Search results
’ and is ‘responsible for the overall direction of policy’. In contrast, the latter refers to specific sectoral policy areas, where more ‘detailed administrative structures and procedures for detailed policy formulation’ are likely to be found.13 In terms of the Third Pillar, the metapolicy would, therefore, relate to the general aims and objectives of internal security co-operation, laid down initially at Maastricht, but believed to have been given a greater focus post-Amsterdam, with the development of the proposed AFSJ taking centre-stage as the over-arching aim of
– relates to the difference between means and ends, with the development of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice effectively both process and eventual outcome, however it is defined. Developments at Amsterdam could be seen as an initial step forward, by separating police co-operation and counter terrorism into two distinct ‘matters of common interest’, thereby rectifying the initial confusion of attaching counter terrorism specifically to police co-operation without willing the means, in terms of Europol’s initial mandate. However, the elevation of the AFSJ has
development of this ‘Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ (AFSJ) has remained the central concern of the European integration process in this area to date. In 1997, further steps were taken to ‘communitarise’ elements of the internal security agenda, with chap1.indd 6 26/05/2010 09:25:38 Introduction a new Title – IIIa – being created within the European Community Pillar to house all ‘Policies relating to the free movement of persons, such as visa entitlement and asylum’. The competencies contained in Art. K: 1 (1–6) were moved to this new Title, although, initially
range of internal security concerns (some of which will be considered in more depth in Chapter 5, in relation to Europol‘s specific contribution to counter terrorism). However, as was noted in Chapter 2, when considering the wider establishment of the AFSJ, the provision, collation and consideration of such statistics have only served to emphasise the continued national prism of EU-wide activity, rather than providing a European benchmark by which to measure success (a similar trend will be noted in Chapter 4, considering the applicability of the label ‘matter of
the EU’s wider output in counter terrorism and police co-operation. In Chapter 2, when considering general aspects of JHA co-operation, as part of the analysis of efforts to establish the AFSJ, it was noted that, rather than demonstrate solidarity, member states tended to view such problems through the prism of their own national security concerns – ‘members see the problems of their own province writ large … clearly they tend not to see other problems at all’.7 Complementing this analysis, the focus here will be more specifically placed on the key issue of counter
with future members such as Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia, as well as Norway, Iceland and the US. The following year, a brief reference is made to ‘the information flow from member states and also for the first time from non-EU states improved’83 (emphasis added). Additionally, Europol developed an even greater focus on the likely consequences of enlargement on the development of the AFSJ, with specific projects launched on Eastern European Organised Crime detailing its likely impact on crime levels. In the 2003 report, Europol noted ‘an overall increase in
EAW – and outside, as in the chap5.indd 113 26/05/2010 09:26:45 114 The European Union, counter terrorism and police co-operation case of the Council of Europe’s European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism. In 1999, at the Tampere European Council, calls were made to put legislative flesh on the agreed principle of mutual recognition – claimed to be the cornerstone of any genuine AFSJ – by agreeing that ‘the formal extradition procedure should be abolished among the Member States in respect of persons who are fleeing from justice … and extradition