The paper observes an advent of unilateralism, brought by the pandemic, which has restricted cross-border flows and co-operation in the E.U. The pandemic re-introduced borders back in the E.U. and introduced new national border policies, which have complicated the lives of the people in the border regions. This might imply the imperfect communication between local cross-border co-operation stakeholders and central governments. It is therefore proposed to use the set of following five roles, which explain the importance of cross-border co-operation in cross-border regions: (1) multi-level governance form, (2) regional development tool, (3) paradiplomacy form, (4) post-conflict reconciliation tool and (5) Europe-building instrument. As those five roles cover functional, ideational and structural dimensions of cross-border co-operation, they have a potential to prevent the representatives of the central states from one-size-fits-all solutions and respect specificities of borderlands. This should help in the cases of repeated health crises, which would restrain the free border crossing in the E.U.

The article focuses on the impact of the new re-bordering, caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, on the functional, ideational and institutional dimension of cross-border integration, as perceived by the Czech cross-border commuters employed on the German side of the Euroregion Elbe Labe. The interviews with forty cross-commuters showed that they were left alone in these times of re-bordering and became victims of non-coordination between Czechia and Germany. Yet, cross-border commuting seems to have survived the first pandemic waves and the German labour market will continue to attract the Czech workforce despite that fact the pandemic has introduced a major uncertainty associated with the border crossing. The pandemic has revealed the need for a functional system of the cross-border management in the period of crisis to protect cross-border commuters and provide them with better security.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought many changes to social behaviours in Europe. One of its major consequences was the temporary closure of borders, which was introduced as a measure to prevent the uncontrolled pandemic spreading and involved internal Schengen borders. This has had a major impact in the way in which cross-border cooperation has been conducted in Europe, including the Czech-Polish borderland, as it dramatically restrained all flows across borders. In this paper, we evaluate the impact of the pandemic on five roles of cross-border cooperation: 1) as a multi-level governance form; 2) as a regional development tool; 3) as a para-diplomacy form; 4) as a post-conflict reconciliation tool; and 5) as Europe-building. We argue that the impacts of the pandemic complicated regional development and the Europe-building role of cross-border cooperation in the Czech-Polish borderland. The article envisages re-bordering processes also in the Czech-Polish borderland, but with important exceptions in the regions with a high level of cross-border integration, mainly in the Euroregion Těšínské Slezsko/Śląsk Cieszyński. The paper also calls for the elaboration of the guidelines for possible repeated (Schengen) border closures and proposes modifications of the INTERREG microprojects schemes, to keep them attractive also in times of expected cuts in public finances.

The article examines the role of the Euroregions in the first Covid-19 pandemic wave in Europe. The beginning of the pandemic in the spring of 2020 led to the closures of state borders. This complicated the situation of Polish cross-border commuters working in Germany and the Czech Republic. The border closure also showed the strength of Euroregions, able to react and transmit the demands of borderlanders to the Polish government. To analyse this question, we adapt the deliberative system theory. The actions taken by Euroregions, as institutions of public space, were considered as deliberative consequences of non-deliberative actions of government.

The Czech–Polish border is almost 800 kilometres long. Since 1991, 6 Euroregions and two European Groupings of Territorial Co-operation (EGTC) were created and have been conducting cross-border cooperation (CBC) along the entire length of the border. This was probably also the institutionalisation of cross-border co-operation, what has helped to reach and maintain a high level of mutual Czech–Polish relations. What can therefore be considered striking or surprising is a rather low level of cross-border labor mobility between the labor forces of both countries. Authors therefore attempted to identify projects and initiatives in the field of the cross-border labor market along the entire border. Research showed that the CBC stakeholders don’t prioritise co-operation in the field of the labor market, as they don’t see any real cross-border demand. There are some exceptions, driven mainly by the automotive and mining industries in Czechia attracting a Polish workforce. The main reason for the relatively low level of Czech–Polish cross-border co-operation in the field of the labor market is an absence of a major economic engine on either side of the border, rather than any kind of hostile or re-bordering sentiments in mutual relations between subjects from both countries.

There are some localities in the Bohemian Paradise Geopark that suffer from temporal overtourism in the high season. On the other hand, more than half of the geopark is not so often visited by tourists, although very attractive geosites can be found there too. In the most visited localities, nature is damaged due to overloading of the tourist infrastructure, while elsewhere there is pressure driven by municipalities to increase the number of tourists. For this reason, we organized a large questionnaire survey in summer 2020, which aimed to reveal the motivation of visitors of the geopark and their preferences regarding the places visited. The questionnaire combined several research methods: graphic scales, qualitative open questions, mental map, etc. The analysis of visitors’ answers shows that most of them cannot be described as geotourists, i.e., tourists who are primarily interested in geology and conceive their holiday as a sightseeing stay. Many tourists like to stay in nature without an educational element. We also found that there is a higher proportion of ecotourists and geotourists in less-visited geosites because they appreciate even lesser-known localities and crowds of tourists rather than repel them. The question for the future is, therefore, whether the geopark should strive for greater promotion of lesser-known localities, which would attract even mainstream tourists, or, conversely, to protect these geosites, it should promote only the most visited localities (which are already damaged).