Integrated Border Management at the EU Level. CEPS Working Documents No. 227, 1 August 2005

In times marked by trends as diverse as economic globalisation, international migration as well as fear of terrorism and organised crime, the efficient handling of borders has become an issue of political priority, in the EU and across the world. Modern, economy-oriented states have to rely on a flourishing trade and offer a comfortable degree of security to their citizens. The formula commonly chosen in combining these two objectives is that of ‘integrated border management’, which represents the delicate attempt to marry security concerns with trade facilitation. If the implementation of this innovative approach is already proving to be a challenge to well-established nation states, it becomes a genuine balancing act for an incomplete federation such as the EU, with its sensitive mix of a single external border and 25 separate legal/administrative systems. This working paper seeks to illustrate the difficulties encountered by the EU and develop solutions that should firmly go into the direction of a coherent, communitarian approach in border management, such as that sketched out by the recent Council Regulation No. 2007/2004 establishing the European Border Agency known as FRONTEX

Customs cooperation in the area of Freedom, Security and Justice: the role of customs in the management of the EU's external border. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe, 17 June 2011

This study contrasts the current role of customs at the EU’s external borders with the role it was intended to perform according to international standards in border management. There is a considerable imbalance between the involvement of customs and border guards, which impedes the smooth operation of border control and poses security risks for the Union and its citizens, including terrorist attacks. This paper analyses the causes of this imbalance and proposes appropriate solutions that are in line with international standards

A farewell to open borders? The Danish approach. CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe, November 2011

Migratory pressure from abroad and populist trends in Europe have already put considerable stress on borderless Europe, despite the open borders being one of its most precious achievements. But what in the past could be seen as annoying yet temporary disturbances attained an entirely different character under the Danish initiative launched in early May 2011. The move to install permanent controls, including customs houses and video surveillance, alarmed not just Brussels but also travellers and business associations EU-wide. Even though the new government has since banished the nightmare by repealing the border measures, one should still not sound the ‘all clear’ signal. With populist parties all over Europe, similar scenarios are likely to arise elsewhere. This paper therefore seeks to clarify a few basic elements to help counter future ‘plots’ against free movement more swiftly, namely that 1) the reintroduction of internal border controls violates EU treaty legislation, no matter whether the measures are based on Schengen or customs provisions; and 2) such border-based checks are highly inefficient compared with modern cross-border cooperation among law enforcement authorities

Tracing Terrorists: The EU-Canada Agreement in PNR Matters. CEPS Special Reports, September 2008

Enhancing border security in support of the global ‘war against terrorism’ is very much in vogue these days, in particular as regards the control of air passengers. Seven years after 9/11, this trend is yet unbroken. While the build-up of defences occurs in most cases at the one-sided expense of civil liberties, the EU–Canada Agreement of 2005 is different: quite justly, it holds the reputation of a well-balanced instrument respecting the interests of citizens. Still, instead of serving as a model for future instruments, the Agreement rather runs the risk of being scrapped at the next possible occasion. A close look at the passenger name record (PNR) ‘mainstream’, as embodied by the EU–US branch of transatlantic relations with four Agreements rapidly succeeding between 2004 and 2008, reveals the opposite tendency away from data protection and towards an unconditional tightening of controls. This report undertakes to examine the doubtful benefits of such an approach by assessing the price to pay inter alia for ‘false positive’ mismatches and other collateral damages, while the actual achievement of a higher degree of public security remains very much in the dark, mostly owing to the impossibility of making all borders 100% secure. As a result, no critical reason emerges for taking leave of the good practices established by the EU–Canada instrument