This book examines the underlying foundations on which the European Union's counter-terrorism and police co-operation policies have been built since the inception of the Treaty on European Union, questioning both the effectiveness and legitimacy of the EU's efforts in these two security areas. Given the importance of such developments to the wider credibility of the EU as a security actor, it adopts a more structured analysis of key stages of the implementation process. These include the establishment of objectives, both at the wider level of internal security co-operation and in terms of both counter-terrorism and policing, particularly in relation to the European Police Office, the nature of information exchange and the ‘value added’ by legislative and operational developments at the European level. The book also offers a more accurate appraisal of the official characterisation of the terrorist threat within the EU as a ‘matter of common concern’. In doing so, not only does it raise important questions about the utility of the European level for organising internal security co-operation, but it also provides a more comprehensive assessment of the EU's activities throughout the lifetime of the Third Pillar, placing in a wide and realistic context the EU's reaction to the events of 11 September 2001 and the greater prominence of Islamist terrorism.
in June 1991,
Kohl threatened to renegotiate everything that had been agreed in the previous
two days of discussion.31 This claim has neither been substantiated nor denied, yet
it has become part of Europol folklore. What it does indicate is that – while Kohl
was exerting significant political will on Europol’s behalf – there were reservations
to be overcome within the wider EC/EU. For example, a 1990 study highlighted
the concerns of several member states, with Spain, Portugal and Belgium all viewing a EuropeanPoliceOffice at best as a long-term development
to Europol, in Article K: 1 (9), where the objective of ‘police co-operation’ was
specifically linked to the ‘organisation of a Union-wide system for exchanging information within a EuropeanPoliceOffice’.
A further, more focused opportunity than the wide-ranging negotiations establishing the EU system was provided with the development of the 1995 Europol
Convention itself, yet, even here, the member states did not succeed in fully clarifying the situation. For example, in terms of information exchange, which was
the initial primary focus of Europol, Article 8
and Home Affairs
( JHA). This approach has two distinct advantages. Firstly, by considering the entirety of the period – from 1992 through to 2007 (the last year with full statistical
information available at the time of writing) – rather than simply the post-11
September reaction, a fairer and more accurate picture of EU activity is produced
and therefore a more accurate assessment of what the EU contributes can be
ascertained. For example, some commentators and officials have tried to argue
that, when considering the development of the EuropeanPoliceOffice
Apap (ed.), Justice and Home
Affairs in the European Union (Northampton: Edward Elgar, 2004), p. 10.
Sarah Ludford, ‘An EU Justice and Home Affairs Policy: What should it comprise?’, in Apap
(ed.), Justice and Home Affairs in the European Union, p. 29.
Protocol drawn up on the basis of Article 43(1)of the Convention on the Establishment of
a EuropeanPoliceOffice Amending Article 2 and the Annex to that Convention (Brussels,
Council Act of 28 November 2002 Drawing up a Protocol Amending the Convention on the
Establishment of a EuropeanPoliceOffice and the
hard to ensure the conclusion of EU-US agreements and also used US
pressure to advance European integration on these policy issues.
Police and law enforcement co-operation
EU-US co-operation in police and
law enforcement has mainly developed through agreements between the US
and the EuropeanPoliceOffice (Europol). Before analysing how the
co-operation between Europol and the US has developed, it is
, Europol – Tenth Report of the Select Committee on the
European Communities (London: Hansard, 1995), p. 23.
27 Justice and Home Affairs Council, Convention Based on Article K:3 of the Treaty on European
Union on the Establishment of a EuropeanPoliceOffice on 26 July 1995 (Brussels, 1995).
28 Adam Townsend, ‘Can the European Union Achieve an Area of Freedom, Security and
Justice?’, EPIM Working Paper No. 9 (September 2003), p. 5.
29 For more details on this case, see the House of Lords, The Criminal Law Competence of the
European Community – Testimony of Richard
was not even included as one of nine separate
‘common concerns’, but was relegated to part of an
overarching category of ‘police co-operation’, centred on
the EuropeanPoliceOffice (more commonly known as Europol). This was a
somewhat ironic development, given that counter-terrorism was then
excluded from Europol’s initial remit. In fact, Europol had to
wait until 1999 before including counter
like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the French
Foreign Affairs Ministry and the Secretariat General for European Affairs in Paris,
as well as the International Criminal Tribunal and EuropeanPoliceOffice in The
Hague. During these visits, if I had not already found an opportunity to do so, my
fellow interns would pop ‘the Turkish question’ to stir a debate around Turkey–EU
relations among members of the international policy communities, who saw
Henderson, Back to Europe: Central and Eastern Europe and the European Union (London:
Taylor and Francis, 1999).
For details, see Justice and Home Affairs Council, Convention based on Article K.3 of the
Treaty on European Union, on the Establishment of a EuropeanPoliceOffice on 26 July 1995
Cyrille Fijnaut cited in Ferruccio Pastore, ‘The European Union and the fight against terrorism’, in Ferruccio Pastore et al., Is there a European Strategy Against Terrorism? (Rome: CeSPI,
2005), p. 9.
European Commission, Developing a Comprehensive and