The aim of this paper is to investigate to what extent the EU's strategy for securing its borders aligns with the primacy of human rights and what impact European migration policy measures have on the EU’s legitimacy.
In order to answer this question, a systematic literature review was carried out based on Schmidt's (2013) classification of legitimacy into input, output, and throughput and taking into account the concept of human rights of the EU. Input legitimacy was examined in the context of the border governance of the Schengen border regime, output legitimacy was judged in the context of the EUROSUR policies, especially the use of AFRT at borders and the refugee distribution scheme of the Dublin Convention. Throughput legitimacy was analyzed taking into account the criterion of accountability within the privatization of the border management. The examination of these aspects has shown that the EU policy on migration is highly contradictory and deficient in all areas of legitimacy. There are no uniform ways of acting, nation-state interests remain dominant, policies conflict with human rights, there is no clarity about who is accountable for certain measures. On the basis of the insights gained, five recommendations for action have been drawn up for the EU Commission, which should contribute to coping with this crisis.
Since the introduction of the Schengen Agreement in 1985, the task of border security has shifted from national borders to the European external borders. Although this agreement has led to greater European integration and to a certain degree to a common European identity, opinions are divided on how to deal with humans outside of the Schengen borders. With the increasing migration flows towards Europe since the Syrian Conflict in 2011 and the ensuing EU policies, the EU has increasingly become a protected fortress, which recognizes migrants as a threat. At the same time, the EU presents itself as a protector of human rights.
Table of Content
Introduction
Methodological section
Background information: Facial Recognition Technology in the European Border Management
Theoretical section
Legitimacy in the EU
Concept of Human Rights (protection) of the EU and the European identity
Empirical analysis
Input legitimacy: Border governance in the Schengen border regime
Output legitimacy: human rights violation and ineffective output policies
Throughput legitimacy: Accountability within the process of privatization of border management
Conclusion
References
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This paper investigates the extent to which the European Union's border management strategy aligns with its principles regarding human rights, while assessing the legitimacy of these practices amid the ongoing migration crisis.
- The impact of automated facial recognition technology (AFRT) on human rights.
- Evaluation of EU border governance using Schmidt’s framework of input, output, and throughput legitimacy.
- The role of surveillance mechanisms and security policy in the context of the Schengen regime.
- Accountability challenges arising from the privatization of border management and the role of agencies like Frontex.
- The discrepancy between the EU’s identity as a human rights protector and its actual border enforcement practices.
Excerpt from the Book
3. Background information: Facial Recognition Technology in the European Border Management
The Schengen border regime has become one of the pillars of the EU’s architecture and ‘has been hailed as a success story of European integration’ (Zaiotti, 2018, p. 99). However, the establishment of an integrated border management is not yet accomplished and will remain a controversial issue since member states do not want to lose sovereignty over such a sensitive policy area (Zaiotti, 2018). The Europeanization of the border policy stagnated with the external shock of the so-called refugee crisis in 2015, the ‘increased migratory pressure on Europe’s borders’ (Zaiotti, 2018, p. 99). As Zaiotti (2018) argues this has led ‘to the further strengthening of existing external border controls’ (p. 99) and the ‘increasing [...] efficacy of control measures’ (p.102). Moreover, ‘[t]here has been a rapid expansion in the type and volume of information collected for security purposes’ (Mann & Smith, 2017, p.121). As the authors argue, this was the starting point of ‘globalized surveillance’ (Mann & Smith, 2017, p.121), with which the EU’s border management has changed and technological devices have been introduced to develop ‘smart European borders’ (Zaiotti, 2018). Therefore, in 2013, EUROSUR came into force which allows the member states to carry out border surveillance (Zaiotti, 2018). One technology which is outstanding and raises the most concerns about violating human rights is the AFRT which ‘allows the automatic identification of an individual by matching two or more faces from digital images’ (FRA, 2019, p. 2).
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Provides the context of the Schengen agreement and identifies the research question regarding the alignment of EU border strategies with human rights and legitimacy.
Methodological section: Outlines the systematic literature review approach and the theoretical framework based on Schmidt's (2013) concepts of legitimacy.
Background information: Facial Recognition Technology in the European Border Management: Details the rise of surveillance tools like EUROSUR and AFRT as responses to the 2015 migration crisis.
Theoretical section: Establishes the definitions of input, output, and throughput legitimacy and explores the European identity in relation to human rights protection.
Empirical analysis: Examines the actual border governance, human rights violations via AFRT, and the accountability gap created by the privatization of security.
Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings and provides recommendations for the EU Commission to address the identified legitimacy crisis.
Keywords
European Union, Schengen border regime, Human rights, Facial recognition technology, AFRT, EUROSUR, Border management, Migration crisis, Input legitimacy, Output legitimacy, Throughput legitimacy, Accountability, Frontex, Surveillance, Data protection
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper examines how the European Union's current border management strategies, particularly the use of automated technologies, conflict with the EU's own human rights standards and affect its political legitimacy.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
Key themes include the impact of the 2015 refugee crisis on EU border policy, the evolution of surveillance technologies, the privatization of border enforcement, and the conceptual framework of democratic legitimacy.
What is the primary research question?
The research asks to what extent the border management strategy of the EU aligns with its principles regarding human rights while ensuring its own legitimacy.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author utilizes a systematic literature review, applying Schmidt’s (2013) classification of legitimacy (input, output, and throughput) to analyze existing EU border policies and practices.
What topics are covered in the main section of the paper?
The main sections cover the technical aspects of facial recognition, the theoretical underpinnings of EU legitimacy, an empirical analysis of current border governance, and an assessment of accountability mechanisms.
Which key terms best characterize this study?
The study is characterized by terms such as European Union, Schengen regime, facial recognition technology, human rights, legitimacy, and border governance.
How does the use of AFRT affect the EU's legitimacy according to the author?
The author argues that AFRT creates a contradiction between the EU's proclaimed values of human rights and its actual security practices, which results in an "output legitimacy" deficit.
What role does Frontex play in the context of the paper's findings?
Frontex is highlighted as an example of the "privatization" of border management, where a lack of direct accountability and shifting responsibilities to third countries complicates the democratic oversight of border security.
What recommendations does the paper provide?
The author suggests five specific actions, including negotiating a new supranational agreement for refugee reception, establishing clearer laws for surveillance use, and increasing public participation in policy processes.
- Quote paper
- Anonym (Author), 2020, Fortress Europe? How Automated Facial Recognition Technology Undermines Human Rights, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/945205
