EU internal security governance: the case of counter-terrorism

Abstract

There are clear indicators that in spite of the sensitivity of internal security in terms of essential state functions and national sovereignty an EU governance framework with specific characteristics has emerged in the counter-terrorism field. Common threat assessments guide governance responses, and specific institutional structures, cooperation mechanisms, legal instruments, and forms of external action have been put into place to respond to the cross-border nature of the terrorist challenges. However, in line with the general subsidiary role only of the EU as provider of internal security in addition to the Member States, this governance framework remains based on the interaction and cooperation between national counter-terrorist systems and capabilities that remain largely under national control and still enjoy relatively wide margins of discretion in terms of priorities, legal framework, and organization. This analysis concludes that the EU's internal security governance -as evident from the counter-terrorism field -may be best characterized as an advanced institutionalized system of cooperation and coordination between national governance frameworks constructed around a core of common instruments and procedures with a cross-border reach.

Liberty: Security dilemmas and party cohesion in the European Parliament

“…In addition to the two directives, governance in the area of police or counter‐terrorist cooperation consists of a complex set of regulations, such as the Schengen Convention, the Prüm Convention, which created wide databases like the Visa Information System, the Schengen information system and European Dactyloscopy (Eurodac) (Balzacq and Leonard, ) and framework decisions adopted before the supra‐nationalization of policy‐making (see the Framework Decision on combating terrorism (2002/475/JHA) and the Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA on trafficking in human beings) (Monar, , p. 198). It also includes the creation of intergovernmental agencies that were later incorporated in European law (Europol and Frontex) as well as intergovernmental practices of intelligence sharing through multilateral formats such as Club de Berne and the counter‐terrorism group (Svendsen, ).…”

Putting security governance to the test: conceptual, empirical, and normative challenges

“…How are decisions being reached and implemented in different security governance arrangements? The special issue tackles these questions in three case studies from different fields of EU security policy (Bossong 2013, Ehrhart and Petretto 2013, Monar 2013) and a comparative study on security governance in different regional organizations (Kirchner and Dominguez 2013).…”

“…Jörg Monar (2013) analyzes security governance in the field of EU counterterrorism. He finds that a specific EU governance framework for internal security has emerged despite the issue's sensitivity.…”

Introduction to the nexus between organized crime and terrorism

“…TREVI stands for Terrorisme, radicalisme et violence internationale but the nickname was also chosen because the first meeting was held in Rome, close to the Trevi fountain(Monar 2014).Cyrille Fijnaut, Letizia Paoli and Jan Wouters -9781788979306 Downloaded from Elgar Online at 03/07/2022 06:09:01AM via free access…”