Frontières en mouvement (Frontem)

Introduction

Birte Wassenberg

The Jean Monnet Network Frontières en mouvement: quels modèles pour l’UE (Frontem)? was supported by the European Union (EU)’s Erasmus+ program for the period between 2019 and 2023.

Linking two disciplinary fields that have until now been little connected – Border Studies and European Studies – the network exchanged knowledge and practices on five different models of EU border management and perception: the border between France and Germany, the border between France and Belgium, the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, the border between Romania and Hungary and the border between Denmark and Germany. A comparative analysis was also conducted with regard to the Canada/US border in order to assess whether the European “models” can be transposed to other regions in the world.

The key question addressed by the network was how to assess the role of the border in the process of European integration when faced with processes of re-bordering and the re-questioning of the model of a “Europe without borders”.¹ The Frontem network aimed therefore at offering a critical reading of a borderless Europe. It started from the observation that the EU has developed a unilateral approach to borders, which essentially retains their economic dimension as a barrier, without sufficiently taking into account other aspects, symbolic and political, in particular. The hypothesis put forward was that political borders have never disappeared and that there is an ambivalence of borders in the EU both as places of contact and exchange and means of protection and delimitation. Thanks to the comparative approach to the management and perception of borders in European cross-border regions, the network wished to develop a more differentiated and multidimensional approach to the border. It therefore took a new look at the role of the border in European integration, considering that there is not a single model of the perception and management of borders in the EU, but that they depend on the specific context of each border area concerned.

The partners of Frontem² carried out a cross-analysis of border management and perception in their border areas by organising each a scientific seminar with researchers and a focus group with local stakeholders. This publication not only collects the different contributions to the research seminars, but also takes up the elements of the focus groups. All results of the Frontem network are available on the website of the Franco-German Jean Monnet Center of excellence of the University of Strasbourg.³

The publication is structured in six parts. After a general introduction to Frontières en mouvement (Frontem) by Birte Wassenberg, parts 2 to 6 take on a territorial approach by analysing five models of cross-border cooperation in different EU border regions.

The first part on “Franco-German Cross-Border Cooperation: A Model for European Integration?” examines the two Franco-German borderlands: the Franco-German-Swiss Upper Rhine Region and the Greater Region (Saar-Lor-Lux-Rhineland-Palatinate-Wallonia). Reine Wakote starts by analysing cross-border cooperation in the Greater Region from a legal point of view. Her article on “The Greater Region Model – Legal Aspects” shows that the European Cross-Border Mechanism (ECBM) – if adopted – could help to create in the Greater Region a “local cross-border law”, which would better empower local and regional authorities to participate in actions and projects beyond national borders, in accordance with the principles of international law. Nora Crossey and Florian Weber then examine “Borderlands of Governance in the Saarland-Moselle Border Region – the Roles of Municipalities within Current Dynamics of Cross-Border Cooperation”. They observe a gradual “territorialisation” of intercommunal cooperation and identify cross-border structures such as the Eurodistrict SaarMoselle as an “ideal type” of territorial governance. The effects of Covid-19 on cross-border cooperation in the Greater Region are finally evaluated by Julia Dittel and Florian Weber, in their contribution on “A Living Lab of European Integration? Cross-Border Developments in the Greater Region during the Covid-19 Pandemic”. They illustrate the extent to which the systematic border controls and the partial border closures caused a standstill in the border region. However, they also reveal that the pandemic contributed to a revival of and a stronger desire for cross-border cooperation and a deepened cross-border dialogue. The perception of the open border as an advantage was a central learning experience in favour of border regions like the Greater Region to be more resilient to crises.

The effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on cross-border cooperation in the Upper Rhine Region are analysed by Philippe Hamman. In his article on “Cross-border Urban Governance in the Upper Rhine Region in the Face of the Covid-19 Pandemic”, he underlines that the residential and labour cross-border spaces require a differentiated approach to public policies in a multi-level governance approach. According to him, the health crisis has exacerbated the agglomerating effects of borders as filters of communication and it was not only a test for cross-border urban governance, but also revealed practical interdependences at the European and inter-local levels, whose existence calls for the development of shared, coordinated territorial policies. The legal perspective of cross-border cooperation in the Upper Rhine Region is dealt with by Michael Frey and Sarah Herrmann, in their article on “Legal Elements of a Cross-Border Friendly Legislation in the Upper Rhine”. They claim that the efficiency and speed of resolving cross-border problems with a legal background could be significantly improved by the establishment of a legally binding ex ante impact analysis focusing on cross-border effects. Also, legal cross-border cooperation could be improved if existing problem-solving procedures within the Franco-Swiss Government Commission and the Committee of cross-border cooperation provided for in the Aachen Treaty were made more binding and quicker by adapting the rules laid down in the ECBM. Finally, Catherine Ledig and Frédérique Berrod give an interesting insight into cross-border cooperation in the Information Technology (IT) Sector in the Upper Rhine Region. In their article on “Feedback on more than 20 Years of Cross-Border Cooperation Experiences in the Upper Rhine in the Information Technology Sector (from 1994 to 2018)”, they show that numerous projects were undertaken and produced operational results, but that the IT sector is not “an easy one”, as one could believe that IT are not developing within national or local borders, as it is a virtual world. Cross-border cooperation in this sector therefore particularly requires a common sense of necessity on both sides of the border.

