Introduction: Supranational governance and European Union security after the Lisbon Treaty - Exogenous shocks, policy entrepreneurs and 11 September 2001

Abstract

The EU has been making strong inroads into the realm of security over the last few years. This is a remarkable development, since security matters used to be the preserve of states. The articles presented in this special issue all testify to the breadth of the EU security agenda, as they all try to capture some aspects of the EU’s fast-changing security policies following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009. In parallel with a broadening of the EU’s security agenda, an increase in supranational security governance in the EU can also be observed. The transition to supranational governance is reached in two ways. First, cross-border security threats generate demand for EU laws, which supranational organisations then supply. Reasons for changes in the EU polity are exogenous shocks, the fact that rule innovations are endogenous to politics, the diffusion of organisational behaviour and models of action, and policy entrepreneurship, whereby institutional entrepreneurs construct and revise ‘policy frames’, which engage other actors and define new relationships between them and chart courses of action. As the articles in this special issue demonstrate, 11 September 2001 provided such a major exogenous shock required for a change in the EU polity, which EU institutions exploited by providing increasing EU legislation, and even, as a by-product, stabilising a European legal order.

European Civil Security Governance

“…Interestingly, the EU itself explicitly refers to the term civil security only occasionally and primarily in the context of its security research programme. Likewise, the academic debate on EU policies to protect its citizens is usually framed in terms of 'internal security ' (Mitsilegas et al, 2003;Bossong and Rhinard, 2013a), 'homeland security' (Rhinard and Boin, 2009;Kaunert et al, 2012) or 'societal security' . To avoid the negative connotations of homeland security, at least in so far as they exist from a European perspective, and especially in relation to the focus on the 'war on terror', the EU particularly sought to promote the notion of 'internal security', most notably through its Internal Security Strategy (Bossong and Rhinard, 2013b).…”

“…See also the official definition of the ANVIL project for civil security, http:// anvil-project.net/anvil-glossary-of-terms/, date accessed 10 November 2014. 3. and Kaunert and Léonard (2012) argue that the European…”

The evolution of the European Union’s ‘fight against terrorism’ discourse: Constructing the terrorist ‘other’

“…There is also a growing literature which focuses on the implementation and governance of policy in the field of EU counter-terrorism policy. This includes research that calls into question the effectiveness of EU counter-terrorism policy (Bures, 2006(Bures, , 2011; focuses on transatlantic cooperation between the EU and the US in the field of counter-terrorism policy (Rees, 2006b); highlights the various aspects of the EU's counter-terrorism response (Spence, 2007); contextualises EU counterterrorism policy in relation to broader developments in the spheres of EU internal and external security policy (Kaunert and Léonard, 2012); and investigates the development of informal counter-terrorism arrangements in Europe (Bures, 2012). These analyses also offer something distinctive to our understanding of EU counter-terrorism policy.…”

The Construction of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology: The Realisation of an Ambiguous Policy Idea

“…Gradually, consensus emerged on considerable scope for political entrepreneurship, and the question changed into under which conditions and in which contexts policy entrepreneurs are able to pursue and realize their interests (e.g. Borrá s and Radaelli 2011 ;Christopoulos 2006;Elgströ m 2000;Hodson 2013;Kaunert 2010;Kaunert and Léonard 2012;Newman 2008;Wettestad 2005; and very recently in this journal: Zahariadis 2007Zahariadis , 2008. As Mintrom and Norman (1997, 651) argued, policy entrepreneurship '… should be studied in a manner that [pays] attention simultaneously to contextual factors, individual actions, and to how context [shapes] such actions'.…”