An Analysis of the Europeanisation of EU Counter-Terrorism Policies

MSc Crisis and Security Management - Master Thesis

“An Analysis of the Europeanisation of EU Counter-Terrorism Policies”

Student: Carlo Anthony Zensus Student Number: 2143577

Leiden University

Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs (FGGA)

Supervisor: Dr. I.L. Elias Carrillo Word count: 23.664

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my gratitude to everyone who has helped and supported me during the writing of this research. Specifically, I want to thank my supervisor Dr. I.L. Elias Carrillo for her comprehensive feedback and support, which provided me with valuable insight to conduct this research. Moreover, I want to thank my parents, and my brother, for the unconditional support they gave me throughout the past months — I could not have done it without you.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments 3

List of Abbreviations 5

List of Tables and Figures 6

Chapter 1: Introduction 7

1.1. Research Goal 8

1.2. Academic Relevance 12

1.3. Societal Relevance 14

1.4. The Link between the Crisis and Security Master Program and this Master Thesis 14

1.5. Structure of the Thesis 15

Chapter 2: Literature Review 16

2.1. An Overview of Definitions on Europeanisation Theory 16

Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 20

3.1. Creating a Working Definition of Europeanisation Theory 20

3.2. Neo-functionalism and Intergovernmentalism as the Explanatory Component 22

3.3. Linking Europeanisation Theory with Neo-functionalism and Intergovernmentalism 24

Chapter 4: The Development of EU Counter-Terrorism Policies 25

4.1. Pre-9/11 EU Counter-Terrorism Policies 26

4.2. Post 9/11 EU Counter-Terrorism Policies 29

4.3. EU Counter-Terrorism Policies after the Madrid and London Attacks 33

4.4. The Impact of the Lisbon Treaty on EU Counter-Terrorism Policies 36

Chapter 5: Methodology 38

5.1. Data Collection 39

5.2. Actors and Mandates in EU Counter-Terrorism Policy 43

5.3. Table 1: Overview of Documents used in Content Analysis (ordered by date) 46

5.4. Operationalisation of Europeanisation Theory 49

5.5. Measuring the Criteria 52

Chapter 6: Analysis 53

6.1. Numerical Analysis 54

6.2. Political Structures 55

6.3. Interaction 59

6.4. European Rules 67

6.5. Explanations for the Europeanisation of EU Counter-Terrorism Policies 74

6.6. Critical Discussion of the Results 80

Chapter 7: Conclusion 84

7.1. Limitations 86

7.2. Avenues for Further Research 87

List of Abbreviations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

List of Tables and Figures

- Table 1: Overview of Documents used in Content Analysis (ordered by date), p. 46 - Table 2: Operationalisation of Europeanisation Theory, p. 51

Chapter 1: Introduction

Through the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Syria and Iraq from 2014 onwards, the population of the European Union became exposed to an unprecedented threat of terrorism. Member States of the EU quickly were declared targets by ISIL , as several European 1 2

countries joined the US-led international coalition “Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF–OIR)”, to assist in fighting ISIL strongholds in Syria and Iraq from 3

October 2014 onwards. Furthermore, the European Union itself became engaged as a non-military 4

partner in the fight against ISIL. Consequently, starting in 2015, Member States of the EU fell 5

victim to a multitude of terrorist attacks, with France, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Germany and Spain suffering the most civilian casualties. This transnational threat of terrorism caused a need for 6

comprehensive counter-terrorism policies by the Member States of the European Union, as well as

Erika Brady, February 2017, “An analysis of security challenges arising from the Syrian Conflict: Islamic Terrorism,

1

Refugee Flows and Political and Social Impacts in Europe”, The Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political

Vio-lence, JTR, Volume 8, Issue 1, p. 3

Diego Muro, November 2015, “Why Did ISIS Target France?”, Barcelona Centre for International Affairs (CIDOB),

2

p. 1

Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve APO AE 09306, see: https://www.inherentresolve.mil/Portals/

3

14/Documents/Mission/HISTORY_17OCT2014-JUL2017.pdf?ver=2017-07-22-095806-793

The following EU Member States are involved in the CJTF–OIR: Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Greece, Italy,

