Towards supranational governance in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

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.

Christian Kaunert

The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) experienced significant growth in the late 1990s and the early part of the new millennium. This demonstrates an extraordinary dynamism as a special regime of European governance. According to Monar (1999a) this can be demonstrated empirically (1) in terms of its agenda and (2) in terms of its structure: the Council Secretariat, according to

in European internal security
Christian Kaunert

been negotiated, before analysing its precise details related to the AFSJ. The Lisbon Treaty has evolved out of the rejected ‘Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe’ and is part of what is commonly referred to as the process of treaty reform. This includes all EU treaties from the Treaty of Rome (1957) to the Single European Act (1986), the Maastricht Treaty (1992), the Amsterdam Treaty (1997

in European internal security
Abstract only
Towards supranational governance in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice?
Christian Kaunert

actors, especially the European Commission, have played a crucial role in shaping the development of the AFSJ in particular ways. Member states have often been pushing towards dealing with these new items on the political agenda as security threats, which have traditionally called for national solutions. The European institutions, in particular the European Commission, have managed to channel this process towards

in European internal security
David Brown

’ 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

in The European Union, counter terrorism and police co-operation, 1992–2007
Abstract only
Christian Kaunert

(AFSJ). In agreement with Christiansen ( 2002 ), treaty-making in the EU is a process dependent on the policy level, and not separate from it. The treaty level provides the legal tools required at the policy level. Yet, without policy change, there is no need to alter the existing tools or to provide new ones. Thus, given that one level depends on the other, it is crucial to analyse and evaluate the role of the European

in European internal security
Christian Kaunert

, yields results of particular interest to those interested in EU policy-making more generally and in the AFSJ in particular. Before analysing the role of EU institutions in counter-terrorism, it is necessary to clarify the understanding of terrorism underpinning the next two chapters. Whilst recognising that there is no globally agreed definition of terrorism (Wilkinson, 2006 ), this chapter will use the

in European internal security
David Brown

– 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

in The European Union, counter terrorism and police co-operation, 1992–2007
Christian Kaunert

organisation under ‘permanent construction’ due to its dynamic and evolutionary nature. However, the case study selected in this book, which will be discussed in greater detail in the following chapters, is even special for the EU. 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

in European internal security
A genealogy
Christopher Baker-Beall

require the development of a transnational framework for cooperation on matters of cross-border law enforcement (Trevi), and later a holistic system of governance for the provision of internal security under the auspices of the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). However, although the primary focus of counter-terrorism since the 1970s has been to respond to the threat of terrorism through the development of internal security policies, EC/EU counter-terrorism policy has retained an external dimension. Starting with the creation in 1970 of a forum for EC

in The European Union’s fight against terrorism