Between help and suspicion: how humanitarian and security values coexist in EU border policy

(1)

Ines Kaljee s1386050

Master Thesis

MSc Crisis and Security Management

Between help and suspicion: how

humanitarian and security values coexist in

EU border policy

A content analysis of EU agendas

June 9, 2019

(2)

Abstract

The 2015 European migrant crisis has shown that borders are as relevant as ever before. Whereas some people can fly around the world almost without limitations, others die at sea trying to reach a foreign land. Especially as a result of the latter, EU border policy has emerged at the top of the European agenda. Scholars have argued that EU border policy has become securitized, continuously increasing security measures to protect its external borders. At the same time, growing prominence is given to humanitarian values of solidarity in protecting the lives of people trying the cross the EU border. It is argued that the EU has moved towards a ‘migrant-centered’ approach, redefining border-crossers not only as threat but also as victims whom’s lives have to be saved. How do security and humanitarian values of solidarity exist in EU border policy? This research investigates this question by doing a content analysis of European policy agendas. The purpose of the research is twofold. First of all, it aims to provide a better understanding of how security and humanitarian values coexist at the external border of the EU. Second, it re-examines the concept of the border by applying the results of the research on the current conceptualization of the border. It concludes that the EU uses the values of security and humanitarian solidarity as complementary, but when it comes to concrete border management measures predominantly uses the values of ‘efficiency’ and ‘effectiveness’ in justifying its policies. This indicates that the EU values the creation a ‘seamless’ border, in which the incoming flows of mobilities are controlled as efficient as possible. 

(5)

1. Introduction

This chapter introduces the subject of borders and EU border policy. It outlines the main question which this the research will be answering and defines how the research question will be addressed. The research method will be described as well as the time period of the data and the justification of the chosen sample of data. It then explains the main purpose of the research as well as its societal and scientific relevance. Finally, a reading guide will be provided to clarify the structure of the study.

1.1 Defining borders

Two contrasting stories can be told on crossing a border in the 21st century. In a globalized society, it may sometimes seem like the world is becoming smaller and smaller. Europeans can fly around the continent for a price only a fraction of what it used to be ten years ago. Scanning boarding passes via their smartphones, they can conveniently hop on and off airplanes. And with the increase of access to internet in the air, people can stay connected with the outside world, working and updating their social media, almost unwittingly crossing border after border. Once in another capital, they can visit the same coffee places as they do at home, buy clothes from the same brand as they have in their home country and stay in the same hotel chain as they do in other countries. In the eyes of these citizens, today’s border is almost non-existent. As long as they stay within their bubble, they can cross borders and travel from country to country, as in if it’s a global village.

But not everyone crosses borders as easily as Europeans do. Another story on crossing the border can be told as well. The story of Alan Kurdi, for example, a three-year-old Syrian boy who drowned in the Mediterranean Sea in an attempt to try and reach European soil. Fleeing from the civil war in Syria, Kurdi and his family tried to cross the Mediterranean Sea on a small inflatable boat, which capsized about five minute after leaving the coast of Turkey (CNN, 2015). This story made global headlines in 2015, at the height of the European refugee crisis. Kurdi became the face of those who need to risk their lives crossing a border, rather than traveling the world how and whenever they want. It showed what was happening at the European border, a border which seemed to have become less and less prominent in the decades before. The two contrasting experiences described above raise the question: are the people flying over the Mediterranean Sea in their First Class seats, conveniently scanning their passports at the fast lane of high-tech airports, crossing the same border as the people floating in rubber boats on that same Sea underneath?

(6)

Instead of the seemingly borderless world as experienced by some, the world has become subject to re-territorialization and re-bordering (Castells, 1996). Whereas for some people is seems increasingly easy to cross borders, it is becoming increasingly difficult for others. Especially for this second group of people, the process of re-bordering could be a matter of life or death. In order to understand where the demarkation of the border is drawn, it is crucial to understand how the distinction between whom we want in and whom we want out is made. How do we differentiate between who we would like to protect from the outside, and who, from the outside, needs our protection? Where do we draw the line between help and suspicion in making this distinction between people crossing a border?

These questions are leading back to a theoretical debate on security versus humanitarian values in protecting a border. The EU’s external border in particular is an interesting case for further research in this respect. With the increase of illegal border-crossings into Europe over the last decade (Frontex, 2019), the debate on EU border management has emerged at the top of the European agenda. Pictures of drowning migrants and news reports on packed refugee shelters have spurred the discussion between the humanitarian and security challenges at the EU border. How does the EU safeguard its internal security while preventing the loss of human lives at sea? Has the EU securitized its borders, slowly developing itself towards becoming a ‘fortress Europe’? Or is the EU leaning more towards a ‘sieve Europe’, insufficiently controlling its external border and thereby putting at risk its own internal security? And where, in considering these policy options, does the EU’s concern for the lives of migrants fit in? What values are behind today’s EU border policy?

1.2 Research question

Scholars have argued that EU border policy has become securitized (Walters, 2008; Vaughan-Williams, 2010). The EU has framed the lack of border control as an existential threat to its identity, which requires to increase security measures at the European border (Aas, 2013). The securitization of the border has resulted in the criminology of the ‘outsider’ or ‘other’ in general (Garland, 2001; Welch and Schuster, 2005; Aas, 2007). It is argued that facilitating ‘good’ mobility as sufficiently as possible on the one hand, but discouraging ‘bad’ mobilities on the other hand introduces new notions of social ordering and exclusion (Aas, 2007). At the same time, a growing prominence is given to humanitarian forms of solidarity (Van Zyl Smit and Snacken, 2009). This study examines the increasingly complex and volatile relationship between security and humanitarian values of solidarity of the EU border by analyzing EU border policy agendas. The

(7)

research question of this paper is: How do security and humanitarian values coexist in the EU

border policy discourse?

In order to answer the research question, this study will conduct a content analysis on three EU policy agendas. Contrary to the majority of the existing literature on EU border practices, the research strategy is objectivistic. It is assumed that although the concept of the ‘border’ is intersubjective, it should be possible to measure the extent to which the border is based on security or humanitarian values. Measuring these values will be done by doing a content analysis of the European Agenda on Security, the European Agenda on Migration and the EU Communication on Stronger and Smarter Information Systems. As these communications are all from around the same time period (between April 2015 and April 2016), it accurately represents how certain values of the EU ‘co-exist’. Operationalizing the values of security and humanitarian solidarity and coding the Agendas in the categories of security, humanitarian solidarity and ‘others’, makes it possible to draw a conclusion on how these values coexist in the EU border policy discourse.