4

Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, United Kingdom, Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Sweden, Romania

The Global Coalition, September 21, 2016, “The EU - Countering Deash”, see:

https://theglobalcoalition.org/en/the-5

eu-countering-daesh/

Overview of Terrorist attacks in mentioned countries:

6

- January 2015 Île-de-France attacks: 17 casualties, 22 injuries

- November 2015 Paris attacks: 130 casualties, 413 injuries

- 2016 Brussels bombings: 32 casualties, 340 injuries

- 2016 Nice attack: 86 casualties, 458 injuries

- 2016 Berlin attack: 12 casualties, 56 injuries

- 2017 Westminster attack: 5 injuries, 50 casualties

- 2017 Manchester Arena bombing: 22 casualties, 512 injuries

- 2017 London Bridge attack: 8 casualties, 48 injuries

- 2017 Barcelona attacks: 16 casualties, 152 injuries

All attacks listed above were classified by Europol as jihadist terrorism. Casualties among members of the terrorist groups are excluded.

Sources:

-Europol, 2017, “European Union Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2017”, p. 22 ff.

-Europol, 2016, “European Union Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2016”, p. 22 ff.

-National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), August 2017, “Background

by the EU itself. The EU had already pursued some counter-terrorism policies — as early as the 7 8

1970s, EU Member States began to cooperate in the fight against terrorism. Since the events of 9

September 11, 2001 (“9/11”), and especially following the terrorist attacks in Madrid (2004) and London (2005), the European Union gradually increased its institutional capacity on counter-terrorism by in particular harmonising national legislation, coordinating efforts of Member States and engaging in operational measures. However, the unprecedented amount of ISIL-related 10 11 12

terrorist attacks on European soil after 2015 led to an even greater need of strengthening the cooperation on fighting terrorism among the Member States. In this thesis I analyse the 13 14

coordinated counter-terrorism capacity of the EU since 2015, with a focus on the question if a systematic Europeanisation has taken place in this important security domain. Moreover, a central focus of the thesis will be to explain why a Europeanisation came about using Intergovernmentalism and Neo-functionalism theory.

1.1. Research Goal

The goal of this research is to assess whether structures of governance related to counter-terrorism policies were created or expanded within the European Union. Based on a working definition of Europeanisation, defined as “the creation of political structures of governance at the European level, which formalise the interaction among European Union actors with the aim of enacting European rules in a respective policy domain”, it will be assessed whether one can speak of such a Europeanisation of EU counter-terrorism policies since 2015. Based on the past reluctance of EU

European Council, “Timeline: foreign terrorist fighters and recent terrorist attacks in Europe”, see:

7

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/fight-against-terrorism/foreign-fighters/history-foreign-fighters/ European Council, “Response to the terrorist threat and recent terrorist attacks in Europe”, see: https://www.consili

8

-um.europa.eu/en/policies/fight-against-terrorism/foreign-fighters/

Oldrich Bures, November 2012, “Informal counterterrorism arrangements in Europe: Beauty by variety or duplicity

9

by abundance?”, Cooperation and Conflict 47(4) 495–518, p. 498

Oldrich Bures, November 2012, “Informal counterterrorism arrangements in Europe: Beauty by variety or duplicity

10

by abundance?”, Cooperation and Conflict 47(4) 495–518, p. 514

Javier Argomaniz, Oldrich Bures & Christian Kaunert, 2015, “A Decade of EU Counter-terrorism and Intelligence: A

11

Critical Assessment”, Intelligence and National Security, 30:2-3, 191-206, p. 196

A comprehensive account of these developments can be found in Chapter 4.

