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.
This book examines the intersection between incarceration and human rights. It is about why independent inspection of places of custody is a necessary part of human rights protection, and how that independence is manifested and preserved in practice. Immigration and asylum policies ask crucial questions about national identity, about human rights, and about our values as compassionate citizens in an era of increasingly complex international challenges. The book deals with the future of prisons and shows how the vulnerable population has been unconscionably treated. To arrive at a proper diagnosis of the expansive use and abuse of the prison in the age of economic deregulation and social insecurity, it is imperative that we effect some analytic breaks with the gamut of established approaches to incarceration. The book explores the new realities of criminal confinement of persons with mental illness. It traces the efforts of New Right think-tanks, police chiefs and other policy entrepreneurs to export neoliberal penality to Europe, with England and Wales acting as an 'acclimatization chamber'. In a series of interventions, of which his Oxford Amnesty Lecture is but one, Loic Wacquant has in recent years developed an incisive and invaluable analysis of the rise and effects of what he calls the penal state.
in the 1980s ( Baumgartner and Jones 1991 ; Daigneault 2014 ; White 2012 ).
Today’s interpretations of
UK social enterprise and third sector policy development are strongly
driven by policyentrepreneurs. The qualities of a successful policyentrepreneur are useful in the process of softening up the system. They lie in wait for a window to open.
“In the process of leaping at their
Towards supranational governance in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice?
developing a ‘European’ – rather than a
‘national’ – solution. Thus, the aim of this book was
to analyse the political role of the EU institutions in the AFSJ. The
overarching question in the analysis of this process of constructing an
AFSJ was: do European institutions have an emerging capacity to act as
The answers provided in this book are affirmative, and
hardest case for the Commission, or any EU institution, to
demonstrate its potential to act as a supranational policyentrepreneur.
Nonetheless, it is precisely the area where the EU advanced most
significantly after 9/11 with the agreement of the definition on
terrorism and the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), as well as
counter-terrorist financing, which will be analysed in more detail
below. What has
role of the EU institutions in EU asylum
and migration has been significantly underestimated. Contrary to
expectations, EU institutions, and especially the European Commission,
played the significant role of a supranational policyentrepreneur in
this policy area. However, the strategy of the Commission in EU asylum
policy was significantly different from its counter-terrorism strategy.
supranational policyentrepreneur in the policy area; yet, it changed
its strategy significantly from its role in counter-terrorism. It never
attempted to construct refugees as a threat, and even actively resisted
The so-called ‘external dimension’ or
‘internationalisation’ of the EU immigration and asylum
policy has become increasingly important in recent years from both
of the European Commission, acting to initiate and push for a process of
normative change among EU decisionmakers, as well as concrete
institutional change, which is both part of its role as a supranational
Prior to the Convention: Commission entrepreneurship
According to Sir Adrian Fortescue
( 1995 ), then the Director of the General
World Prison Brief lends some support to this view, or at least indicates a gulf
in penal practice between the US and Western Europe.11 Wacquant’s rejoinder is
three-pronged. First, he traces the efforts of New Right think-tanks, police chiefs
and other policyentrepreneurs to export neoliberal penality to Europe – with England
and Wales acting as an ‘acclimatization chamber’.12 Second, he points to what he
argues is the hyperincarceration of migrants and foreign nationals in Europe’s
prisons, a measure by which European penal systems look more severe and
Romanian children’s case, facilitated the onset of a range of feedback effects
in the EU’s internal and external policy dimensions. This chapter provides
evidence supporting the feedback effects triggered by the Romanian children’s case at the EU level. It is argued that the feedback effects amounted
to the introduction of children’s rights as an EU issue in EU internal policy,
which generated policy development processes; while, in EU enlargement
policy, elements of policy continuation have become entrenched. It is demonstrated that EU policyentrepreneurs seized the