1.3 Academic and societal relevance

The overall purpose of the study is twofold. From an empirical perspective, its objective is to enhance the understanding on how security and humanitarian values are balanced in EU border policy. By comparing the EU Agenda on Security, the EU Agenda on Migration and the EU Communication on Stronger and Smarter Information Systems for Borders and Security, it aims to give insight on how these values coexist in the case of border-crossing into Europe. It is argued that the EU perceives the values of security and humanitarian solidarity as complementary, by making a clear distinction between crimes related to migration and the essentially harmless act of migration itself. From a more normative standpoint, the study then uses these findings to elaborate on the concept of bordering. Defining the ‘thin blue line’ of EU border practices allows the draw conclusions on what today’s concept of bordering entails, in particular in light of the conceptualization of the border as defined by critical security studies. It is argued that the theory of a securitized EU border is limited, and that the ideal of a ‘seamless’ border is more accurate in describing the EU border policy discourse.

This study contributes to the existing academic debate by enhancing the understanding on how security and humanitarian values coexist in EU border policy, using an objective, systematic research approach. It takes on a different method to test the critical security studies’ assumptions of

(8)

securitization and the increase of humanitarian values in EU border policy. Constructivist studies tend to have a theoretical approach, elaborating on philosophical theorists such as Foucault (Vaughan-Williams, 2015; Guild, 2009; Moreno-Lax, 2018). This study, however, aims to give insight on the way the discourses described by constructivists studies are represented in actual EU policy documents. It conducts a systematic analysis of three EU Agendas and compares the way values are represented in these Agendas. By comparing the way EU border policy is discussed in the Agendas, conclusions can be drawn on to what extent the discourses set out by constructivists studies are present in EU policy. Thus, the academic relevance of this study lies in testings assumptions made by critical security studies on EU border policy.

From a broader societal perspective, it is also important to get a better understanding on what drives border policy. Knowing what drives the EU in developing its border policy provides insight in how the policy process of the EU works. As a society, it is important to know which values or interests are represented at the EU and how these values play a role in its policy development. As a democratic institution, the EU should be held accountability and should be making legitimate policy. In particular regarding the subject of borders, the political interests are high. The highly politicized topic of migration is a concern of many, therefore increasing the stakes at play. The way borders are managed does not only have direct consequences for individual citizens in- and outside Europe, it also has effects on a broader level, such as domestic politic debates on immigration. Finding out more about the values that drive EU border policy therefore contribute to understanding the EU and the way it is governed.

1.4 Reading guide

In order to answer the research question, this study is divided in several sections. First, an overview will be given on the literature on borders so far. After a short historical timeline on borders, special attention will be paid to the idea of the securitization of border policy and the seemingly contrasting development of the humanitarian border. It then moves on to describing the theoretical framework, which is an objective, systematic approach to the question of how security and humanitarian values of solidarity can coexist in EU border policy. This is followed by a description of the research design, explaining the idea behind doing a content analysis on European Commission (EC) documents and how the values of security and humanitarian solidarity are operationalized. After this part, the results of the content analysis are presented by using quotes from the EU agendas. The results are followed by a discussion, relating the findings to the existing

(9)

literature. The discussion is divided into four parts, the first three answering the subquestions and the last section answering the overarching research question. Finally, the conclusion summarizes the research and shares some final thoughts on research concerning borders. 

(10)

2. Theoretical framework

This chapter provides an overview of the academic literature on borders, addresses the way this research aims to enhance the current understanding of the border and explains what research questions are defined to do so. To put the research in perspective, it starts off by outlining three elements of today’s academic debate on the concept of border. First, it describes how the governance of borders has shifted from a ‘line in the sand’ to the governance of mobility. Second, it narrows down to the literature on border security, thereby explaining the literature on securitization and the criminalization of the border. And finally, it outlines the debate on security versus humanitarian values behind border policy. The chapter is concluded by defining the research question and subquestions, which are expected to add to the existing literature on borders.

2.1 Literature review

2.1.1 Blurring borders

In 1814, diplomats from Austria, Britain, Prussia, Russia and France met in Vienna to negotiate a long-term peace plan for Europe. During the so-called Congress of Vienna, they restored geographical boundaries which made that France lost almost all of its recent conquests while Austria, Prussia and Russia made major territorial gains. In a period of six months, the delegates redrew the territories of the main powers of Europe, settling critical issues arising from the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars and restoring the balance of power on the continent. The Congress of Vienna is illustrative for the glory times of the state border as a ‘line in the sand’. This type of border defines the edge of a territory, clearly distinguishing what is inside from what is outside. It defines the boundaries of the state, not only in a physical way, but also in terms of citizenship, sovereignty and identity. Crossing the ‘line in the sand’ state border, means entering a different type of citizenship, sovereignty and national identity.

The rapid increase in cross-border movements of goods, services, technology and capital changed these dynamics. The process of increasing economic integration between countries has reduced trade barriers and other forms of economic borders. In the early 1990s, politician leaders and academics even fantasized about a world without borders. Kenichi Ohmae (1991) stated that the increasing dominance of consumers over companies and countries would melt away national economic borders. For a short period of time, a cosmopolitan world seemed to unfold itself: the

(11)

Berlin Wall fell, air travel became cheaper and the first people started to get access to the internet. Francis Fukuyama (1992) announced the ‘end of history’, arguing that the spread of liberal democracies across the world would mean the end of humanity’s sociocultural evolution.

Globalization of economics and innovations in transportation and ICTs have changed international dimensions, resulting in a ‘time-space compression’ (Harvey, 1989). Globalization has restructured the experience of both time and space, both speeding up and spreading out the world. Castells (1996) argues that instead of the world as ‘space of places’ the world is more and more a ‘space of flows’, in which the world is connected as a network. Whereas a space of places is ‘a locale whose form, function, and meaning are self-contained within the boundaries of physical contiguity’ a space of flows is ‘a sequence of exchange and interaction between physically disjointed positions’ (Castells, 2010, pp. 442-453). The border, in this regard, is no longer solely a state border bound by territory and sovereignty, it is increasingly an exchange between nodes and hubs within a network.