12

P. de Bruycker et D. Watt (Odysseus Omnia), H. Labayle (CDRE), A. Weyembergh et C. Brière (Eclan), 8 January

13

2016, “The Paris Terrorist Attacks : Failure of the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice?”, Réseau Universitaire Européen Droit de l’Espace de Liberté, Sécurité, & Justice, see: http://www.gdr-elsj.eu/en/2016/01/08/cooperation-judi-ciaire-penale-en/the-paris-terrorist-attacks-failure-of-the-eus-area-of-freedom-security-and-justice/

Christine Andreeva, 2019, “EU Counter-terrorism Policy after 2015”, The Institute of International and European

14

Member States to relinquish competences in the domain of counter-terrorism , as well as the lack 15

of harmonisation before 2015, which existed across the EU , the goal of this research is 16 17

consequently to highlight the changing nature of EU counter-terrorism policies: developing from a fragmented multitude of policies towards a harmonised, Europeanised approach to counter-terrorism. While it is to be expected to some degree that the EU will naturally promote common action, due to the past reluctance of the Member States to fully unify the counter-terrorism approach on a European level, it is not a foregone conclusion that such Europeanisation actually occurred. If a Europeanisation of EU counter-terrorism policies indeed took place, it is moreover essential to assess why such Europeanisation came about. Did, in line with neo-functionalism theory, previous cooperation among the European states on other policy domains result in so-called positive spillover effects which led to an increased need and desire for cooperation in the domain of counter-terrorism? Or was, as explained by intergovernmentalism theory, the desire to cooperate on 18

matters of counter-terrorism internalised by the respective European states, thereby becoming part of the national interests and policy objectives, which in return led to a Europeanisation of EU counter-terrorism policies? An answer as to why a Europeanisation exists will therefore be 19

provided by placing the results of the content analysis into context with the neo-functionalism and intergovernmentalism theory, which allow for explanations on why and how sovereign states engage and cooperate with one another in respective policy domains.

The thesis will, therefore, address the following research question: “To what extent have EU counter-terrorism policies been Europeanised since 2015, and how can this be explained?”

Disputes have existed over maintaining sovereign decision-making capabilities on national security versus providing the EU with competences in the fight against terrorism ever since first steps were taken by European states to create a common approach against the threat of terrorism. Research conducted by Occhipinti highlights for example that in the case of Europol, a key EU institution in fighting terrorism, Member States in the past two decades had been hesitant to enlarge the

Javier Argomaniz, Oldrich Bures & Christian Kaunert, 2015, “A Decade of EU Counter-terrorism and Intelligence: A

15

Critical Assessment”, Intelligence and National Security, 30:2-3, p. 202

Ibid.

16

Monar J., 2014, “EU internal security governance: the case of counter-terrorism”, European Security, 23(2), 195-209

17

Robert Harmsen and Thomas M. Wilson, 2000, “Introduction: Approaches to Europeanisation”, Yearbook of Eu

18

-ropean Studies, 14, p. 18

R. Wong & C. Hill, eds. 2011, “National and European Foreign Policies: Towards Europeanization”, p. 5

operational role of the agency due to bureaucratic resistance on the national level. Scholars, 20

therefore, argued that in the past the role of the EU on counter-terrorism policies was “that of (a) conveyor belt for best practices and knowledge sharing or a coordinator of efforts at most”. The 21

cooperation among the EU Member States in the 1990s on matters of terrorism could only be described as marginal. As stated clearly by Argomaniz, “there is little doubt that by 10 22 23

September 2001, the EU was not a significant producer of counter-terrorism policy.” EU counter-24

terrorism efforts before and since 9/11 were characterised by informal, fragmented networks among European Communities/EU Member States, which aimed at the exchange of information, sharing best practices and enhancing cooperation between national authorities. Despite an increase in 25 26

policies across a wide range of domains, problems remained — especially regarding the implementation of the policies on the national level by the Member States, as well as concerning the cohesiveness of the policies themselves. 27 28

From a legislative perspective this tension between sovereignty versus security is also apparent. EU competences are divided into shared and exclusive competences — in general, all competences in the domain of counter-terrorism are of a shared nature between the EU and the Member States. 29

Moreover, following the principle of subsidiarity, the EU may only adopt measures in circumstances where the Union is better equipped than the Member States to ensure the fulfilment

Javier Argomaniz, Oldrich Bures & Christian Kaunert, 2015, “A Decade of EU Counter-terrorism and Intelligence: A

20

Critical Assessment”, Intelligence and National Security, 30:2-3, p. 202

Ibid.

