! ! GRS front page for examination papers Subjects: (tick Semester project Internship report Master’s thesis Course literature box) X Study programme Global Refugee Studies Name Natascha Rose Panduro Gad Sofie Holme Dam CPR no. 150489-1050 280690-1434 Student no. 20141659 20141986 Examination / hand in date 1.8.2016 Semester 10th semester Project title* A Comparatative Case Study of Denmark’s Compliance with the Schengen Convention Total amount of characters 239.977 (1 page = 2400 characters) Group members* Natascha Rose Panduro Gad Sofie Holme Dam Supervisor* Zachary Whyte I/We hereby verify that this is my/our original work and that I/we are solely responsible for the content. All references that have been used are clearly indicated. Date and signature(s): 1.8.16 1.8.16 Natascha Rose Panduro Gad Sofie Holme Dam * Not to be filled out for course literature exams !!! ! ! AALBORG'UNIVERSITY' ! Denmark!August!2016! Global!Refugee!Studies!! ! ! ! A'Comparatative'Case'Study'of' Denmark’s'Compliance'with'the' Schengen'Convention'' ! ! By!! ! Natascha'Panduro'Gad!&!Sofie'Holme'Dam!! TABLE OF CONTENT 1.0$ABSTRACT$.............................................................................................................................................$2! 2.0$INTRODUCTION$...................................................................................................................................$4! 2.1$RESEARCH$QUESTION$..................................................................................................................................$4! 2.2$WORK$QUESTIONS$.........................................................................................................................................$5! 3.0$READING$GUIDE$..................................................................................................................................$5! 3.1$ABBREVIATTIONS$..........................................................................................................................................$6! 4.0$METHODOLOGY$...................................................................................................................................$6! 4.1$RESEARCH$DESIGN$........................................................................................................................................$7! 4.2$DATA$SELECTION$...........................................................................................................................................$8! 4.2.1!2011!–!CUSTOMS!CONTROL!(STRENGHTENED!BORDER!CONTROL)!................................................!9! 4.2.2!2016!–!REINTRODUCTION!OF!TEMPORARY!BORDER!CONTROL!........................................................!9! 4.3$A$SOCIAL$CONSTRUCTIVIST$APPROACH$..............................................................................................$11! 5.0$THEORETICAL$FRAMEWORK$.......................................................................................................$11! 5.1$TWO$LEVEL$GAMES$.....................................................................................................................................$12! 5.1.1!NEGOTIATIONS!ON!NATIONAL!AND!INTERNATIONAL!LEVELS!.......................................................!12! 5.1.2!PHASE!1!(NEGOTIATION)!AND!PHASE!2!(RATIFICATION)!..................................................................!14! 5.2$SECURITIZATION$.........................................................................................................................................$15! 5.2.1!SECURITYNESS!OF!SECURITY!–!A!SPEECH!ACT!........................................................................................!15! 5.2.2!DUALITY!BETWEEN!STATE!SECURITY!AND!SOCIETAL!SECURITY!..................................................!16! 5.3$EMERGENCY$IDENTITIES$AND$PROBLEMDSOLVING$.........................................................................$17! 5.3.1!CONSTRUCTION!OF!EMERGENCY!....................................................................................................................!17! 5.3.2!PROBLEMDSOLVING!AS!THE!SOLUTION!TO!THE!REFUGEE!.................................................................!18! 6.0$THE$SCHENGEN$COOPERATION$..................................................................................................$19! 6.1$THE$SCHENGEN$AGREEMENT$AND$CONVENTION$.............................................................................$19! 6.1.1!SCHENGEN!BORDERS!CODE!...............................................................................................................................!20! 6.1.2!THE!ROLE!OF!THE!EUROPEAN!COMMISSION!............................................................................................!22! 6.2$THE$DANISH$ACCESSION$TO$THE$SCHENGEN$CONVENTION$.........................................................$23! 6.2.1!PRESENTATION!OF!THE!PROPOSALS!............................................................................................................!24! 7.0$ANALYSIS$............................................................................................................................................$28! 7.1$2011:$PERMANENT$CUSTOMS$CONTROL$(STRENGHENED$BORDER$CONTROL)$....................$28! 7.1.1!HOW!THE!AGREEMENT!CAME!ABOUT!..........................................................................................................!29! 7.1.2!THE!TECHNICAL!CONTENT!OF!THE!AGREEMENT!..................................................................................!31! 7.1.3!THE!COMMISSION!IN!HIGH!ALERT!.................................................................................................................!32! 7.1.4!B144!–!REMOVAL!OF!THE!AGREEMENT!FROM!THE!FINANCE!BILL!...............................................!40! 7.1.5!SUM!UP!.........................................................................................................................................................................!46! 7.2$2016:$INTRODUCTION$OF$TEMPORARY$BORDER$CONTROL$........................................................$47! 7.2.1!INCREASING!NUMBERS!OF!ASYLUM!SEEKERS!IN!EUROPE!.................................................................!47! 7.2.2!CARRIER!LIABILITY!BETWEEN!SCHENGEN!MEMBER!STATES!.........................................................!48! 7.2.3!TEMPORARY!REINTRODUCTION!OF!BORDER!CONTROL!IN!DENMARK!.......................................!61! 7.2.4!A!COMMISSION!IN!FAVOUR!................................................................................................................................!65! 7.2.5!SUM!UP!.........................................................................................................................................................................!73! 8.0$CONCLUSION$......................................................................................................................................$75! 9.0$BIBLIOGRAPHY$.................................................................................................................................$77! 1.0 ABSTRACT In this thesis we research why the political agreement about enforced customs and border control in 2011 and the temporary reintroduction of border control in 2016 received such different critique from the political parties in the Danish Parliament and the European Commission (Commission) in relation to Denmark’s membership to the Schengen Convention (SC). This became our research topic due to the reintroduction of border control in the spring of 2016 and a wish to compare with the only other case, where the Danish membership to the SC had been widely discussed. To validly analyse the two cases, we found it necessary to analyse both national and international empirical sources. They consist of primary sources of discussions from the Danish parliament and communication of letters between the Danish government and the Commission. These sources are public and provide us with a first hand understanding of the arguments and concerns expressed by the two parties and are complimented by secondary sources. We are guided by an inductive approach, where the analysis has led us to our work questions and theoretical framework. Our theoretical framework consists of three different perspectives that combined help us provide a comprehensive answer to our research question. Our main theoretical perspective is developed by Robert B. Putnam and is named the two levels game. It deals with the entanglements of domestic and international politics. We furthermore make use of the theory of securitization as a speech act by Ole Wæver. Combined with the theory of emergency by Peter Nyers and problem-solving by Robert Cox we are increasingly relying on theories that share a social constructivist element, where categorization and power relations play a crucial part. The 2011 agreement on customs and border control was primarily reached as a trade-off between the former government and the Danish People’s Party, which emphasizes the national solution to the posed problem of cross border crime. Upon critique from the Commission, the government had to defend both domestic and international obligations. This was a difficult task, since the Commission questioned the legality of the agreement and whether it violated the Schengen Borders Code (SBC) and fundamental rights of free movement of persons. Even though this implied a strong position in the negotiations, the Commission hesitated to provide a final assessment, which worked as a bargaining