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.
developing a ‘European’ – rather than a ‘national’ – solution. Thus, the aim of this book was to analyse the political role of the EU institutions in the AFSJ. The overarching question in the analysis of this process of constructing an AFSJ was: do European institutions have an emerging capacity to act as supranational policy entrepreneurs? The answers provided in this book are affirmative, and
hardest case for the Commission, or any EU institution, to demonstrate its potential to act as a supranational policy entrepreneur. Nonetheless, it is precisely the area where the EU advanced most significantly after 9/11 with the agreement of the definition on terrorism and the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), as well as counter-terrorist financing, which will be analysed in more detail below. What has
role of the EU institutions in EU asylum and migration has been significantly underestimated. Contrary to expectations, EU institutions, and especially the European Commission, played the significant role of a supranational policy entrepreneur in this policy area. However, the strategy of the Commission in EU asylum policy was significantly different from its counter-terrorism strategy. While the
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. Prior to the Convention: Commission entrepreneurship by officials? According to Sir Adrian Fortescue ( 1995 ), then the Director of the General
supranational policy entrepreneur in the policy area; yet, it changed its strategy significantly from its role in counter-terrorism. It never attempted to construct refugees as a threat, and even actively resisted this. The so-called ‘external dimension’ or ‘internationalisation’ of the EU immigration and asylum policy has become increasingly important in recent years from both policy
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.
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 (Moravcsik, 1999a; Hix, 1994, 1998; Pollack, 1997a, b, 2003; Tallberg, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2008; Beach, 2004a, 2005a; Stone Sweet and Sandholtz, 1997, 1998; Stone Sweet et al., 2001; Kaunert, 2005, 2007
the article, ‘A New Statecraft? Supranational Entrepreneurs and International Co-operation’, Andrew Moravcsik (1999a) questions whether unelected bureaucrats without financial and legal enforcement powers would actually be able to influence political decisions made by national governments. Consequently, he disputes the emerging power of international networks of supranational policy entrepreneurs
policy entrepreneur. The next chapters will examine this in detail. The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice until Tampere: towards supranational governance? The aim of this chapter has been to provide a historical genealogy of the social norm environment of decision-makers in the AFSJ in the period until the Tampere Council Summit in 1999. This is particularly important in the light of a sharp