2011). Mutations géopolitiques dans le monde arabe et relations euro-
méditerranéennes. Outre-Terre, Revue Européenne de Géopolitique, 29, 51-69.
Giordano, A. & Pagano, A. (2013). Bangladesh à risque entre vulnérabilité et migrations climatiques.
Outre-Terre, Revue Européenne de Géopolitique, 35-36, 99-110.
Mautz, C. (2015). The Refugee in Europe. International and Multidisciplinary Journal of Social
Sciences, 4(3), 293-311.
Morehouse, C. & Blomfield, M. (2011). Irregular Migration in Europe. Transatlantic Council on
Migration, Washington: Migration Policy Institute.
Rubio Grudel, L. (2015). EU Anti-Trafficking Policies: from Migration and Crime Control to
Prevention and Protection. Policy Briefs 9, Migration Policy Centre, Florence, European
University Institute. Retrieved from http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/35745/
MPC_PB_2015_09.pdf?sequence=1
Šantić, D. (2015). Is the Boat Really Full? ECIA Briefing 27 July. Brussels: European Centre for
International Affairs. Retieved from http://www.european-centre.org/wp-content/uploads/
2015/07/EB-27-07-15.pdf
Schmoll, C., Thiollet, H. & Wihtol de Wenden, C. (Eds.) (2015). Migrations en Méditerranée. Paris:
CNRS Editions.
Terranova, G. (2015). Superare Dublino per salvare Schengen. Gnosis-Rivista Italiana di
Intelligence, 4, 174-181.
Tsourdi, E. & De Bruycker, P. (2015). EU Asylum Policy: In Search of Solidarity and Access to
Protection. Policy Briefs 6, Migration Policy Centre, Florence, European University Institute.
Retrieved from http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/35742/MPC_PB_2015_06.pdf?
sequence=1&isAllowed=y

63
Alfonso Giordano15*

НОВА ПОЛИТИЧКА ГЕОГРАФИЈА МИГРАЦИЈА У ЕВРОПИ: ИЗМЕЂУ

Резиме: Креирање Шенгенске зоне, која представља прву наднационалну границу у историји
Европе, условило је промену политичке географије миграција са значајним импликацијама
сагледаваним из различитих перспектива, а које су утицале на управљање миграцијама, како у
државама чланицама Европске уније, тако и у трећим земљама. Данас се европски континент
налази између шансе за интеграцију и изазова поновног успостављања граница, а што је још
комплексније питање, подизања баријера на њима. Као три критична фактора миграционе
политике ЕУ наводе се: Шенгенска зона, чије креирање представља најважнији резултат
пројекта европске интеграције, а чији је финални допринос реализација слободе (кретања),
безбедност и правда; Фронтекс, која представља организацију ЕУ задужену за управљање
спољним границама уније; Даблинска регулатива, која представља јединствену политику ЕУ
према питањима азила. Међутим, са масовним миграционим токовима од 2015. године, дошло
је до суспендовања Шенгенског споразума и Даблинске регулативе (и/или њихове
модификације), а уместо Фронеткса је успостављена нова агенција за мониторинг граница. То
ствара обавезу државама на спољним границама Шенгенске зоне, али и државама које нису
чланице Европске уније да надгледају границе, да управљају ирегуларним миграционим
токовима, а пре свега токовима избеглог становништва, иако су често неприпремљене да се
баве миграционим феноменима. Недостатак јединствене миграционе политике Европске
уније, егоцентрични приступ појединих не-Медитеранских држава и поновно појављивање
зидова на границама карактерише савремену Европу. Ипак, миграциони процеси и тероризам
у Европи представљају значајну могућност да се ојача, заједничка европска територија.

[email protected] (аутор за кореспонденцију)

64