COVID-19 and the Schengen Area: Towards a new model of European interdependence

Abstract

This research starts from the situation generated by the pandemic in 2022 in the Schengen area. Paradoxically, a few days before the 25th anniversary of the establishment of the Schengen area, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak of Coronavirus, a global pandemic which forced the closure of most European borders. What seemed to be a guaranteed right, freedom of movement, was suspended in order to control the pandemic.

The decisions taken by states unilaterally generated complex derivations in the framework of complex interdependence within which the European Union operates. National measures, far from guaranteeing the four fundamental freedoms, highlighted the discrepancies and lack of integration in this area. The temporary restrictions on free movement indirectly signified the proclamation that public health and those freedoms cannot coexist in critical situations, eliminating any pretense of EU leadership.

Transnational relations, which on the one hand led to the increasing interconnectedness of societies, on the other hand also resulted in the restriction of states’ foreign policy spaces for action. This has led to the emergence of international governance, a model that has a strong influence on the development and functioning of the EU. Most EU Member States reacted quickly to the risk of the exponential spread of the coronavirus and adopted stringent preventive measures that culminated in unprecedented restrictions on the free movement of persons within the EU, with important consequences for the functioning of the internal market.

The narrative of Europe as a market power emerges as an alternative. The normative approach to European identity assumes that the very nature of the EU as a market predisposes it to use its economic capabilities as a foreign policy tool. Thus, an approach that emphasizes this fact will be analytically more appropriate than an approach based on the normative identity of the Union. This points to the gestation of a new form of global governance and the design of new mechanisms for cooperation between states in the framework of interdependence and could be seen as a starting point for the debate on whether interfering in the internal market with restrictions and prohibitions on mobility was a reasonable alternative for member states to take, considering other competing interests. That is, whether the situation generated by the pandemic justified the degree of interference with free movement within the EU.

The European system of governance, the most developed in contemporary international relations, showed many weaknesses and even a regression during the pandemic; that is, to a pre-eminently intergovernmental process, led by the most powerful EU countries. The EU’s international cooperation systems, mechanisms and instruments must lay the foundations for a new agenda adapted to the reality of a post-Covid multipolar and interdependent world.

This article is organized in three parts. The first part focuses on situating the concept of interdependence in both traditional and contemporary International Relations. This interdependence is generated for different reasons, each of which specifically defines the model to be followed by states in their transnational relations. The progressive redistribution of global power towards multipolarity and the deepening of interdependence between states have given rise to a transition towards interpolarity in which cooperation/integration, multilateralism and the role of the great powers or polarity occupy a prominent place. This is due to the increase in the number, quality and nature of the different interconnections that, at the international level, take place between different types of actors.

Once the concept of interdependence has been placed in a global framework, the impact of this phenomenon on the Schengen area will be studied as an element common to all Member States, but for which different solutions were offered.

The temporary suspension of the Schengen area affected the four fundamental freedoms and, although some were affected more than others, there is no doubt about its impact on European systems. This impact, far from being gauged by the European Union as an organization, was managed unilaterally by the states that persisted in their isolationist attitude, reinforcing the scarce integration that the Schengen area has always experienced but which was necessary in this context. The difference in scope and rigidity of national travel restrictions and bans resulted in a spectrum of diverse and sometimes inconsistent restrictions across the Union. As an example, most entry bans to national territories contained exceptions for domestic nationals and residents: some provided exceptions for nationals, residents, and persons confirmed negative for Covid-19, whereas others offered exceptions to nationals, residents, and persons entering the national territory for valid reasons.

The second part of our research focuses on a qualitative analysis of the restrictions in the Schengen area and whether the interdependence experienced in this area and its lack of integration favour or harm the EU’s behaviour on the international stage. Member States justified all travel restrictions –including entry and exit bans to and from national territories– on public health grounds. In this sense, the removal of multilevel governance elements in different EU policy areas elevated issues originally from the European framework to the international level without considering their long-term impact. Thus, some EU covid-19 measures, such as the severe restrictions on free movement that affected refugee and asylum rights during the pandemic showed that the terms of solidarity underpinning the framework for the implementation of refugee and asylum rights in the EU, which does not go beyond the national level, are not commensurate with the real need for concrete solutions in this area. The human rights implications of all these border closures are alarming and put at serious risk vulnerable populations that should be protected by these national and international legal obligations.

With regards to the internal aspect, the Schengen area is a space where interdependence between states is clearly visible in such obvious and important areas as global trade in goods and services, capital transfers, and information connectivity, thanks to the Internet and social networks. For example, we see that during the Covid-19 pandemic, there was a direct link between, for example, the suspension of the Schengen area, the health systems of the Member States, and the health systems of the EU Member States.