Thus, instead of the border as ‘line in the sand’, today’s border is conceptualized as the governance of mobility. In order to understand how today’s border works, it is therefore also crucial to move beyond the idea of a static border and examine the governance of mobility. This governance of mobility takes place in a variety of policy areas, including within security policy and migration policy. When studying border control, as done for this study, the scope of research should reach beyond the scope of security policy. The vantage point of this study therefore to examine how the flows of people are governed in border policy and how the differentiation is made between these flows.

2.1.2 The governance of mobilities

The question remains how the governance of mobility works in practice. Dijstelbloem and Broeders (2015) formulate three empirical and conceptual transformations of border control. First, they argue that border control no longer only occurs at the actual frontiers of Europe and its entry points such as airports, but also consists of procedures and practices in the bureaucratic systems of member states. Border checks do not start and end at the actual border, but are now part of a much wider area of governmental procedures, including monitoring, admission requirements and administrative processes (Walters, 2006). In the case of immigration, for example, the border has changed considerably in physical location. States have sought to protect their borders overseas and

(12)

require non-state actors to perform immigration control functions, shifting immigration policy implementation ‘upwards, downwards and outwards’ (Guiraudon and Lahav, 2011). In spatial terms, the border is thus omnipresent, as well as portable and virtual (Lyon, 2005; Dijstelbloem and Broeders, 2015).

Second, today’s border control is not only carried out by governments, but is increasingly also the responsibility of other organizations. Migration policy offices collaborate with a variety of partners, for example in the case of screening migrants. During this kind of procedure governments request information on education, work, knowledge and talent from universities and private companies (Rose, 2007). Moreover, governments work with private companies on enhancing border control by using technological solutions. Dijstelbloem and Broeders (2015) use the example of the Dutch migration authorities which collaborates with the Schiphol Group and its ‘trusted travelers’ program Privium, which uses iris scans to substitute traditional identity checks. In some cases private companies do not only cooperate with governments, they also support or even drive policy developments. According to Stevens (2004), this has resulted in a ‘homeland security market’, which has grown considerably in recent years. Taking these forms of collaboration into account, it could be concluded that border control is increasingly governed by governance, instead of by government (Dijstelbloem and Broeders, 2015).

Third, border control increasingly revolves around the human body. The borders of Europe are now almost fully biometric and digital, using fingerprints as the new identity documents. Next to fingerprints other information about the body such as DNA and bones are regarded as storable information in migration policies to determine age and family relationships (Dijstelbloem and Broeders, 2015). The databases in which these data are collected, stored and analyzed are growing steadily — migrants do not only need to provide their height and eye color, they also need to give their DNA, making bodies ‘machine readable’ (Van der Ploeg, 2005). By using the body as a substitute for IDs, the human body is interpreted and formatted as if it were an information storage device that simply needs to be scanned in order to be registered (Dijstelbloem and Broeders, 2015).

Key in these transformations of the border is the idea of controlling global mobilities, based on the differentiation between wanted flows and unwanted flows, between welfare and threats (Amoore, 2006). Governing mobility, it is argued, is therefore about risk management. Border control seeks to differentiate between those who might be a potential risk and those who are not categorized as

(13)

such. Today’s border could be described as a filter or membrane, through which only desired mobility is allowed (Amoore, 2006). The filter between inside and outside is partly based on identification, but increasingly also on intentions. Travelers are broken up in risk factors — they are assessed based on their passports, fingerprints and even on ‘suspicious’ behavior such as paying their flights tickets in cash or taking a particular flight route (Amoore, 2013). The combination of factors allows governments to assemble risk profiles, which serve as the basis to predict and prevent future acts of wrong-doing (Amoore, 2013).

In conclusion, the notion of the border has changed both in conceptual as well as in the empirical terms. Conceptually, the border has moved from a ‘line in the sand’ to the governance of mobility, in which flows of people are central. Border control has increasingly developed itself into border management, distinguishing wanted flows from unwanted flows. The border therefore works as some sort of refined sieve, which filters border crossers based on a variety of categories. In empirical terms, the border is also becoming more differentiated — it has moved ‘upwards, downwards and outwards’. It has been moved to private border agencies and has become digitized. Thus, instead of a borderless world, new actors and means constitute new types of borders, re-bordering and re-territorializing mobility. Studying these border practices is important as it gives insight on the way mobilities are governed, but also because the way borders are governed influences the social world behind the itself.

2.1.3 Securitization and criminalization

The conceptual shift from the world as a space of places to the world as a space of flows is also reflected in the field of security studies. After 9/11, the idea of having arrived at a peaceful ‘end of history’ quickly faded. The increasing visibility of transnational security threats such as terrorism and transnational organized crime clearly showed the other side of the globalization medallion. Globalization not only facilitated the increase of desired flows such as labour, goods, services and capital, but also facilitated the increase of undesired flows such as terrorists, criminals, weapons and drugs. Rather than disappearing, this threats just changed in the way they moved across borders. It became clear that instead of de-territorialization and de-bordering, the world has become subject to the processes of re-territorialization and re-bordering.

With these transnational security threats emerging on the international agendas, security studies developed itself as well. In the 1990s, the theory of securitization gained prominence in the field of

(14)

critical security studies. Securitization theory takes on a constructivist perspective on security, stating that threats are not simply issues that are ‘out there’. Threats are defined by the actors that make them a security issue by referring to them as posing an existential threat to society (Waever, 1993). Societal issues such as migration or access to food can be securitized by framing the issue as an existential threats. The threat towards a referent object — an issue that is being threatened — implies the justification of the use of extraordinary means to fence off the threat (Waever, 1993). Securitization thus happens when securitizing actors successfully convince an audience that a referent object is facing an existential threat that requires exceptional measures. Which societal subjects are brought into the security realm, is therefore not defined by state borders per se, it is defined by what is labelled by society as a threat.

The assumed securitization of the border has consequences for the social world behind the border practices themselves. According to Garland (1996; 2001), the governance of mobility is accompanied by what he calls a ‘criminology of the alien other’. The ‘other’, in this regard, represents criminals as dangerous members of distinct social groups which have little resemblance to ‘us’. Instead of in analysis and research findings, the criminology trades in images, archetypes and anxieties. Punitive policies are premised upon characterizations of offenders as ‘predators’, ‘career criminals’ or member of an ‘underclass’ (Garland, 1996, p. 461). Criminal offenders are portrayed as a different kind of threat, as being violent individuals form whom society has no sympathy and for whom there is no effective help. This perspective invokes demonizing the criminal, exciting popular fears and hostilities and promoting support for state punishment (Garland, 1996).

