European University Institute Library

Building borders, the regulatory framework for the management of the external borders of the European Union, Jorrit J. Rijpma

eng

Includes bibliographical references (pages 367-446)

Thesis (Ph. D.)--European University Institute (LAW), 2009.

no index present

non fiction

Building borders

theses

1038729966

Defence date: 23 November 2009

Jorrit J. Rijpma

EUI PhD thesesEUI theses

the regulatory framework for the management of the external borders of the European Union

This thesis, starting from the premise that territorial borders retain their importance in public international law, examines in detail the EU's regulatory framework for the management of its external borders. It will argue that there are in fact two sets of external borders: those of the area in which the rules on the free movement of persons apply, and those of the Schengen area. The border crossing rights under the two corresponding sets of rules will be examined in detail. The focus will then shift to the broader Schengen rules for the management of the external borders. The thesis will discuss the rationale of the EU's interest in borders, the legislative acquis adopted, and the relation between legislation and executive action. An elaborate discussion on the organisation and functioning of the European Border Agency (Frontex) serves to illustrate the importance of operational cooperation in this area. A final chapter will look at the external dimension of this policy field. A distinction is made between the relations with third countries for the purpose of managing the external borders and the exportation of Community standards. Also in the external sphere, the objective of controlling irregular migration and the operational nature of EU action are prominent. It is concluded that the management of the external borders takes places in a much more complex and uncertain legal framework than is often assumed. Whilst border management should be a part or rather complement to a Common European Asylum and Migration policy if now risks to become a substitute for it. Even where legislation is adopted, it has a strong operational character, which carries risks in terms of accountability and legitimacy. The legislation in this area is both far-reaching and ill thought-through at the same time. From this lessons could be drawn for the broader cooperation between law enforcement authorities