Bordering and De-Bordering Practice: the Construction of Fortress Europe

After the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the concept of borders took on new significance as nation-states began to see them as crucial elements in the international system. Borders, viewed through the lens of territoriality, became central to discussions about risks, uncertainties, and opportunities. They not only defined the physical limits of a state but also represented its sovereignty, creating a clear demarcation between an internal and stable space and an external and unstable one. Therefore, traditional borders represented physical and legal demarcations, shaping the identity of nation-states. 

The 20th and 21st centuries witnessed significant changes in borders, as they have become a focal point in international agreements. It is with the emergence of globalization and the post Cold-War upheavals, in fact, that the concept of “bounded territories” underwent an epistemological and political crisis.  In this context, scholars began to explore borders not merely as fixed physical and judicial entities, but as social constructs, examining the link between collective identity and place. This perspective considered the cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic characteristics of border regions and it is helpful to shed light on the persistence of raciality as one of the main principles underlying their re-drawing.  

Thus, the ‘border phenomenon’ could be seen as a process of spatial construction linked to identity politics. Recent debates on scale challenge traditional state-centric thinking, highlighting the complexity of current spatialities. Nowadays, concepts like borders, debordering, and rebordering are crucial in understanding political and economic dynamics, especially in the European and international context. These concepts heavily challenge the traditional conception of the state as fixed a physical-judicial and highlight the differentiated drivers underlying border regimes. While ‘debordering’, indicates a process of blurring of national demarcations; ‘re-bordering’ reflects attempts to redefine or reinforce boundaries, as witnessed with Brexit, where the UK sought to regain control over its territories.  This dual process can be seen in the context of the European Union, where the free movement of people, goods, and capital has led to a more interconnected and integrated space within the Union, while selectively increasing control and exclusion towards the outside. 

Though, phenomena of bordering and rebordering extend beyond Europe, describing  the dynamics of the current globalized international context. In fact, globalization leads to both debordering, with increased cross-border flows, and rebordering, driven by issues like immigration and economic protectionism. The tension between these processes reflects the ongoing negotiation between global interconnectivity and the desire for distinct national identities. This is why we argue the concepts of borders, debordering, and rebordering provide a framework for analyzing the intricate and evolving socio political and economic nature of migration management, both within Europe and globally. 

European case 

In the post-Cold War period, the EU witnessed a significant shift in its internal borders. It initially expanded quickly, welcoming new members, forming connections with non-European countries, and creating a unified market with a shared currency and the Schengen free-travel-zone. This process of “debordering” exposed the EU to external factors like the US mortgage crisis and conflicts in Northern Africa and the Middle East that led to the current migration ‘crisis’. European integration took different paths, including effective, dilutive, defensive, and disintegrative trajectories. The goal is to find a balance between internal openness and external security, leading to successful integration of migrants.

Nowadays we are witnessing a phase of big external and internal border closure especially towards the Balkan area. For instance, Austria has reinstated border controls with Slovakia from February 3rd to April 2nd in response to increased migratory pressures and a surge in apprehensions in the Western Balkans. Similarly, Italy has reintroduced border controls with Slovenia due to heightened concerns about potential violence within the EU following the Israel attack and the perceived risk of terrorist infiltration through irregular migration flows along the Balkan route. These instances reflect the European Union's response to what has been labeled as a migration crisis, though it could be more accurately described as a humanitarian, economic and social crisis. 

Migration 

The recent crisis and the rise of populist sentiments against loosening border controls poses significant challenges to the current system. External factors like the failed 'Arab Spring' and the Russian autocracy, add complexity to the evolving landscape of European integration. While supranational actors were strong at creating and defending open boundaries, member states were reluctant to grant them independent fiscal and coercive capacities. Despite the removal of internal passport controls and physical border infrastructures within the EU, external closure, particularly for movements from the Global South, remained high. 

As Topaloglou emphasizes, borders are primarily shaped by history, which informs the way the outsider is perceived and treated. It is, therefore, the historic colonial past of the EU that describes EU migration as managed on the basis of a racial line. For instance, during the Syrian crisis, the UK committed to accepting only a limited number of refugees, specifically sick children, women, and men who faced torture. This approach aligns with the concept of "humanitarian government", which depoliticizes migration and categorizes individuals as legitimate if recognized as "suffering bodies." This represents an issue since it prioritizes responding to the emotional emergency of suffering rather than addressing root causes. 

The discourse of the "good refugee" relies on racial, gender, and religious stereotypes, such as the defenseless Muslim woman or the innocent child. This contrasts, in a paternalistic and racist way, with the portrayal of undocumented migrants, seen as irresponsible individuals pursuing “economic purposes'' while trying to ethnically replace Europeans. The intentional association of Muslims with migration and foreignness is not coincidental. Muslim condense both racial and class prejudices since they are often identified as members of the lower class who pose a threat to European “white” supremacy due to their perceived resistance to assimilation within Europe. It is important to stress this aspect since it highlights the lack of consideration of migrants’ viewpoint in the so-called “migration crisis." This crisis, when examined closely, reveals itself as an instrument for the benefit of the Global North, whose prosperity can develop only with the exploitation of the Global South and the alienation of the actual victims of this process.