With this theory in mind, it could be argued that the effects of a securitized border reach beyond the border itself. If the governance of mobility is influenced by a stereotypical idea of outsiders versus insiders, this potentially has significant effects on social life itself. On the one end of the spectrum there is this idea of an elitist group of people who can travel the world with limited barriers, such as the contemporary figure of the tourist who enjoys the privileges of being part of some sort of cosmopolitan society which is highly mobile (Aas, 2007). On the other side of the spectrum there is the figure of the immigrant. As Melossi (2003) states: ‘[T]he otherness of the stranger and the otherness of the deviant are collapsed in the social portrayal of the criminal immigrant’ (Melossi, 2003, p. 376). The immigrant, in contemporary society, represents someone other than regular citizens, thereby simultaneously becoming alienated from society. The immigrant ‘other’ represents

(15)

a dynamic of exclusion emerging from the intersection between the global and the local. The immigrant and asylum seeker then represents classical examples of creating an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ division within society.

The securitization of borders and the increase of border control enhances these divisions (Aas, 2007). According to Aas (2007), the pre-emptive approach of border control leads to a qualitative categorization of mobilities, creating a dynamic of inclusion versus exclusion. Globally connected but locally disconnected, global networks and flows introduce qualitative different experiences of social ordering and exclusion (Aas, 2007). Distinguishing between ‘good’ mobility and ‘bad’ mobility creates unjustified ‘outsiders’, as these categories are based on risks rather than actual behavior. The networked world of flows thus introduces new notions of social ordering and exclusion, stimulating the ‘criminology of the ‘other’’, thereby legitimizing the securitization of the border (Aas, 2007, p. 288).

In short, the literature on borders from a critical security studies perspective states that today’s governance of mobilities is increasingly securitized and migrants crossing the boundaries of these mobilities are increasingly criminalized. People who do not fit into the clear-cut contemporary border control systems are perceived as a risk for the people on the other side of the border. This, in turn, has led to social sorting mechanisms enhancing stereotypical ideas of ‘us’ versus ‘them’. The categorization of mobilities affects social relations beyond the border itself, creating social sorting mechanisms and enhancing global inequality. Aas and Gundhus (2014), for example, conclude that while the police are often described as ‘the ‘thin blue line’ between order and disorder, the good and evil, in the case of border police the line gets an additional meaning of being a boundary marked by global inequality’ (2015, p. 15). Today’s governance of mobilities is therefore not just securitized, it also increases the criminology of the ‘other’.

2.1.4 Humanitarian solidarity

Although critical security scholars have argued that the governance of mobility is build on the value of security, other values seem to be playing a role as well. In the case of EU external border policy, one of these values is the value of humanitarian solidarity. As Weber explains, the ‘discipline of international relations has, at least implicitly, always relied on conceptions of ‘solidarity’’ (Weber, 2007, p. 694 in Thym and Tsourdi, 2017). Building on the French post-revolutionary republican ideals of liberté, égalité and fraternité, classical sociologists argue that the

(16)

existence of a ‘societal community’ is a condition for the idea of solidarity to be able to thrive (Moreno-Lax, 2018). Taking this notion to an international level, the idea of solidarity can be a driver for international cooperation. Recognition and affinity with others can allow for a sense of belonging, that motivates the pooling of resources and joint action towards a shared objective (Moreno-Lax, 2018). Solidarity, in this respect, can be seen as a core ingredient of contemporary constitutionalism and international cooperation — like democracy or the rule fo law (Thym and Tsourdi, 2017).

The principle of solidarity is embedded in the foundations of the EU system and is integral to the very ethos that has made the EU possible. The origin of the principle can be found in the Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950. The idea of solidarity has acquired a prominent place in policy and legal debates about the development of the EU, and has defined the evolution of justice and home affairs policies in particular (Thym and Tsourdi, 2017). The significant increase of asylum applications after the fall of the Berlin Wall became the starting point of intergovernmental coordination on asylum jurisdiction, followed by a first reference to ‘burden sharing’ made by the EU ministers responsible for asylum and immigration on the refugee crisis in the Balkan in 1990. The Lisbon Treaty of 2007 included more references to solidarity, for example in Article 3 (3) TEU, promoting solidarity between generations and economic, social and territorial cohesion among Member States and Article 3 (5) TEU referring to solidarity and mutual respect among peoples in the EU’s relations with the wider world (Morano-Foadi, 2017, p. 229).

These notions of solidarity do not specifically refer to solidarity towards migrants and refugees, however, these policy subjects do make an appeal on solidarity by EU member states. According to Morano-Foadi (2017) three types solidarity can be identified within the policy realm of migration: 1) solidarity towards refugees and migrants; 2) solidarity towards fellow countries and; 3) solidarity towards the EU itself. In a similar line of reasoning, Moreno-Lax (2018) defines three complementary dimensions of solidarity in the EU: the state-refugee or ‘vertical’ dimensions; the inter-state or ‘horizontal’ dimension and the ‘systemic’ dimension of solidarity, requiring commitment to the international protection system as such, the EU and refugees themselves. The vertical dimension, concerning solidarity from the EU member states towards refugees and migrants, is particularly relevant in the case of EU external border policy as this policy is mostly concerned with the lives of the individuals crossing the European border. In this study the concept

(17)

of solidarity therefore specifically refers to the first type of solidarity — from EU member states towards refugees and migrants.

In this context, solidarity from the EU towards the health and wellbeing of refugees and migrants can also be referred to as humanitarian solidarity. Over the last decade, the EU has given growing prominence to humanitarian forms of solidarity as a building block of the European identity (Van Zyl Smit and Snacken, 2009). According to Pallister-Wilkins (2015), there has been an increase in the use of the value of humanitarianism, both in framing as well as in legitimizing interventions at border control action at the Mediterranean Sea. This becomes clear in the work and mandate of the EU border guard organization Frontex, for example. Frontex justifies certain interceptions and interventions which cannot be done in the name of managing risk alone on the basis of humanitarian concerns. It also uses humanitarian solidarity as a reason for the growth of the organization, for example by using humanitarian justifications for the implementation of a border surveillance system (Pallister-Wilkins, 2015). It is therefore argued that the focus of the EU on humanitarian solidarity has resulted in a ‘migrant-centered’ approach, defining border-crossers not only as threat but also as victims that have to be saved (Vaughan-Williams, 2015; Moreno-Lax, 2018).

