Access denied: An analysis of the discourse constituting the Common Visa Policy of the Schengen Area

Abstract

When we look at data of the UNHCR and the Henley & Partners Visa Restriction Index, it appears that globally the countries that are most likely to produce refugees are also the countries whose citizens are most severely restricted in their international movement by the global visa regime. This makes it hard for these people to exercise their right to asylum. The question that begs is: Why? In this thesis an attempt is made to answer this question by applying three different forms of discourse analysis to the Common Visa Policy of the Schengen Area. In conclusion, we can say that the Common Visa Policy’s existence is founded in an interaction between images, perceptions, assumptions, interests and politics. Furthermore, it is concluded that the Common Visa Policy is a very paradoxal policy. This is illustrated by four paradoxes: Confinement to Condemnation, Law acting against law, Democracy acting against democracy, and Mixed-up priorities. Lastly, this thesis applied three theories on spatial justice to the findings of what constitutes the Common Visa Policy. Through the application of these theories (Wasted Potential, Voluntary Separation and Voices turning to Noises) it is concluded that the workings and origin of the Common Visa Policy can hardly be called “fair”.