The second part of this publication on “Franco-Belgian Cross-Border Cooperation: A Schengen Model of an Open Border?” analyses the Franco-Belgian border with regard to its model function. Fabienne Leloup takes a historical perspective by assessing Franco-Belgian cross-border cooperation with regard to “Memories of the Franco-Belgian Border: Battles, Heritage and Cooperation”. Whereas she remarks that cross-border cooperation creates incentives for collective regional or local projects based on collective memories – such as the world wars-, there still seems to remain fragmented memories that end at the border. At a time of resurgent nationalism, she emphasises the importance of examining how collective memories and heritage can shape notions of “us” and “them” at the border. Confirming the Frontem network’s assumption of specificity of borderlands, she illustrates how the Franco-Belgian border reveals itself as a singular place, a site of histories that combines diversity and continuity, rewriting and reinterpretation. Cyprien Richer and Patrick Palmier then follow on by testing the hypothesis of the Franco-Belgian border as an “open” space. Their contribution on “Public Transport in EUrometropolis Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai. Is the Border Effect still Visible?” focuses on cross-border transport facilities and shows that, contrarily to expectations, the cross-border metropolis Lille is the only one that is not structured by a public transport network. According to them, the borderland is an “in-between” zone that is not covered by the main urban transport lines. Thus, the border effects are not only visible, but the idea of the Franco-Belgian border as an integrated “open” space is highly questionable. Pauline Pupier, in her article on “Water Governance in the European Natural Park Plaines Scarpe Scheldt. Legal Obstacles and Political Will in Cross-Border Cooperation” is more optimistic: She evaluates the European Natural Park ENPPSS as a successful cross-border cooperation. Although it has no competence in water policy or river management, the ENPPSS wishes to contribute to building up cross-border water governance. It can therefore take on an active role as a mutual trust builder, facilitator of governance and leader of cross-border projects. Finally, Bernard Reitel compares cross-border cooperation between France and Germany and France and Belgium. His article on “The Franco-Belgian and Franco-German Borders. A Brief Comparative Analysis”, underlines that the two cross-border areas are characterised by intense interactions, but also by a possible heightening of tensions linked to the persistence of socio-economic differences and the reactivation of more or less marked forms of nationalism. Observing increased restrictions on border crossings for reasons of territorial security by the States and a risk of social polarisation, Bernard Reitel therefore doubts that the models of integrated or “open” border spaces can still be firmly asserted for both borderlands.

The model of an invisible border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is analysed in the third part of this publication on “Cross-Border Cooperation on the Isle of Ireland: A (still) Invisible Border?”. Milena Komavora and Katy Hayward start by examining the potential effects of Brexit on the invisible border. Their contribution on “Resisting Re-bordering. Cross-Border Mobilities in an Irish Border Region in Anticipation of Brexit” first emphasizes how the Good Friday Agreement and cross-border cooperation have helped to transform a visible border as a security barrier into an invisible “soft space” of integration. However, they then illustrate how Brexit has provoked deep uncertainty over the future of cross-border mobilities and has revived the social and political tensions centering on the border’s legitimacy, thus making the border visible again. This analysis is validated by Anthony Soares in his contribution on “The Visible Invisible Border: Reflections on the Frontem Focus Group Discussions on Mobility across the Ireland-Northern Ireland Border”. He underlines that Brexit has raised again the question of managing and monitoring the land border on the island of Ireland. According to him, the Frontem focus groups reveal that this raises the “ghosts of the past” and the memories of a border amid a conflict that it was hoped had been left behind. On land, Brexit has made “the invisible visible”, at least psychologically. By trying to keep the land border invisible, this has also made visible the maritime border, which is being fiercely contested by the unionists. Focusing on “Practices of Cross-Border Mobility. The Standing Conference on Teacher Education North and South SCo TENS as a Learning Cross-Border Organization”, Kathy Hall then presents an initiative which has helped the teacher education community on the island of Ireland to move on from the political turmoil and violence to the relative peace after the Belfast /Good Friday Agreement in 1998. Without insisting on the “invisible” border, she maintains that the opening-up of conversation among “the geographically close” is generating awareness of both difference and commonality and helps to foster trust, familiarity and mutual under-standing. Finally, Jennifer Todd deals with the question of how a constitutional change to a united Ireland could impact the border area. In her article on “Changing Perspectives on the Irish Border, from the Southern Border Counties. Negotiating New Regional Frames and Constitutional Debate”, she first emphasizes that the border has changed from a liminal area between states to an open area without barriers and a regional unit with its own practices, identity, problems and expertise. She then claims that the cross-border experience expressed by the participants of the Frontem focus groups could feed into the constitutional debate in order to assess how different institutional models would tackle cross-border dysfunctions, for example within the health service sector.