When discussing humanitarian solidarity in the context of the EU, the notion of human rights often comes to play as well. Although both human rights and humanitarian solidarity build on the principle of getting protection by a global community, a distinction should be made when examining the representation of both concepts in policy. The discourse of protection is reflected in human rights as well as in humanitarianism, both underlining the vulnerability of people in need. A distinction should be made, however, between humanitarian solidarity and the protection of human rights. Human rights take many forms and so does the violation of human rights. It can include a denial of civil and political rights such as arbitrary detention, torture, or a lack of due process, as well as economic, social and cultural rights such as the rights to health, housing or education. Although a state’s human rights commitment does not mean that it will be willing to guarantee those rights, it is perceived as an international obligation. Humanitarianism on the other hand comes from the principle of solidarity, assuming that an actor wants to help out even though it is not its responsibility per se.

(18)

Although scholars have argued for a solidarity approach from the EU from a normative standpoint (Moreno-Lax, 2018), it is not to say that the EU follows this logic in its border policy development. It is argued that the increasingly ‘humanitarian friendly’ narrative of the EU reflects a change from a ‘pure’ securitizing logic, but does not dismiss the security logic in general (Guild, 2009). Indeed, the EU has been accused of violating human rights with its border practices in many respects (Human Rights Watch, 2011; Amnesty International, 2013). It is argued that the EU’s tendency towards a more humanitarian approach does not usurp or replace existing the trends within security practices; forms a component within policing instead (Pallister-Wilkins, 2015). In fact, humanitarianism forms the basis for many counter responses by civil society groups and transnational human rights institutions, challenging EU border policing practices today (Doty, 2006).

Further exploring the seemingly contrasting concepts of security versus humanitarian values, Franko Aas and Gundhus (2014) analyzed border control practices executed by the EU border control agency Frontex. In this study, Aas and Gundhus found that there exists a dichotomy between help and suspicion, both at the individual level of Frontex officials as well as in the agency’s general knowledge production. According to the study, this has consequences for the Agency’s response to migrant mortality and for the structural condition for protecting the right to life at EU’s external border (2014, p. 9). Aas and Gundhus conclude that: ‘while the police are, colloquially, often described as the ‘thin blue line’ between order and disorder, the good and evil, in the case of border police the line gets an additional meaning of being a boundary marked by global inequality’ (2014, p. 15). The EU border is therefore termed as ‘humanitarian borderland’, describing the ‘incoherent and dual nature’ of policing in the area.

The so-called ‘humanitarianization of borders’ (Walters, 2010) in particular is an understudied aspect in the debate on contemporary borders. While both present in EU border policy, the concept of the humanitarian border seems to be in contrast with the securitization of the border (Franko Aas, 2013). The main idea of humanitarianism is that although excluded from belongings to the national, the immigrant belongs to the larger sphere of global humanity and is thereby deserving human rights. The immigrant life is not simple passive and excluded, but is also enveloped in a discourse of rights (Guild 2009; Franko Aas, 2013). At the same time, it is argued that human rights are also subject to the securitization of the EU border (Lax, 2018). According to Moreno-Lax (2018), the EU uses the narrative of ‘rescue’ to launder interdiction into an ethically

(19)

sustainable strategy of border governance. This would mean that instead of a dichotomy between help and suspicion, the narrative of ‘helping’ is simply used to justify policies build on the notion of suspicion.

2.1.5 Other values influencing border policy

Next to security and humanitarian values, the EU border policy discourse is based on other values as well. Zooming in on the digitization of borders, Broeders and Hampshire (2013) argue that organizational and political rationales should also be taken into account. Although they do not dismiss the effects of the securitization of the border, they state that the security framing of the border underplays the role of other explanatory factors and organizational rationales. The development of ICTs for border control, they argue, has been a longstanding trend which predates 9/11. This trend comes from the logic of remote control, meaning that states have been seeking to control their territories beyond their actual borders for a long time. Visa requirements, for example, can also be defined as a form of remote control as it requires potential entrants to undergo a specific clearance before they enter the actual territory. In the 1980s and 1990 already immigration control functions were being shifted ‘up’ to European and international organizations and agencies, ‘down’ to local government and service providers and ‘out’ to a range of non-state actors, such as passenger carriers and transport companies (Broeders and Hampshire, 2013). Thus, nor the proliferation of border sites and actors are entirely new.

Moreover, research on EU borders insufficiently acknowledges the fact that there are also other values behind its policy. According to Broeders and Hampshire (2013) the current literature most notably lacks acknowledgement of ideas about border efficiency and the facilitation of mobility. Regarding the digitization of the border, Broeders and Hampshire argue that this is as much driven by the imperative to facilitate wanted travel flows as by the need to restrict unwanted travel flows (Broeders and Hampshire, 2013). The increase of global mobility over the last decades has put immigration and border agencies under logistical pressure. Border agencies are required to detect and prevent illegal border movements, while at the same time facilitating legitimate travelers for the sake of economic prosperity. This creates a dilemma between facilitation and control, forcing border agencies to make border control more efficient. This, in turn, makes that border control policy tends to focus more and more on efficiency and effectiveness of border management, regardless security or humanitarian concerns.

(20)

2.3 Framework

The above literature review provides a brief overview of the current academic debate on borders. The concept of bordering is changing, both in temporal and spatial terms. Whereas the border used to be a ‘line in the sand’ that could be crossed by showing proof of identity, the contemporary border has shifted into what is referred to as nodes and hubs (Castells, 1996). The boundary between the internal and external has become blurred while the distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ mobility has deepened. The securitization of EU border policy has strengthened this trend, thereby enhancing social sorting mechanisms. At the same time, EU border policy regarding irregular migration is giving greater prominence to humanitarian values of solidarity, increasingly underlining the responsibility of the EU to ‘save lives’ at the European border. This discrepancy between security and humanitarian values in policing border-crossings into Europe has resulted in a complex dichotomy between good and evil, between help and suspicion.

Although some empirical studies have been conducted on the ‘peculiar co-existence’ of securitization of the border and the growing presence of humanitarian ideals (e.g. Aas and Gundhus, 2014), the vast majority of these studies depart from a critical security studies perspective. These studies tend to focus on the securitization of the border, insufficiently taking into account other values behind EU border policy. Hence, there is a lack of understanding on how security and humanitarian values coexist in EU border policy, let alone how other values play a role in the development of this policy area. This study will thus explore, using a objectivistic approach, the different values reflected in EU border policy, investigating how security, humanitarian and other values are represented in policy agendas. The analysis should give insight in the reasoning behind border practices today, thereby adding to the existing debate on the securitization of the EU border and the debate on the conceptualization of the border in general.

2.4 Research question

In light of the literature review and theoretical framework described above, the aim of this study is to answer the research question:

Building on existing knowledge on borders and EU policy, the following subquestions are defined: RQ: How do security and humanitarian values coexist in the EU border policy discourse?

(21)

In short, this chapter provided an overview of the existing literature on borders. It described the predominant constructivist literature on border policy, which states that the EU border is securitized and people crossing borders are criminalized. The effects of these policies go beyond the border itself, resulting in social sorting mechanism and global inequality between groups of people. At the same time, humanitarian values of solidarity are getting a more prominent place in the EU policy discourse as well, raising the research question: How do security and humanitarian values coexist

in the EU border policy discourse? In order to get insight on how these values coexist in EU border

policy, an objective analysis is required. The objectivistic research strategy and the research methods of this study will be described in the next chapter on research design. 

Subquestions:

1. How are security and humanitarian values reflected in EU border policy agendas? 2. To what extent is EU border policy securitized?

3. What consequences does the representation of security and humanitarian values have for the concept of the border?

(22)

3. Research design

This chapter provides an overview of the research design of this study, explaining the research strategy, methodology and operationalization of the values which are subject of the analysis. The section on research strategy explains why an objectivistic approach is chosen over a constructivist analysis of border policy. The following paragraphs on the methodology of the study describes why and how a content analysis will contribute to understanding the contemporary concept of bordering. It also outlines the unit of analysis and the sample which is used for the content analysis. A table with the operationalization of the discourses is provided, as well as an example of a coded EU agenda paragraph. Finally, the validity and replicability of this study and its research methods is discussed.

3.1 Research strategy

The theoretical framework shows that the vast majority of literature on EU border management comes from the field of critical security studies (i.a. Amoore, 2006; Aas, 2007; Vaughan-Williams, 2015). In terms of research strategies these critical security studies often depart from the ontological position of constructivism, assuming that the social world is not only produced through social interaction but is also in a constant state of revision (Bryman, 2016). Regarding the concept of security, critical security studies state that the phenomenon of security is socially constructed and mutually constituted. Threats are shaped by identities and at the same time also shape identities themselves. The analytical focus of the majority of research on bordering has therefore been on processes of securitization, and how border practices are defined by the securitization of the border (Broeders and Hampshire, 2013).

However, in order to examine the balance between security, humanitarian and values in the development of EU border policy, it is necessary to move beyond the scope of the securitization discourse. As described in the theoretical framework, border control is not solely a security issue but is defined by multiple values, sectors and actors. The security framing is therefore not sufficient in explaining the way today’s borders are constructed. Although this study does not disregard the idea that the world is socially constructed in general, it make the presumption that there is a reality ‘out there’ which can be measured objectively. Even though the concept of the border might be a social construct which is composed of intersubjective understandings, the research question of this study requires to investigate the values behind EU border policies in a systematic manner. Hence,

(23)

the research strategy of this study will be objectivistic, meaning that the EU and its border are seen as a tangible objects which have a reality that is external to the actor studying it (Bryman, 2016). Nevertheless, it does take on a more constructivistic approach in its analysis, when the findings of the research are related to the intersubjective concept of the border.

3.2 Methodology

The aim of this study is to provide insight on the values by which EU border policy-making is driven. In order to investigate the values behind EU border policy-making, this study will conduct a qualitative content analysis on EU policy-making documents. According to Holsti (1969, p. 14), the methodology of a content analysis can be described as ‘any technique for making inferences by objectively and systematically identifying specified characteristics of messages’. Doing a content analysis will thus allow to map out the characteristics of EU policy documents, such as values and beliefs. Security and humanitarian solidarity will be operationalized as different categories of values on which EU border policy is based. Moreover, an ‘other’ category leaves room for values that are found in the EU policy agendas. Once these categorizations are defined, it will be possible to identify the different values behind EU border practices, which will then provide an answer to the research question of how security and humanitarian values of solidarity coexist in the EU border policy discourse.

The type of content analysis will be qualitative, as this research is interested in words rather than numbers. In order to provide insight on the question how certain values coexist, the results of the content analysis will be presented in the form of quotes, rather than graphs. A qualitative research method suits best for a more in-dept approach through which different values can be defined and its meaning are explored. A qualitative research method predominantly emphasizes an inductive approach to the relationship between theory and research, in which the emphasis is placed on the generation of theories (Bryman, 2016). This fits with the fairly open-ended research question of this study, which requires a comprehensive approach to provide knowledge on the complexity of values behind EU policy on border management. Moreover, it allows to re-examine the conceptualization of the border is a more inductive manner, as will be done in the final part of this study.

3.2.1 EU Agendas

The potential universe of data which could be analyzed for this research consists of all sources in which the values of the EU regarding its borders are being described. One of the main sources of

(24)

data in this universe are documents published by the EU itself, in which the EU defines its policies and refers to the values by which it is motivated. These documents can be drafted by the European Council, the European Commission or other EU bodies. Other potential sources for data would be speeches by EU officials or interviews with EU officials. For this research it is decided to investigate policy documents published by the European Commission. The European Commission is the executive branch of the EU with legislative powers and responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding EU treaties and managing the day-to-day basis of the EU. Its mandate is to represent and uphold the values and interests of the EU as a whole, which makes it the most suitable EU body to analyze for this study. Studying EC policy documents related to the EU’s external border will provide insight in its concerns and give an answer to the question on how security and humanitarian values coexist in the EU policy discourse.

