The Rise of Hard Borders: Boundaries of European Liberalism

With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain that had divided the political map of Europe for half a century, liberal scholars were quick to predict the emergence of a more integrated, peaceful and globalised European system. Central to this system was the softening of European borders, with EU legislation designed to create a collective ‘area of freedom security and justice’ transcending and superseding state borders. The following European integration contributed to the idea that territorially defined borders no longer had the profound effect on the international system they once exerted. Amidst the ongoing refugee crisis in southern and southeast Europe, however, an altogether different trend has emerged. Since 2015, several Balkan states covering popular migration routes between Greece and northern Europe have erected border walls including Hungary, Macedonia and Bulgaria. 

Although these border walls have attracted international attention and even condemnation, their cumulative effect presents a significant challenge to the liberal ideals of integration and unity long espoused by the EU. Not only has the rise of hard borders in southeast Europe resulted in tension between Balkan states and Brussels; they have also fostered international disputes between those states on both sides of the new border walls. For instance, the erection of border walls has proved actively detrimental to neighbouring states, forced to accommodate an increased number of migrants prevented from leaving. Macedonia’s border wall and its accompanied increase of security did just this. It prompted fears of a build-up of migrants in Greece, soon manifested in a violent border clash between refugees and Macedonian security at the Idomeni border crossing. Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras went so far as to accuse Macedonia of ‘shaming Europe’ by its actions. Although his comments centred on humanitarian concern for migrants affected, his antipathy to Macedonia’s wall was undoubtedly influenced by the adverse effect the wall would have on the Greek state. In this way, the rise of hard borders affects more than the migrants they are designed to keep out. They have the capacity to create political rifts between neighbouring states and challenge the international norm of burden sharing that has long characterised EU refugee policy. 

The political effects of border walls, however, extend beyond disputes between neighbouring states. Hungary’s wall along its border with Serbia, constructed in 2015, aroused criticism from both the UN and the EU. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, denounced the wall as a ‘symbol of rejection’ while the EU resolutely rejected Hungary’s demands that it finance half the cost of its border wall. These instances shed light on a growing gulf between the policies and ideals espoused by international organisations and the interests of their member states. Despite the UN protests against Hungary’s border wall and increased border security, there is no sign that Hungary intends a change in policy in the near future. Indeed, these measures have proved remarkably successful in achieving their desired effect, with the number of attempts to illegally cross the Hungarian border falling from 391 thousand in 2015 to just over one thousand in 2017. The difference in priorities between the Hungarian authorities and the UN has led to very different discourse on both sides. While the language of the UNHCR prioritises the protection and safety of refugees, Hungary’s statements consistently shift the debate away from the protection of refugees and towards the protection of Europe. These world visions present two fundamentally different and perhaps irreconcilable interpretations of the ‘area of freedom, security and justice’ of the European community. 

Although it would be reductive to attribute the nature of these disputes simply to a growing nationalist/globalist divide in international politics, it is clear that significant cultural and ideological factors are at play. As a result, the construction of European border walls has a significance that goes way beyond the refugee crisis they were designed to address. The walls reaffirm the importance of territorially defined borders in the international system, an importance long-questioned by globalists and diminished by successive EU policies. They have caused rifts between neighbouring states and challenged the policies and ideals of the European Union and the United Nations. Perhaps most significantly, however, the rise of hard borders in southeast Europe questions how policy makers understand the concepts of protection, security, freedom and justice. While these questions are likely to remain contested for some time, their answers may help shape not only responses to the refugee crisis, but the language of international politics for years to come.