* Click here to download the Report of the Summer School

MAKING EUROPE WORK: Continuously moving beyond borders

The recent enlargement of the European Union and the perspective of Turkish accession raised significant question marks on the public agendas at national and international levels. “Where on earth should Europe’s borders end?” was the question at the core of the 2007 Europaeum Summer School, held in Helsinki from 27 August to 1 September and organized in collaboration with the University of Helsinki and the Network for European Studies (NES). The difficulty of defining and identifying European borders, their transcendence and fuzzy social construction, the different effects borders have on people’s everyday lives, states and institutions constituted many reasons for heated debates for 29 students (of 17 nationalities) from all Europaeum Universities. Inner and outer perspectives joined and complemented each other in order to provide an accurate picture of the various levels of governance, economic welfare, historical evolution, and geographical transformation. Present in everybody’s minds during the whole time were the implications that a fixed definition of Europe’s borders would have for the EU’s future enlargement(s) and for its identity as a political entity.

The intellectual challenge was initiated by Astrid Thors, the Finnish Minister of Migration and European Affairs. Her discourse focused on contemporary immigration as a challenge to the European borders and the national identity of the European peoples, as well as on the shift in the paradigm used by the European policy makers to tackle immigration. Emphasis was put on the application and effects at domestic level of international politics, with aspects relevant for discussions to come – migration, physical and implicit borders, neighbors, and decision making processes.

Throughout the Summer School, different stances of all these issues could be observed. The lectures were enhanced by the visit of a photo exhibition of the recent border between Ukraine and Russia. The power of images illustrated the striking difference between, on the one hand, the political, and, on the other hand, the social and cultural dimensions of borders. People living close to them continued to live and have similar attitudes as before, their daily lives ignoring decisions taken at a superior level. The European Commission adviser on Interinstitutional Relations, Alain Servantie, provided the European institutional dimension of these particular aspects, revealing the difficulty to establish spatial borders in the European space.

The academic strength of this Summer School can be synthesized at three interdependent levels: solid theoretical constructions, concept formation and emphasis, and methodological diversity. The first and the third dimensions will be tackled separately, whereas the second will be found in each of the others.

Focused on the diversity of participants’ opinions, backgrounds, and experiences, the seminars combined four interrelated dimensions: historical, geographical, political, and economic. Building on the complexity of the concepts of border and bordering, the lectures provided rich interdisciplinary theoretical grounds and examples in making valid claims. As in a logical deductive chain, Professor Sami Moisio provided the theoretical and conceptual frameworks for interpreting and perceiving borders in contemporary Europe. By deconstructing the continental arrangement to the regional and national entities, he anchored institutions within territoriality and power creating a two by two table (counter-posing the nation-state to the neo-medieval paradigms), a useful starting point in the future analysis.

This model is congruent with the historical and geographical developments of borders reflected in the lectures of Professors Pierre Beckouche (Sorbonne University), Heikki Mikkeli (Helsinki University), and Chris Quispel (Leiden University). The importance of borders, their continuous changes during the last decades, and their increased complexity can only be understood when taking into account the global political and economic transformations. Professor Beckousche illustrated how contemporary economic globalization seems to disregard all borders; the French example, with strong ties to its former colonies, came to question this rule and emphasize the difficulty of a universal explanation for contemporary changes. Similarly, Professor Mikkeli’s focus on the historical evolution of the European borders revealed the difficulty of finding in history a simple and definitive answer for the borders of Europe. Being aware that borders were made in order to be crossed, Professor Quispel emphasized the nature of borders as a decisive factor in determining relationships between states. Thus, ethnicity and economics are two common examples where border formation lead to a change in states behavior.

In order to provide an in-depth look at the micro processes that develop in border areas these more general comparative studies were complemented by a interdisciplinary presentation of the single case studies of Finland, the Scandinavian countries, Italy and Estonia. Professor Max Engman’s lecture, as well as the visit to the Finnish Parliament provided the participants a unique occasion to discover a few historical and political challenges of a country situated at the Nordic European border.

Consequently, Dr. Laura Assmuth compared, by using a bottom-up view of ethnic minorities living “on the wrong side of the border” of three states: Estonia, Latvia and Russia. The findings of her project concluded that the Russian minorities living in Latvia and Estonia look at the past with nostalgia, but not bitterness, thus offering an optimistic view of the positive effect of European integration. Professor Juhana Aunesluoma’s (Helsinki University) and Professor David Ellwood’s (Bologna University) lectures provided a revealing illustration of the contemporary Northern and Southern borders of Europe. Whereas the Northern European border represented by the Scandinavian states is characterized by collaboration and consensus among these countries, irrespective of their membership in the EU, the case of Italy portrays a completely different picture of the European Southern border. Despite official rhetoric, the path followed here is more individualistic, with a lack of domestic political consensus for a more thorough collaboration with the other Southern neighbors.

The closing lecture was given by Professor Pauliina Raento from the University of Helsinki. The strong link between borders and identity and the issue of co-existing multiple identities at both individual and collective levels, as well as of the appropriation of identity were her arguments on the table. All in all, ranging from gastronomic differences between the Western and Eastern Finland and the nature of internal borders within Italy and inter-state borders between Latvia, Estonia and Russia, these empirically oriented works provided both a clear idea on the complex issues at stake and revealed the difficulty to provide theoretical solutions to problems as multiple identity, ethnicity, protectionism, smuggling and trafficking.

With regards to the methodological diversity characterizing the Summer School, multiple approaches were used. Thus, besides lectures and discussions led by two volunteer discussants, the participants were involved in individual presentation and workshops. Here they had the chance to discuss in groups of five or six the implications of specific policies (e.g. the protectionist models in Europe) for the borders of Europe and take advantage of the different academic background of every participant. Furthermore, the Summer School provided the framework to share the findings of own research, present and discuss personal works in front of an extended audience. The resulting comments and questions were meant to provide a mutual channel of intellectual growth for all those involved in the discussions. The workshops included the presentation of ideas and debates on topics assigned at the beginning of the summer school in front of a large audience. These represented the heated moments where everyone had the chance to state and argument their position. Having as central topic the European borders, both debates focused on nuances of the same specific issue – further enlargement. The first debate recreated the atmosphere in the European Council and had as motions the accession of Israel, Ukraine, Morocco, Russia and Turkey (in this order). The enthusiasm of the participants and the strength of arguments determined many changes of hearts and minds and influenced a positive decision regarding the Ukrainian accession (in 2014) whereas in the Turkish case a strong debate brought a marginal victory for the pro-accession side (12 votes “for” versus 11 votes “against”).

The second debate and the climax of the Summer School consisted of a Oxford style debate on whether or not Europe should expand in order to match the US needs and expectations. This was the moment to take advantage of the theoretical, conceptual and empirical arguments put forward during the entire week and it was intensely used by the opposing camps, as well as by a very involved audience. The result of the debated argued in favor of the EU expanding according to its needs and priorities, and not according to the US needs and expectations represented the end of a week where many lessons were learnt.

The 2007 Europaeum Summer School constituted a unique opportunity for personal and academic growth for all its participants. The location of the Summer School, the interaction with both academics and practitioners, as well as with peers sharing the same interests, all contributed to re-enforcing the Europeaum Summer School’s tradition of a valuable academic event. While no definitive answer was offered to the question lying at the core of this event, its mission has not failed. After all, it may just be that, at least for the moment, no clear answers of where on earth should Europe’s border end are needed.

Irina Angelescu (Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva)
Sergiu Gherghina (Leiden University)