Security and border security policies: Perimeter or smart border? A comparison of the European union and Canadian‐American border security regimes

Abstract Did the traumatic act of September 11, 2001, lead European and North American governments to reconsider their security regimes and their border security policies in particular? Canada and the United States brokered the Smart Border Agreement while the European Union member‐states elected to work together to build an area of freedom, security and justice. As both of these free trade regimes increasingly integrated, security costs also increased. The European Union abolished borders between member‐states in order to concentrate resources on external borders and co‐operate on security issues. In North America, each state reinvested in border security and increased co‐operation. Functionalists and neo‐functionalists would suggest that supranational institutions permit states to establish an effective border security perimeter strategy. However, issues of sovereignty may frustrate such views, and realist or multilevel governance approaches might predict more accurately how states reorganize their border security regimes. In this paper, the argument is made that neo‐functionalist views best explain the European strategy, whereas the multilevel governance approach best explains the Canada‐U.S. strategies. Ultimately, however, this paper documents that sovereignty has a cost.

[1]  L. Hooghe,et al.  Multi-Level Governance and European Integration , 2001 .

[2]  R. McKitrick,et al.  Comparing Capital Mobility Across Provincial and National Borders , 1998 .

[3]  F. Stern,et al.  The New European Community , 1992 .

[4]  P. Taylor.  The European Community and the state: assumptions, theories and propositions , 1991, Review of International Studies.

[5]  J. Helliwell.  National Borders, Trade and Migration , 1997 .

[6]  E. Haas.  The Uniting of Europe , 1958 .

[7]  Malcolm Anderson.  Border Regimes and Security in an Enlarged European Community: Implications of the Entry into Force of the Amsterdam Treaty , 2000 .

[8]  A. Moravcsik,et al.  Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach , 1993 .

[9]  Ian Clark,et al.  A ‘Borderless World’? , 2000 .

[10]  K. Ohmae,et al.  The End of the Nation State: The Rise of Regional Economies , 1995 .

[11]  Robert O. Keohane,et al.  Power and interdependence : world politics in transition , 1978 .

[12]  G. Schiavone.  The Historical Framework , 1981 .

[13]  K. Maxwell,et al.  Here A Biography Of The New American Continent , 2001 .

[14]  Sean M. Shore.  Security Communities: No fences make good neighbors: the development of the US-Canadian security community, 1871–1940 , 1998 .

[15]  National Borders, Trade and Migration , 1997 .

[16]  John F. Helliwell,et al.  Globalization and well-being , 2002 .

[17]  A. Moravcsik.  Negotiating the Single European Act: national interests and conventional statecraft in the European Community , 1991, International Organization.

[18]  W. Diebold,et al.  The Borderless World , 1990 .

[19]  H. Wiberg,et al.  Security Communities , 2000 .

[20]  Alan Hudson,et al.  Frontiers: Territory and state formation in the modern world , 1998 .

[21]  Karl W. Deutsch,et al.  Political Community And The North Atlantic Area , 1958 .

[22]  Andreas,et al.  The Wall Around The West: State Borders And Immigration Controls In North America And Europe , 2000 .

[23]  Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly.  NAFTA, economic integration, and the Canadian‐American security regime in the post‐September 11, 2001 era: Multi‐Level Governance and Transparent Border? , 2004 .

[24]  D. Mitrany,et al.  The functional theory of politics , 1976 .

[25]  I. Crawford.  Beyond the nation-state , 1992, Nature.

[26]  T. Courchene,et al.  North American Monetary Union: analytical principles and operational guidelines , 2000 .

[27]  J. Helliwell.  Do Borders Matter for Social Capital? Economic Growth and Civic Culture in U.S. States and Canadian Provinces , 1996 .