21

Oldrich Bures, “EU Counterterrorism Policy: A Paper Tiger?”, 2006, Terrorism and Political Violence, 18:1, p. 59

22

Javier Argomaniz, “Post-9/11 institutionalisation of European Union Counter-terrorism: emergence, acceleration

23

and inertia”, 2009, European Security, 18:2, p. 153

Ibid.

24

Javier Argomaniz, Oldrich Bures & Christian Kaunert, 2015, “A Decade of EU Counter-terrorism and Intelligence: A

25

Critical Assessment”, Intelligence and National Security, 30:2-3, p. 202

Thomas Renard, September 2012, “EU Counterterrorism Policies and Institutions After the Lisbon Treaty”, Center on

26

Global Counterterrorism Cooperation, Policy Brief, p. 16

Oldrich Bures, 2006, “EU Counterterrorism Policy: A Paper Tiger?”, Terrorism and Political Violence, 18:1, p. 59

27

Javier Argomaniz, 2009, “Post-9/11 institutionalisation of European Union counter-terrorism: emergence, accelera-

28

tion and inertia”, European Security, 18:2, p. 155, 163

European Parliament, Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department C: Citizens’s Rights and Constitu

29

-tional Affairs, Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, “The European Union’s Policies on Counter-terrorism

of a respective objective, which is laid out in the Treaties. Consequently, in the domain of counter-30

terrorism, it was not even intended for the EU to aim at complete harmonisation of all measures — especially in light of Art. 72 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which holds that when stipulated, the mandate of the Member States to protect national security is not to be affected. Placed in context with the previously mentioned tension of competences is this provision 31

viewed as a safeguard of the Member States to be able to deviate if necessary from decisions reached on the EU level regarding counter-terrorism, if it could be proven that the internal security of the Member State may be negatively affected. In a similar vein, the Treaty on European Union 32

holds that “national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member States”. It, therefore, 33

becomes evident that within the domain of counter-terrorism policy the EU remains to an extent dependent on the willingness of the Member States to initiate measures. 34

The aim of this thesis is thus to assess the Europeanisation of EU counter-terrorism policies initiated after the wave of attacks, which struck Europe from 2015 onwards. This thesis will in particular focus on the development of internal counter-terrorism policies by the European Union, 35

which find application within the territory of the European Union, in contrast to external EU counter-terrorism policies, which fall under the mandate of EU civilian and military missions

Art. 5(3) TEU and the Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality

30

Art. 72 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)

31

Wollf, S., Goudappel, F. and De Zwaan, J., “Freedom, Security and Justice after Lisbon and Stockholm”, T.M.C. Ass

32

-er Press: The Hague, 2011, p. 14

Art. 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU)

33

European Parliament, Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department C: Citizens’s Rights and Constitu

34

-tional Affairs, Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, “The European Union’s Policies on Counter-terrorism

Rele-vance, Coherence and Effectiveness”, 2017, p. 50

EU counter-terrorism policies can be divided into an internal and external dimension. The internal dimension of EU

35

counter-terrorism policies refer to policies, which find application within the jurisdiction of the EU, and are implement-ed by the respective Member States. An example of such an internal policy document would be e.g., Council Frame-work Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism (2002/475/JHA; see: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32002F0475&from=en). The external dimension of EU counter-terrorism policies refers to policies, which are implemented inter alia through the European External Action Service and the encompassing EU mission abroad under the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) (see e.g.: Council Decision 2012/392/CFSP of 16 July 2012 on the EU CSDP mission in Niger (EU-CAP Sahel Niger) OJ 17.7.2012, L 187, p. 48 and Council Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP establishing EULEx Kosovo, OJ 16.02.2008, L 42, p.92), through bilateral agreements between the EU and third countries, or through Development and Cooperation Agreements (see: C. Chevalier-Govers, 2012, “Antiterrorism cooperation between the EU and ASEAN”, European Foreign Affairs Review, n°2, pp. 133-156); (see: Laura C. Ferreira-Pereiraa, Bruno Oliveira Martins, December 2012, “The external dimension of the European Union’s

