The first European Union's (EU) enlargement of the twenty-first century coincides with a period of international tension and transition. Tensions have been apparent over: the war in Iraq, the 'War on Terror', immigration, organised crime, ethnic confrontation, human rights, energy resources and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The EU has made genuine progress in developing its security policies since the launch of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) in the Treaty on European Union (TEU). This book examines the impact that enlargement will have on leadership within the EU, a pre-requisite for policy coherence. It focuses on what has been Europe's most significant region in terms of security challenges and international responses since the end of the Cold War: the Balkan. The book provides an overview of the foreign policy priorities and interests of the new member states (NMS), highlighting areas of match and mismatch with those of the EU fifteen. Counter-terrorism has emerged from the shadows of the EU's Third Pillar, and has been propelled to the forefront of the EU's internal agenda, driven by the demands of the 'War on Terror'. The book discusses the core elements of the EU's emerging common external border management, with a focus on the creation of the EU's new External Borders Agency and the Schengen Borders Code. While the first two are declarative partnership and declarative negativism, the last two reflect the struggle between pragmatism and Soviet-style suspicion of Western bureaucrats.
on the ground, the national level is not the primary focus.
The Third Pillar: a brief chronology
Before outlining the structure of this book, it is worth briefly sketching the Third
Pillar’s chronological development, to create a context for the analysis and to introduce some of the key terminology. As noted earlier, the Third Pillar was established in 1992, as part of the TEU, to organise a European level response to
internal security concerns. The ‘Provisions on co-operation in the fields of JusticeandHomeAffairs’ focused on nine areas, including immigration
at an informal meeting of the EU JusticeandHomeAffairs
Ministers ( HRW, 2017 ).
In the view of those running MSF’s operations, this put NGOs in a
situation of ‘damned if you do, and damned if you don’t’.
Signing and endorsing the code of conduct would be an admission that NGOs needed
regulations and control when in fact all SAR NGO operations were already being
carried out under the coordination of the Italian maritime authorities. Those
Henderson, Back to Europe: Central and Eastern Europe and the European Union (London:
Taylor and Francis, 1999).
For details, see JusticeandHomeAffairs Council, Convention based on Article K.3 of the
Treaty on European Union, on the Establishment of a European Police Office 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
body were strengthened and the term ‘European Union’ was introduced.
The EU embodied the European Community (tariff and economic matters) as one ‘pillar’; defence and foreign policy as another; and justiceandhomeaffairs as the third.
In 1995, Finland, Sweden and Austria joined now that the Soviet Union was no longer a controlling influence, so now there were fifteen member states – though Norway refused to join after a referendum.
In 2004, another ten nations joined, bringing the total to twenty-five, with two more shortly afterwards to
Council and the
Commission on How Best to Implement the Provisions of the Treaty of
Amsterdam on [the] Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’,
January 1999, Official Journal of the European Communities ,
J. Monar, ‘JusticeandHomeAffairs in a
Wider Europe: The Dynamics of
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.
US State Department data has to be used,
particularly for the pre September 11 period, as the EU did not
carry out any assessment at that time.
For details, see the JusticeandHomeAffairs
Acquis 1993–2000 (2001), www.statewatch.org/semdoc/acquis.htm .
AFSJ since the beginning.
Stage 1: JusticeandHomeAffairs
laboratories in the pre-1992 phase
In his widely cited and
authoritative article ‘The Dynamics of JusticeandHomeAffairs:
Laboratories, Driving Factors and Costs’ (Monar, 2001b ), Monar claims that the rapid development of JusticeandHomeAffairs 1 into a major
field of EU policy-making since the beginning of the
documentation as to the acquis communautaire
at the time and, primarily, the SEMDOC legislative archive. As it was carried out as part of
a doctoral thesis programme, completed and submitted in 2001, it was felt that, given the
seven-year gap in the process, the chances of subsequent inconsistent or mis-categorisation
outweighed the potential benefits of continuing with a primarily quantitative approach. For
a fuller picture, see the Statewatch website, where SEMDOC is located, www.statewatch.
6 For details, see JusticeandHomeAffairs Council