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.
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
our times’ (Hoffman, 2006; Wilkinson, 2006). This chapter will
argue that EU institutions have capitalised on the presence of this
‘security threat’ in order to drive forward the process of
European integration. The area of counter-terrorism can be described as
the hardest case for the Commission, or any EU institution, to
demonstrate its potential to act as a supranationalpolicyentrepreneur
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 supranationalpolicyentrepreneur in
this policy area. However, the strategy of the Commission in EU asylum
policy was significantly different from its counter-terrorism strategy.
is both part of its role as a supranationalpolicyentrepreneur.
Prior to the Convention: Commission entrepreneurship
According to Sir Adrian Fortescue
( 1995 ), then the Director of the General
Secretariat of the Commission and later the first head of the JHA
Directorate of the Commission, in the early days the Commission had been
supranationalpolicyentrepreneur 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
This chapter analyses the external dimension of European Union (EU) counter-terrorism, a crucial aspect in the fight against international terrorism, which has been much and hotly debated. The external dimension of the EU counter-terrorism policy represents an important element in the possible construction of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ), as making the EU secure depends at least to some extent on successful co-operation with countries outside the EU. The chapter demonstrates that the EU institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council Secretariat, have played an active and significant role in the policy developments, the role of Supranational policy entrepreneur (SPEs), albeit to different degrees across policy areas. It focuses on four major aspects of EU-US counter-terrorism co-operation relating respectively to intelligence, police and law enforcement, the financing of terrorism, and justice.
book suggests a reconceptualisation of the framework
of supranationalpolicyentrepreneurs (SPEs), which is often referred to
by the academic literature that discusses the role of agency in European
integration (Moravcsik, 1999a; Hix, 1994, 1998; Pollack, 1997a, b, 2003;
Tallberg, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2008; Beach, 2004a, 2005a; Stone Sweet and
Sandholtz, 1997, 1998; Stone Sweet et al., 2001; Kaunert, 2005, 2007
the article, ‘A New Statecraft? Supranational
Entrepreneurs and International Co-operation’, Andrew Moravcsik
(1999a) questions whether unelected bureaucrats without financial and
legal enforcement powers would actually be able to influence political
decisions made by national governments. Consequently, he disputes the
emerging power of international networks of supranationalpolicyentrepreneurs
policyentrepreneur. The next chapters will examine this in detail.
The Area of Freedom, Security
and Justice until Tampere: towards supranational governance?
The aim of this chapter has been
to provide a historical genealogy of the social norm environment of
decision-makers in the AFSJ in the period until the Tampere Council
Summit in 1999. This is particularly important in the light of a sharp