| Summary: | Since the 1980s, globalization has driven rapid civil aviation industry growth, creating enforcement issues for border control agencies and complicating passenger service. In response, airlines, airports, and the state jointly pursued trade facilitation, including Advanced Border Control (ABC) programs (i.e. Automated Border Kiosks, United States Preclearance Service, and Advanced Passenger Information Systems). As September 11, 2001 (9/11) attacks drove resurgent border control policy, the ABC programs became increasingly useful. Post-9/11 national security policy also had globalization implications, summarized in 2003 by the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, as “security trumps trade”. This thesis therefore examines how ABC programs influenced the civil aviation industry, and the balance between trade and national security from 1985 to 2010, with case studies from Canada and the Netherlands. The methodology involved a review of the academic literature, relevant policy and corporate documents, and stakeholder interviews.
The research concludes that the civil aviation firms and border control agencies maintained continuous collaboration, despite political, business, and technical challenges. Relations did change post-9/11, especially in Canada with increased state leadership. The research thus contributes to understanding border control partnerships between agencies, airlines, and airports that worked towards a “trade with security” strategy. The research also identifies that this private and public sector coordination encouraged collaboration with the U.S. on trade and national security policies.
Conceptually, this multi-decade symbiotic state-firm “partnership” had material implications for trans-national relations by contributing to the “relocation of frontiers to extra-territorial and virtual spaces”. The ABC program “remote-control” tools thus permit the re-working of spatial interaction, with the “re-location” of territory that redefines where the state may “perform” its sovereign duties. For globalization, this means firms contribute to “negating border controls, but not sovereign borders”, which paradoxically strengthens the ability for the state to protect national security interests through the “projection of sovereignty”.
These practices however need attention given the potential for human rights-related exclusion, along with unwarranted firm complexity. However, in looking towards a world where mobility and connectivity become paramount for societal participation, streamlined linkages enabled by sophisticated ABC programs can permit local spaces to better participate in global flows.
|
|---|
