This Discussion Paper reviews the repeated reintroduction of internal border controls within the Schengen area, and how the response to secondary movements of asylum applicants has given rise to political controversy in EU member states. This is the case notably in the North, while Southern states have criticised the unfair ‘Dublin’ criteria and lack of solidarity amid high arrivals. Over time, the inability to reduce secondary movements became a key point of contention, one that policymakers have been hard-pressed to resolve. New rules in the revised Schengen Borders Code Regulation (SBCR) respond to these concerns about secondary movements. In conjunction with the reformed Dublin criteria in the Asylum and Migration Management Regulation (AMMR), these provisions amount to an agglomeration of half-hearted structural reforms, complex legislative prescriptions, deference to state preferences, and procedural safeguards whose robustness remains to be tested. At the same time, it is unlikely that they will help to significantly reduce secondary movements.
Three amendments epitomise the direction of the latest reform, and this Paper analyses them and argues that EU institutions and member states may succeed in delinking internal border controls from secondary movements. However, doing so requires reinforced efforts to implement the new rules and rebuild inter-state trust. Notwithstanding the absence of deep structural reform, this Discussion Paper argues that EU institutions and member states may succeed in delinking internal border controls from secondary movements. Doing so requires reinforced efforts to implement the new rules as well as rebuilding inter-state trust.
Read the full paper here.