The fourth part of the publication deals with “Danish-German Cross-Border Cooperation: A Model for Minority Management?”. Steen Bo Frandsen delivers a first insight on the Danish-German model with his article on “The Danish-German Border Region. A Critical Introduction”. He reveals that the Danish-German border does no longer function as the clear demarcation as “foreseen” by the nation-state. Indeed, the Schengen border has changed border region reality and the inhabitants of the border region easily cross the border for shopping, trips, cultural events or for meeting friends and relatives. However, according to him, this does not mean that there is a revival of the historic “in between” and that the border is still present, even if the border region has moved quite far from the nation-state border of the past. However, in an account of “Celebrating the Border: The Danish-German Border region and the 100-year Anniversary of the ‘Genforening’”, Gaia Cardin realises that the border is no longer perceived only as a barrier, but also as a bridge between Denmark and Germany and that the narrative used during the celebration made use of historical events to create a sense of continuity and common belonging – such as the plebiscite in February 1920 or King Christian X’s ride on a white horse over the old border in June 1920. The model character of the cross-border region can be underlined here, as the use of these historical events or episodes serves the construction of a regional identity.

Martin Klatt then analyses the model function of the Danish-German border region for minority management. His contribution on “The Danish-German-Frisian Region – A Best Practice Example?” is optimistic. He claims that, from a Danish and German minority perspective, the status quo is definitely improved practice, if compared to historical periods of conflict and alienation. But according to him there is still room for improvement, for, if political acknowledgement and social inclusion are for example best practice with regard to Danish, German and Frisian minorities, there are clear deficiencies with regard to the Sinti and Roma. Also, the cultural diversity of the region could be made more visible, especially in a cross-border context. Gunvor Vestergaard, in “Minorities and Cross-Border Meetings from the Perspective of Graenseforeningen (the Danish Border Association)”, then emphasizes, that cross-border activities in the Danish-German area are important for the minorities living in the border region. From his point of view, the minority youth’s narrative about living bilingual and using their cross-cultural possibilities is also useful for the nation-states and for European cooperation in general. Katarzyna Stoklosa tackles a more specific subject concerning minorities in the borderland: In her article on “Migration Movements of the Poles. Comparative Study of the German-Danish Border Region”, she claims that Danish and German minorities do not behave in the same way in the border region as Polish minorities. While for the former, both material and non-material values are exchanged, for the latter, it is mainly a development of their new place of living in terms of material aspects which is important. Also, the Covid-19 restrictions seemed for Polish migrants in the Danish-German border region to represent a limitation not because of the closed German-Danish border but because it was not possible for them to travel to Poland. According to Katarzyna Stoklosa, this fact shows that the German-Danish border region does not have a great importance to Polish migrants living there. Finally, in their article on “Achieving (Im)mobility. Resilience at the German-Danish Border during the Covid-19 Pandemic”, Dorte J. Andersen and Ingo Winklershow measure the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on the border region’s population. They show that the cross-border commuters’ experiences and stories reveal how and why the tightened border regime matters for them and how they at once live with, attempt to resist, and also openly resent the stress they experienced. They reveal different forms of resilience: some clearly aim at depoliticising border controls, others articulate mobilities as a universal right of European citizens, thus constituting “open borders” less as a way of life for the commuters than as a political project. Their findings confirm the complexity and specificity not only of different border regions, but also within one single border region: in the Danish-German borderland, different versions of resilience indicate that there are different ways of living as a borderlander and that they depend on perceptions of the border and related consequences of closures.