The European Commission policy documents that will be analyzed are the EU Agenda on Security, the EU Agenda on Migration and the EU Communication on Stronger and Smarter Information Systems for Borders and Security. Together, these Communications account for 68 pages on EU policy. The Agenda on Security is published on April 28, 2015, the Agenda on Migration on May 13, 2015, and the Communication on Stronger and Smarter Information Systems for Borders and Security on April 6, 2016. This sample of documents is chosen for two reasons: the subject and the time it is published. First of all, all three Communications directly cover the issue of border policy, but from different perspective. This allows to examine how the values behind EU border policy are reflected in different policy areas. Second, the three Communications are all published around the same time. This is an important aspect of the research, as the purpose of the study is to find out how certain values ‘coexist’ in EU policy. Comparing three agendas from different policy areas but from the same point in time gives context on the different aspects of a policy during that time and how the reasoning behind these policies complement or contradict each other.

The EU Agendas will be retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/index_en, which is the website of the European Commission and an open access database of all public European Commission documents. The unit of analysis is quasi-sentences. Quasi-sentences are expected to be the appropriate unit of analysis as a certain values could be described by one sentence, but multiple values could be used in one paragraph. A paragraph or whole text could therefore not be placed in one category of the codebook, whereas the analysis of individual words would give too little context to define in which category it should be placed. An example of this is the following

(25)

sentence from the EU Agenda on Migration: 

This sentence covers several different values: security, humanitarian as well as a notions about economics prosperity and societal cohesion. Thus, in order to categorize these values, the unit of analysis should be quasi-sentences. The next section will elaborate on the categorizations by operationalizing the values of security and humanitarian solidarity.

3.2.2 Operationalization

In order to examine the EU border policy discourse, the content analysis aims to categorize the different values behind EU border policy. These values can be found in the reasoning behind EU policies, which are reflected in the EU Agendas presented above. In the coding process, values are distilled by looking for sentences which clearly state a certain sentiment presented by the EU. This includes the expression of a concern of the EU, the expression of a certain objective it has, or an expression of something the EU perceives as valuable. Phrases that indicate such an expression include could for example be: ‘it is important that…’, ‘it is necessary that…’ or ‘…is an essential precondition to…’. The following sentence illustrates the coding of one of such an expression, in this case the value of economic prosperity:

Building on the literature review above, this study assumes that the majority of the values which are reflected in the European Commission agendas are expressions of security and humanitarian values. Hence, when coding the EU Agendas two pre-existing categories will be used: the category of the value of security and the category of the value of humanitarian solidarity. Furthermore, an Box 1. Example of quasi-sentences as unit of analysis

(26)

‘other’ category is used for all quasi-sentences that refer to a certain value of the Commission which cannot be placed in category 1 or 2.

According to Holsti (1969) coding categories should (1) reflect the purposes of the research; (2) be exhaustive; (3) be mutually exclusive; (4) independent; (5) and be derived from a single classification principle. Using these criteria for this study, it can be argued that:

1. The categories defined for this research describe different types of values the EU and therefore provide an answer to the research question. The qualitative method of doing the analyses also allows for some interpretation on how the values relate to each other, giving insight on how security and humanitarian values of solidarity coexist.

2. The categories might not be exhaustive, however, a third ‘other’ category is defined through which sentences that seem to be relevant but do not fit into the two categories can still be analyzed.

3. Security and humanitarian values are described by the literature on borders as a ‘complex dichotomy’, which indicates that the categories are mutually exclusive.

4. The independence of categories is guaranteed, as the assignment of one category does not influence the coding of other data.

Code Category Definition Indicators

1 Value of

humanitarian solidarity

An expression of concern about human life, humanity and/or the protection of vulnerable people

It includes references to human rights It includes sentences about ‘saving lives’

It includes references to humans that are in need of help or protection

2 Value of

security

An expression of concern about security, threats and risks

It includes expressions regarding increasing security

It includes references to preventing crime

3 Other Values that cannot be

categorized as humanitarian or security.

It includes other references to concerns, motivations or reasoning behind EU policy measures.

(27)

5. The categories are derived from a single classification principle, because both categories refer to certain values, which makes that the categories are on the same conceptual levels of analysis.

To illustrate how the coding process works, an example of the coding of the EU Agenda on Migration is provided below. The yellow markings are coded as expressions of humanitarian values, the blue markings as security values and the green as ‘other’.

3.2.3 Validity and reliability

The quality of social science research can be assessed by using two criteria: validity and reliability. Validity is concerned with the integrity of the conclusions that are generated from the research (Bryman, 2016). Regarding this research the question is therefore whether the study of European Commission policy documents and the way they will be analyzed allows the researcher to draw conclusions on what values are behind EU border policy. Another possibility to study the values and concerns behind EU policy would for example be to interview EU officials and other policy-makers. However, using this method would make it more difficult to get an objective overview of EU policy than analyzing EU policy that is actually written down. It would also be an option to

(28)

analyze other types of documents rather than solely documents from the Commission, such as policy papers by the European Parliament or national policy documents. These documents, however, do not represent the consensus on EU policy as documents from the European Commission do. Conducting a content analysis on European agendas for border policy therefore seems to be the most appropriate research method to validate the research question.

Reliability is concerned with the question whether the results of a study are repeatable. The advantage of a content analysis on EC agendas is that the data which are being used are openly accessible and written content, meaning that anyone wanting to repeat the research would be able to do so. The main risk of a content analysis is the potential interpretation of the researcher during the coding process. If a single researcher is responsible for coding the documents, it is less certain that the coding process is done in an objective matter. The researcher could potentially interpret texts in a way which others would interpret differently. One of the ways to reduce this risk and enhance the so-called interceder reliability is to let a second researcher code a part of the data and compare if this researcher assigns the units of analysis to the same categories as the initial coding. For this research, however, this method is beyond the scope of the resources at hand.

To recap, this chapter described the research design of this study. It is argued that although building on constructivist concepts, the most suitable methodology to answer the research question would be a objectivistic method. The core values that are being studied are security and humanitarian values. These concepts are operationalized by defining indicators for each value. For the value of security, for example, this includes references to ‘preventing crime’ such as migrant smuggling and indicators for the humanitarian discourse category include references to ‘saving lives’. To illustrate how the coding process works an example of one the coded texts is also enclosed. Finally, the validity and reliability of the research methods has been discussed, justifying the way the research is conducted. 

