The European Commission had become one of the more contentious actors during both Irish referenda on the Lisbon Treaty. This book discusses the role of the European Commission and institutions more generally, as well as the policy area of justice and home affairs. It argues that it is important to evaluate the role of EU institutions for the process of European integration. The book suggests a reconceptualisation of the framework of supranational policy entrepreneurs (SPEs), which is often referred to by the academic literature that discusses the role of agency in European integration. It focuses on the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) at the policy and treaty levels; primarily on four grounds: academic literature, SPE behaviour, EU's policymaking, and the interplay between treaty negotiations and policy-making. To analyse the role of the European institutions, the book combines an analysis of the Lisbon Treaty in relation to the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice with an analysis of the policy-making in the same area. The public policy model by John Kingdon with constructivist international relations literature is also outlined. The external dimension of counter-terrorism in the EU; the role of the EU institutions in EU asylum and migration; and the role of he Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is discussed. The book also analyses the role of the EU institutions in the communitarisation of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, and thus subsequently in the Lisbon Treaty.
This introduction presents an overview of the key concepts discussed in the subsequent chapters of this book. The book argues that it is important to evaluate the role of EU institutions for the process of European integration. It conceptualises the role of the different EU institutions, especially the European Commission, in the European integration process, with particular reference to the concepts of supranational policy entrepreneurship. The book investigates the construction of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) in response to terrorism. It analyses the external dimension of counter-terrorism in the EU. It analyses the external dimension of asylum and migration, including border management. The book also investigates the role of EU institutional actors at the treaty level in the process of constructing an 'Area of Freedom, Security and Justice'.
EU institutions have become very controversial, either for their absolute power, or, alternatively and conversely, for their impotence. This chapter conceptualises the institutions' role in the integration process on two levels: the treaty level of the EU and the policy-making level. The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) has been one of the anomalies of EU policy-making over the last few years, as it provides the most complicated decision-making structures of all areas with the Treaties of Amsterdam and Nice. There are three policy-making institutions at the EU level, that is, the Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission. The chapter provides an introduction to the concept of supranational policy entrepreneurship (SPE) in order to provide avenues for further development. Various scholars examine the role of European institutions in detail, notably through the prism of SPE, a concept derived from John Kingdon.
The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) experienced significant growth in the late 1990s and the early part of the new millennium. This chapter provides a historical genealogy of the social norm environment of decision-makers in the AFSJ in the period until the Tampere Council Summit in 1999. It considers an analysis of the legal norms in the policy area in order to demonstrate the changing nature of the 'constitutional' arrangements. The chapter argues, that these legal and normative changes are indicative of a political process that could potentially lead to supranational governance in the AFSJ. It also argues that, despite clear normative developments up to Tampere in 1999, decision-makers remained attached to the norms of national sovereignty. This chapter provides prima facia evidence to suggest that the EU institutions, in particular the European Commission, attempted to play the role of a supranational policy entrepreneurship (SPE) in the AFSJ.
This chapter investigates the construction of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) in response to international terrorism. Since the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, the first and foremost security threat to enable the construction of the AFSJ is terrorism. The chapter argues that European Union (EU) institutions have capitalised on the presence of this 'security threat' in order to drive forward the process of European integration. The area of counter-terrorism can be described as the hardest case for the Commission, or any EU institution, to demonstrate its potential to act as a supranational policy entrepreneur (SPE). The chapter examines the importance of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) for European integration. It also examines to what extent the model of a SPE was indicative of the behaviour of the European institutions.
This chapter analyses the external dimension of European Union (EU) counter-terrorism, a crucial aspect in the fight against international terrorism, which has been much and hotly debated. The external dimension of the EU counter-terrorism policy represents an important element in the possible construction of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ), as making the EU secure depends at least to some extent on successful co-operation with countries outside the EU. The chapter demonstrates that the EU institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council Secretariat, have played an active and significant role in the policy developments, the role of Supranational policy entrepreneur (SPEs), albeit to different degrees across policy areas. It focuses on four major aspects of EU-US counter-terrorism co-operation relating respectively to intelligence, police and law enforcement, the financing of terrorism, and justice.
This chapter presents two significant points. Firstly, the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is a very significant case for demonstrating that even with the 'war on terror' on the political agenda, the asylum policy in its first phase remained within the constraints of the Geneva Convention, and actually strengthened it. Secondly, the role of the EU institutions in EU asylum and migration has been significantly underestimated. The first serious attempt to shape the EU asylum agenda was the Commission's famous 'White Paper' on the completion of the Internal Market in 1984. In 1991, the Commission took the next steps in its persuasion strategy, constructing the link to both the single market and international refugee norms. The chapter assesses the extent to which the European Commission, in both its normative and policy dimension, has been able to play the role of a supranational policy entrepreneur (SPE) with regard to the CEAS.
This chapter investigates the role of European Union (EU) institutional actors at the treaty level in the process of constructing an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). It deals with the main advances of the Constitutional Treaty which resulted in the Lisbon Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty amends two separate bodies of treaties: the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union (TFEU). The chapter analyses the role of the European Commission, acting to initiate and push for a process of normative change among EU decisionmakers, as well as concrete institutional change, which is both part of its role as a supranational policy entrepreneur (SPE). While the Commission developed the so-called 'Plan D' to improve communication between the EU and its citizens, the European Council Summit of 17 and 18 June 2005 decided that a 'reflection period' lasting until 2007 was necessary.
Towards supranational governance in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice?
This conclusion presents some closing thoughts on concepts discussed in the preceding chapters of this book. The book analyses the role of strategic EU institutional actors, in particular the European Commission, in the process of constructing an 'Area of Freedom, Security and Justice' (AFSJ). It argues that the EU policies on counter-terrorism, asylum and border management, and the institutional arrangements in these areas, are the expression of a political process attempting to construct such an 'area' for different political communities by ensuring their security from external security threats. The book demonstrates how the concept of political entrepreneurship has been increasingly reinterpreted by scholars such as Andrew Moravcsik in order to dismiss the notion of the EU institutions' capacity to act as supranational policy entrepreneurs (SPE).
This chapter outlines the development of the external dimension of the EU policy on asylum, migration and borders through an analysis of both its normative and policy dimensions, as well as the role of EU institutions, in particular the European Commission, in the policy-making process. The external dimension of the EU asylum and migration policy received a new impetus following the signing of the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997. On 4 November 2004, the Council adopted the Hague programme, which established the objectives to be implemented in the whole Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ), including the asylum and migration policy. According to the supranational policy entrepreneur (SPE) model, a political entrepreneur stands at the policy window in order to propose, lobby for, and sell a policy proposal.