Recent events at the border between Spain and Morocco are more than another episode in Europe’s migration crisis—they represent another moment of truth, lawyer Ognjen Tadić wrote in a commentary.
According to Tadić, the developments demonstrate the shortcomings of the belief that the world would become a better place if all forms of borders lost their significance.
He argues that a single violent attempt to breach a border was enough for public debate to shift back toward the importance of protecting state territory, ensuring public security, and recognising the state’s right to determine who may enter its territory.
“For a moment, no one speaks about borders being unnecessary. Instead, governments are expected to defend them more decisively than ever,” Tadić wrote.
He maintains that borders are not created to divide people but to protect the space in which agreed rules apply. In his view, a border is not merely a line on a map but also a boundary between the rule of law and arbitrariness, responsibility and anarchy, and lawful conduct and the use of force.
Tadić further argues that a person becomes truly civilised not by crossing a state border but by accepting the existence of limits—those of the law, decency, personal freedom, and responsibility.
He rejects the idea that eliminating borders would eliminate conflict, claiming instead that where established borders disappear, new ones inevitably emerge through unrest, violence, and force rather than through law.
Addressing the concept of an open society, Tadić writes that openness should not be confused with the absence of borders. In his view, an open society depends on clearly defined rules that apply equally to everyone, while visible and invisible boundaries help preserve social order.
Referring to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Tadić argues that political disputes have intensified whenever the constitutional framework established by the Dayton Peace Agreement has been altered without consensus. He contends that crises have deepened whenever constitutional competences or established rules were changed unilaterally.
He also criticises what he describes as violations of Annex 8 of the Dayton Peace Agreement, alleging irregularities in the process concerning the Commission to Preserve National Monuments.
Concluding his commentary, Tadić states that borders remain one of the clearest expressions of mutual respect and that no constitutional order can function if its legal and political boundaries are changed arbitrarily.
While expressing hope that humanity may one day live in a world where borders have a different meaning, he argues that such a future can only exist if people share the same commitment to the rule of law, responsibility, and respect for others, rather than by simply abolishing borders.
Source: RTRS