(29)

4. Analysis

The analysis of the study consists of the results and the discussion of the results. The results of the content analysis are split into three sections, aligned with the three agendas which are studied for this research. First, the results of the content analysis of the European Agenda on Security is discussed, then the results of the European Agenda on Migration and lastly the analysis of the Communication on Stronger and Smarter Information Systems for Borders and Security. The agendas are then compared to each other in the discussion. This is followed by relating the findings to the existing literature on border, thereby answering the subquestions of the research. The chapter concludes by answering the overall research question of how security and humanitarian values of solidarity coexist in EU border policy.

4.1 Results

4.1.1 The European Agenda on Security

The European Agenda on Security is an agenda published in April 2015 outlining and prioritizing EU security policy. The agenda builds on the political guidelines of European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker as published in July 2014 and it replaces the EU’s Internal Security Strategy which ran from 2010 to 2014. However, the agenda does not only cover internal security issues but also external, as it states that: ‘EU international security and global security are mutually dependent and interlinked’ (European Commission, 2015a, p. 4). The communication touches upon a variety of issues, ranging from counter-terrorism to cybercrime. It does not specify an end date and it also notes that the strategic objectives of the Internal Security Strategy 2010-2014 remain valid, but it does mention that the renewed strategy is a response to the increasing variety and internationalization of threats (European Commission, 2015a, p. 2).

The European Agenda on Security emphasizes the EU’s security objectives and the agendas aim to ‘ensure that people live in an area of freedom, security and justice’. Regarding border management, the agenda notes that: ‘Member States bear responsibility for the entire Union when they control their part of the external border (European Commission, 2015a, p. 6) and ‘common high standards of border management are essential to preventing cross-border crime and terrorism’ (European Commission, 2015a, p. 6). One of the measures the EU is taking is increasing border security is enhancing ‘common risk indicators’ in order to ‘support the work of national authorities when

(30)

conducting checks on persons’ (European Commission, 2015a, p. 6). According to the agenda, tracking the movements of offenders (e.g. persons illegally staying in the EU) is key to disrupting terrorist and criminal networks. The EU Passenger Name Record (PNR) is therefore introduced, which aims to prevent criminals escaping detention by identifying them based on common risk indicators.

Nevertheless, the agenda also touches upon a humanitarian discourse when referring to human trafficking and, more specifically, to migrant smuggling. When listing the second security priority of the EU, which is to tackle organized cross-border crime, it is stated that: ‘organized crime groups involved in the smuggling of migrants exploit the vulnerability of people seeking protection or better economic opportunities and are responsible for the loss of lives in the name of profit’ (European Commission, 2015a, p. 12). The proposed policy, however, focuses on disrupting criminal networks involved in smuggling of migrants by security measures. ‘One of the priorities … is to disrupt organized criminal networks involved in smuggling of migrants by stepping up cross-border investigations with the support of EU agencies. The joint operation of MARE coordinated by Europol is a good example of how the Union can become more effective in identifying and tackling organized crime groups involved in the smuggling of migrants’ (European Commission, 2015a, p. 16).

4.1.2 The European Agenda on Migration

The European Agenda on Migration is a communication published by the European Commission in May 2015. The agenda aims ‘bring together the different steps the European Union should take now, and in the coming years, to build up a coherent and comprehensive approach to reap the benefits and address the challenges deriving from migration’ (European Commission, 2015b, p. 2). The reason behind the agenda is also clarified in the introduction, stating that: ‘the immediate imperative is the duty to protect those in need. The plight of thousands of migrants putting their lives in peril to cross the Mediterranean has shocked us all. As a first and immediate response, the Commission put forward a ten point plan for immediate action. The European Parliament and the European Council have lent their support to this plan and Member States have also committed to concrete steps, notable to avert further loss of life’ (European Commission, 2015b, p. 2).

Humanitarian concerns are prominently reflected in the agenda on migration. According to the text, the EU needs to use its global role and wide range of tool to address the root causes of migration, in

(31)

order to ‘try to halt the human misery created by those who exploit migrants’ (European Commission, 2015b, p. 2). It states that: ‘Europe should continue to be a safe haven for those fleeing prosecution as well as an attractive destination for the talent and entrepreneurship of students, researchers and workers’ (European Commission, 2015b, p. 2). Moreover, the European Commission ought it as a necessity to ‘restore confidence in our ability to bring together European and national efforts to address migration, to meet our international and international obligations and work together in an effective way, in accordance with the principles of solidarity and shared responsibility’ (European Commission, 2015b, p. 2). On protecting displaced people, it states that: ‘the EU has a duty to contribute its share in helping displaced persons in need of protection’ (European Commission, 2015b, p. 4). The EU must manage migration better, implementing ‘a migration policy which respects right to seek asylum, responds to the humanitarian challenge, provides a clear European framework for a common migration policy, and stands the test of time’ (European Commission, 2015b, p. 7). Indeed, ‘Europe cannot stand by whilst lives are being lost’ (European Commission, 2015b, p. 3).

The agenda also mentions security concerns, although in a far lesser extent. It notes that a strong common asylum policy and a new European policy on legal migration must be paired with ‘securing Europe’s external borders’ and ‘a robust fight against irregular migration, traffickers and smugglers’ (European Commission, 2015b, p. 6). Implementing a framework for legal ways for entering the continent, the EU aims to ‘enhance security of European borders as well as safety of migratory flows’. In particular in the section on border management, the concerns seem predominantly security related. It argues that coastguards need to become more effective by ‘identifying risk trends’ (European Commission, 2015b, p. 11). On top of that, ‘effective operational preparedness’ has to be increased by strengthening maritime border surveillance developing and developing an ‘effective situational picture’ of the EU border (European Commission, 2015b, p. 11). The introduction of the Smart Border initiative also contribute to this objective by increasing the efficiency of border crossings, facilitating crossing for ‘bona fide’ third country travelers, whilst ‘strengthening the fight against irregular migration by creating a record of all cross-border movements by third country nationals’ (European Commission, 2015b, p. 11).

4.1.3 Stronger and Smarter Information Systems for Borders and Security

The introduction of the Smart Border Package clearly states why the EU ought it necessary to strengthen border management: ‘In 2015 alone, conflict in Syria and crises elsewhere triggered 1.8