Justice and Home Affairs and the EU’s New Neighbours: Governance Beyond Membership?

  • Sandra Lavenex
Part of the One Europe or Several? book series (OES)


At the same time as the new EU member states are gradually moving from being passive receivers of EU policies to full members of the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ), the external effects of European integration are increasingly becoming felt beyond the new external borders. The shift of the Schengen border will have direct implications for the EU’s new neighbours, their populations, their economies and their own border regimes. Much like the Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) in the early 1990s, these new neighbours are gaining a pivotal role in the internal/external security nexus of justice and home affairs (JHA) cooperation. Russia, Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus are now the potential source of the ‘soft’ security threats that are at the heart of justice and home affairs, both as countries of origin and, probably more importantly, transit countries for irregular migrants, drug dealers, those involved in organized crime or even terrorists.


Organize Crime Money Laundering European Council Home Affair External Border 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    M. Foucher, ‘The Geopolitical European Frontiers’, in M. Anderson and E. Bort (eds), The Frontiers of Europe (London: Pinter, 1998), p. 236.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Light, S. White and J. Löwenhardt, ‘A Wider Europe: The View from Moscow and Kyiv’, International Affairs, 76 (2000), 77–88. Border demarcation agreements between Russia and the Baltic states had been finalized but were stalled by the Russian parliament, which failed to ratify them.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Hubel (ed.), EU Enlargement and Beyond: The Baltic States and Russia (Berlin: A. Spitz Verlag, 2002), p. 2.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    See also H. Grabbe, ‘The Sharp Edges of Europe: Extending Schengen Eastwards’, International Affairs, 76 (2000), 519–36; Light, White and Löwenhardt, ‘A Wider Europe’;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. J. Löwenhardt, R. J. Hill and M. Light, ‘A Wider Europe: the view from Minsk and Chisinau’, International Affairs, 77 (2001), 605–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Morawska, ‘Gappy Immigration Controls, Resourceful Migrants, and Pendel Communities: East-West European Travelers’, in C. Joppke and V. Guiraudon (eds), Controlling a New Immigration World (London: Routledge, 2001);Google Scholar
  7. C. Wallace and D. Stola (eds), Patterns of Migration in Central Europe (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001).Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    See also J. Cichocki, ‘Direct Neighbourhood: Border Issues and Visa Regulations — an Eastern Perspective’, in I. Kempe (ed.), Beyond EU Enlargement. The Agenda of Direct Neighbourhood for Eastern Europe (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Foundation, 2001).Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    G. Amato and J. Batt, The Long-Term Implications of EU Enlargement: The Nature of the New Border (Brussels: European Commission, 1999), p. 82ff.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    For a comparative analysis of the formal and informal, intended and unintended external effects of EU asylum and immigration policies see the contributions in S. Lavenex and E. Uçarer (eds), Migration and the Externalities of European Integration (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2002).Google Scholar
  11. 13.
    C. Boswell, ‘The “External Dimension” of EU Immigration and Asylum Policy’, International Affairs, 79 (2003), 619–38; J. van Selm, ‘Immigration and Asylum or Foreign Policy: The EU’s Approach to Migrants and their Countries of Origin’, in Lavenex and Uçarer, Migration and the Externalities of European Integration, pp. 143–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 15.
    Grabbe, ‘The Sharp Edges of Europe’; S. Lavenex, Safe Third Countries. Extending the EU Asylum and Immigration Policies to Central and Eastern Europe (Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  13. 17.
    S. Lavenex, ‘Migration and the EU’s New Eastern Border: Between Realism and Liberalism’, Journal of European Public Policy, 8 (2001), 24–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 18.
    European Council, ‘Presidency Conclusions’, Tampere European Council, October 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 19.
    On the limping Europeanization of migration and refugee policies see A. Geddes, Immigration and European Integration: Towards Fortress Europe? (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000);Google Scholar
  16. S. Lavenex, The Europeanisation of Refugee Policies: Between Human Rights and Internal Security (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001).Google Scholar
  17. For a recent critical appraisal of progress in fulfilling the Amsterdam agenda in JHA see European Convention, Praesidium, ‘Justice and Home Affairs — Progress report and general problems’, CONV 69/02, 31 May 2002.Google Scholar
  18. 20.
    European Commission, ‘Green Paper on a Community Return Policy on Illegal Residents’, COM(2002) 175 final, 10 April 2002, p. 24.Google Scholar
  19. 21.
    On the notions of interdependence, sensitivity and vulnerability see R. Keohane and J. Nye, Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (Boston: Little Brown, 1977).Google Scholar
  20. 22.
    M. Singer and A.B. Wildavski, The Real World Order: Zones of Peace and Zones of Turmoil (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers, 1993).Google Scholar
  21. 23.
    Commission of the European Communities, ‘Communication on Wider Europe Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours’, COM(2003) 104 final, 11 March 2003, p. 3, emphasis added.Google Scholar
  22. 24.
    For assessments of ‘soft security risks’ at the EU’s future external borders, see the contributions in I. Kempe (ed.), Direkte Nachbarschaft. Die Beziehungen zwischen der erweiterten EU und der Russischen Föderation, Ukraine, Weissrussland und Moldova (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1998);Google Scholar
  23. I. Kempe and W. van Meurs (eds), Toward a Multi-Layered Europe: Prospects and Risks Beyond EU Enlargement (Munich: Bertelsmann Group for Policy Research, 2002).Google Scholar
  24. 30.
    Swedish Presidency, ‘Presidency programme concerning external relations in the JHA field (2001–2002)’, 5146/01 Limite JAI 2, 11 January 2001.Google Scholar
  25. 35.
    T. Christiansen, F. Petito and B. Tonra, ‘Fuzzy Politics Around Fuzzy Borders: The European Union’s “Near Abroad”’, Cooperation and Conflict, 35 (2000), 389–415;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. M.S. Filtenborg, S. Gänzle and E. Johansson, ‘An Alternative Theoretical Approach to EU Foreign Policy: “Network Governance” and the Case of the Northern Dimension Initiative’, Cooperation and Conflict, 37 (2002), 387–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 45.
    K. Schelter, Challenges for non- (and Not-Yet-) Schengen Countries, vol. 13, 15 March 2003, Geneva: paper presented at the Workshop on Managing International and Inter-Agency Co-operation at the Border, Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of the Armed Forces, footnote 4.Google Scholar
  28. 49.
    European Council, ‘Presidency Conclusions’, Thessaloniki European Council, June 2003, p. 13.Google Scholar
  29. 50.
    Commission of the European Communities, ‘Communication on Wider Europe — Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours’, COM(2003) 104 final, 11 March 2003, p. 10.Google Scholar
  30. 53.
    On the conditionality approach in relations with the candidate countries see F. Schimmelfennig and U. Sedelmeier, ‘Theorizing EU enlargement: research focus, hypotheses, and the state of research’, Journal of European Public Policy, 9 (2002), 500–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra Lavenex

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations