Search results
terrorism was invoked, alongside other threats, to help push for the amalgamation and ‘increased integration’ of Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ) policies ‘into the general policies of the European Union’.13 The document constructed the external dimension of EU internal security policy as ‘crucial to the successful implementation of the objectives of this programme’ and explained that the policy should ‘be fully coherent with all other aspects of EU foreign policy’.14 Furthermore, it stated quite clearly that ‘internal and external security’ policy were now
the threat posed by ‘terrorism’ to the problems associated with ‘globalisation’ and to an ‘open’ society. In the pre-September 11 period, the construction of the ‘migrant’ other as a potential threat to European society was a central theme of the EU’s internal security policy. The Tampere Milestones, released in November 1999, set out a series of policy priorities that would be central to the completion of the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). Drawing upon and reaffirming the identity of the EU, the document stated that 116 The European Union
absorbed into the consolidated union structure under the guise of the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ). The formulation of EU counter-terrorism policy has historically occurred across all areas of internal and external security policy. Although external security concerns have featured strongly in the formulation of EU counter-terrorism policy, in terms of the ‘fight against terrorism’, the EU has framed its counter-terrorism effort as predominantly an ‘internal security’ concern best dealt with through criminal and judicial measures. The Introduction 13
Introduction Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999, the creation of an ‘area of freedom, security and justice’ has become one of the fundamental treaty and integration objectives of the EU. The AFSJ’s central rationale as a political project is to provide cross-border ‘freedom, security and justice’ within the external
the development of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). Elements of the new security agenda are also at the forefront of security concerns in the Mediterranean region, as demonstrated by Roderick Pace in Chapter 12 . Key issues in the Mediterranean Basin include immigration, energy security and natural resources. By acceding to the EU, Malta has moved the EU much close to the major source
Previously, it was demonstrated that norms up until Tampere had evolved in two dimensions. Firstly, on the axis of whether the EU should be legislating at all in the AFSJ, where the normative debate had been structured between those wishing to preserve national sovereignty and those wishing to pool sovereignty at the EU level. Secondly, on the axis of what the aims and the purpose of such legislation would
for the AFSJ, who claimed that ‘one cannot divide, by region or country, the security of such a Union’. 27 Yet, how else can you explain the implicit process of ‘burden shifting’ rather than burden sharing that has taken place over illegal immigration and asylum? On several occasions, as with the Chinese winkle pickers in June 2000, states have effectively ‘dumped’ asylum seekers across