Search results
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.
.indd 1 26/05/2010 09:25:37 The European Union, counter terrorism and police co-operation states. The direction of the Blair Government was also changed substantially, with a domestically cautious Prime Minister transformed into what one of his Cabinet colleagues called ‘the vice president of the free world’.5 Having been hampered in his opening years in office by his own innate conservatism and the ‘creative’ partnership with his Chancellor of the Exchequer, Blair’s diplomatic activity in the wake of the terrorist attacks and the UK’s subsequent military
3 A question of objectives: police co-operation and counter terrorism In Chapter 2, the overarching declared objectives of the Third Pillar – from the confusion of means and ends at Maastricht to the declared but not fully defined ‘Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ – were placed under the microscope. While the record in terms of both clarifying and prioritising such metapolicy objectives was uninspiring, it is only part of the overall picture. There is a need to complement such an analysis with a similar examination of the megapolicy objectives in the two
7 Looking back, looking forward Although referring to a different area of EU security co-operation, namely the CFSP, Richard Whitman, in concluding that ‘all the bricks are added together, but they are not structured in a way that bears much weight’,1 has raised similar concerns to those highlighted in this volume. In considering in a structured fashion the first fifteen years of internal security co-operation, both within the Third Pillar more widely and more specifically in terms of developments in police co-operation and counter terrorism, it is difficult to
5 A question of credibility: legislation, agencies and the implementation gap The first half of this volume has been primarily concerned with the development of process, in terms of establishing key priorities to guide and shape overall activity, both within JHA more generally and specifically in the fields of counter terrorism and police co-operation, and the nature of the threat posed from a variety of terrorist groups. While, on occasion, specific reference has been made to key outputs of such deliberations, such as the 2002 Framework Decision on Combating
decision-making process proceeds. chap2.indd 15 26/05/2010 09:25:52 16 The European Union, counter terrorism and police co-operation Rather than view it as a one-off action, clearly establishing the objectives of the process, development can occur incrementally, allowing the initial thought process to be shaped and moulded by events or the changing nature of the decision-making base, as in the case of a widened EU membership. Others disagree, believing that to consider postponing the process of clarification to a later date ensures that the process will actually
development of Europol, namely the period up to and then immediately after the Chancellorship of Helmut Kohl in the Federal Republic of Germany. Kohl is seen chap6.indd 147 26/05/2010 09:27:04 148 The European Union, counter terrorism and police co-operation by most commentators as the main driving force behind Europol’s development5 and therefore it will be interesting to note the impact that his eventual departure from the political scene in 1998 had both on Germany’s level of support for Europol and Europol’s development more widely. The remainder of the chapter
agenda chap4.indd 75 26/05/2010 09:26:27 76 The European Union, counter terrorism and police co-operation – it is insufficient to rely on the ‘intuitive’ response of an ever widening group of actors. It is also worth considering the related examples of EC/EU ‘common’ policies to demonstrate the problem of relying solely on official terminology. This phrase has been used on a number of occasions within the EU, including the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the Common Commercial Policy (CCP), the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Common Transport
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 European Police Office (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
area creates a de facto ‘opt-out’ possibility for every member state – with restrictions possibly established by a future ECJ decision. According to Article 87 TFEU, the EU shall establish police co-operation involving all the member state’s competent authorities, including police, customs, and law enforcement. According to the ordinary