.svg){kind=logo}
Berlin’s approach to border controls and its steadfast commitment to Israel is raising questions about the erosion of European legal norms, particularly the Schengen Agreement.
Schengen Rules Under Strain
Under Schengen rules, permanent border controls are prohibited. Countries can only impose them temporarily by citing specific threats and requesting “exceptions” from the European Commission. These measures are intended as a last resort, time-limited, and reversible.
However, critics say the EU has normalised granting these exceptions, enabling member states to renew them repeatedly. The result: Schengen remains intact on paper but is weakened in practice.
Germany, one of 10 Schengen countries with such controls, is in a unique position. Its size, geographic location, and history give it disproportionate influence on the system. Yet instead of treating the restrictions as temporary, the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU) recently celebrated the “introduction of permanent border controls” on social media — despite the fact that permanent controls violate Schengen rules.
Neither the German interior ministry nor the European Commission has publicly addressed the post. The CDU’s official response argued that the controls aren’t permanent simply because officials say they aren’t.
The Legal “Exception” Becoming the Norm
Experts warn that repeatedly extending temporary border measures undermines the rule of law. Even if legal loopholes allow these controls, their continued use sets a dangerous precedent: exceptions become the standard.
The concept of “states of exception” has a troubling history in Germany. Legal theorist Carl Schmitt, whose ideas influenced Nazi legal strategy, argued that leaders could override constitutional law during emergencies. While technically staying within the law, such measures allowed authoritarian regimes to sidestep democratic limits.
Staatsräson and Foreign Policy
In foreign policy, Germany’s most prominent “exception” is its relationship with Israel, rooted in a doctrine called Staatsräson — roughly equivalent to raison d’état, or “reason of state.” Former Chancellor Angela Merkel enshrined the term in 2008, declaring that Israel’s security is part of Germany’s Staatsräson.
According to Germany’s own Federal Agency for Civic Education, Staatsräson can justify “the use of all means, regardless of morality or law” to protect state interests — a principle more associated with absolutism than democracy.
Critics say this stance has had sweeping effects. In 2019, the Bundestag passed a non-binding resolution condemning the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Authorities have since cited the resolution to classify certain activist groups as extremist, restrict cultural events, issue travel bans, and even tie citizenship applications to political loyalty pledges on Israel.
European Implications
These policies have repercussions beyond Germany. At the EU level, Germany has been a consistent obstacle to collective action against Israel, mirroring Hungary’s approach to shielding Russia from sanctions. With senior German conservatives in top EU positions, critics say Staatsräson is influencing European policymaking in ways that weaken democratic norms.
Germany defends its stance as a moral obligation stemming from the Holocaust. But opponents argue that replacing one state of exception with another risks repeating the very authoritarian tendencies it aims to prevent.
Source:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/germany-staatsraison-israel-border-controls-undermining-schengen
Disclaimer:
This news blog is for informational purposes only. The content reflects reporting and analysis based on available information at the time of writing. It does not represent legal advice or an official position. Readers should verify details from official sources before drawing conclusions or making decisions.
August 13, 2025