The fifth part of the publication focuses on the “Hungarian-Romanian Cross-Border Cooperation: A Model for Central Europe?”. First of all, János Sallai analyseds“Border Control on the Romanian-Hungarian Border in the Socialist Era”. His contribution reminds of the dividing function of almost hermetically closed borders between Socialist States during the Cold War. He refers mainly to the legislation on the Hungarian-Romanian border regime of 1964, which provided for demarcation of the State border, maintenance of the boundary line and joint preservation and control of boundary marks. Whereas in the 1980s, the Hungarian-Romanian border relations were considered “friendly”, which meant that the two countries would return illegal border crossers to each other as per a secret agreement, by the end of the 1980s, the deteriorated relationships between Romania and Hungary created issues on the border: Hungarian travellers and tourists were for example denied entry at the Romanian-Hungarian border by the Romanian guards without offering any explanation. An overview on the current borderland and cross-border cooperation is then presented by Nicolae Păun and Enya-Andrea Tămaș, in their contribution on “Changing Borders, Shifting Paradigms. The Romanian-Hungarian Border”. They reveal that, over the course of the last decades, the perception, the form and the functions of the Romanian-Hungarian border have shifted. Thus, the border region has been for a long time separating the cross-border region, but with the end of socialism, the rigidity of the border eased and since then it has become the site of extensive cross-border cooperation. The model character of this cross-border cooperation seems confirmed, as one can identify a transformation of the border from its barrier function to a connecting bridge. Their contribution also underlines the importance for Romania’s accession to the Schengen Area, which could inarguably serve the further “spiritualisation” of the border, while also contributing to the physical realisation of a “Europe without borders”. István Polgár and Mircea Brie confirm this analysis in their article on “General Trends and Evolutions from the Past Century Regarding the Perception of the Romanian-Hungarian Border in the Context of the European Territorial Cooperation”. Focusing on the Bihor – Hajdú-Bihar Euroregion, they illustrate the success of territorial cooperation by means of joint programs oriented towards innovation and institutional cooperation. They believe that the Hungarian-Romanian border, since the fall of communism, has changed its status of a hard, close and exclusive border to that of a soft, open and inclusive one. Finally, Melinda Benczi deals with the perception of the Hungarian-Romanian border. Her article on “Outlining the Main Perception Strand on the Hungarian-Romanian Border” is rather pessimistic with regard to the model character of the borderland. She affirms that citizens living in this border sections are not hostile to each other, but that the cooperative spirit is sometimes replaced by competitiveness. According to her, the Hungarian-Romanian border itself often still appears as a barrier and not as a bridge, which could be improved through the sensitive narration of history, the increase of the permeability and the prevalence of “friendly” politics.

The sixth and final part of the publication allows for a Euro-Atlantic comparison of cross-border cooperation in the light of crisis. Jean Peyrony’s first assesses two years of border management in Europe after the Covid-19 pandemic and its impact on border regions and their inhabitants. His contribution “Europe: Towards Cross-Border Regions and Multi-Level Governance of Borders” was based on an analysis of the impact of border-related measures taken by Member States in the fight against Covid-19, carried out by Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière (MOT) for the European Commission in 2022. Jean Peyrony underlines that the crisis has revealed the nature of cross-border interdependencies, of which public authorities had no clear view and that borders’ real nature and daily functioning have proven to be largely misunderstood by public authorities and opinion. He believes that cross-border living areas can better integrate in the future if EU Member States agree to exercise their sovereignty together, at the local level of cross-border regions and with the support of a bottom-up multi-level governance. In their article on “(Mis)Perceptions of the Canada-US borderland”, Emmanual Brunet-Jailly and Tatsiana Shaban then show the differences of perception and border management in US-Canada borderlands with regard to Europe, emphasising mainly the shift towards a more securitized border after the terrorist attacks in 2001 and the Covid-19 pandemic. According to their analysis, this creates difficulties for cross-border relations and trade. They underline that, when crossing the border today between the US and Canada, it is notable that 20 years of policy changes have contributed progressively to citizens’ perceptions of uncertainty and insecurity. This confirms the assumption, that in Europe, and especially within the EU, cross-border cooperation and resilience in crisis might represent indeed a model function for border perception and management in other areas of the world.

1 B. Wassenberg, “Europa ohne Grenzen. Mythus oder Realität? Eine historische Analyse”, In B. Wassenberg (ed.), Frontières, acteurs et représentations d’Europe (Fare). Mélanges en honneur de Sylvain Schirmann, Peter Lang, Brussels, 2022, pp. 415–439.

2 The University of Southern Denmark in Sonderborg, the Euro-Institute in Kehl, the Hochschule Kehl, the Babes-Bolyai Cluj University, the Centre for Cross-Border Studies in Armagh in Northern Ireland, the Catholic University of Louvain, the University of Artois (Arras), the Mission opérationnelle transfrontalière (MOT) in Paris, the Central European Service for Cross-border Initiatives (CESCI) in Budapest and the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada.

3 Centre Jean Monnet: <https://centre-jean-monnet.unistra.fr/>. Accessed 30 December 2023.