Counter-terrorism: an introduction to empirical and theoretical developments”, European Security, Vol. 21, No. 4,

459-473; Ester Herlin-Karnell, Claudio Matera, “External dimension of the EU Counter-terrorism policy”, Centre for the Law of EU External Relations, CLEER Working Papers 2014/2).

abroad. The research method to be used in this research is a content analysis. Thereby, the 36

working definition of Europeanisation theory will be divided into categories, definitions, and indicators, and employed in the quantitative assessment of the relevant documents. The timeframe under research will start with the Île-de-France attacks on the news magazine Charlie Hebdo on January 7, 2015, until October 30, 2019, as it can be argued that this period created new 37

momentum for the Member States and the EU to adopt long-intended measures in the domain of counter-terrorism and to bring about a more Europeanised EU counter-terrorism approach. In its 38

totality, this thesis will therefore firstly focus on the descriptive component of Europeanisation theory, namely by analysing whether the final policy outcomes on counter-terrorism issued by the EU have been Europeanised. A second step will subsequently be to add an explanatory component to the analysis by placing Europeanisation theory in context to international relations theories, specifically Intergovernmentalism and Neo-functionalism. Thereby, an explanation will be provided on why the respective EU counter-terrorism policies under analysis developed towards a Europeanised nature.

1.2. Academic Relevance

This study adds to research previously conducted on EU counter-terrorism policies, including, e.g., on the development of EU counter-terrorism policies since 9/11 , the legality of EU counter-39 40 41 42

terrorism policies under EU law , the external dimension of EU counter-terrorism policies as a 43

For an example on internal EU counter-terrorism policies, see e.g., Articles 75 and 222 TFEU, Consolidated version

36

of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union [2007] OJ C 326, 26/10/2012, see: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/le-gal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT&from=EN. For an example of external EU counter-terrorism policies, see e.g., Article 43 TEU, Consolidated version of the treaty on European Union [2007] OJ C 326, 26/10/2012, see: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2bf140bf-a3f8-4ab2-b506-fd71826e6da6.0023.02/DOC_1&for-mat=PDF.

This date refers to the date of publication of the last document used in the content analysis.

37

Christine Andreeva, 2019, “EU Counter-terrorism Policy after 2015”, The Institute of International and European

38

Affairs, p. 208

Raphael Bossong, 2013, “The Evolution of EU Counter-terrorism”, Routledge

39

Javier Argomaniz, 2011, “The EU and Counter-terrorism - Politics, polity and policies after 9/11”, Routledge

40

Rik Coolsaet, July 2010, “EU counterterrorism strategy: value added or chimera?”, International Affairs, Volume 86,

41

Issue 4

Javier Argomaniz, Oldrich Bures & Christian Kaunert, 2015, “A Decade of EU Counter-terrorism and Intelligence: A

42

Critical Assessment, Intelligence and National Security”, 30:2-3

Elsepth Guild, January 2008, “The Uses and Abuses of Counter-Terrorism Policies in Europe: The Case of the ‘Ter

43

component of EU foreign policy , the securitisation of EU counter-terrorism policies , or on 44 45 46

specific aspects of EU counter-terrorism policies such as police cooperation and the role of Europol. However, only limited research has been conducted on the Europeanisation of EU 47

counter-terrorism policies themselves. An extended search on Google Scholar brought about only one paper by Monica den Boer, dating back to 2003, who researched the impact of 9/11 on the Europeanisation of counter-terrorism policy. In her research, Den Boer does assess the impact, 48

which 9/11 had on the creation of EU counter-terrorism policies, however she places a particular focus on the subsequent Europeanisation of EU crime control policies, such as the harmonisation of criminal law across Member States, or cooperation on matters of law enforcement. The theory of 49

Europeanisation was furthermore applied to the Justice and Home Affairs, as well as the EU Common Foreign Security Policy (CFSP), however thereby focussing on the external dimension of EU foreign policy-making and counter-terrorism policies. Despite an extensive survey there is 50

limited relevant literature, which specifically addresses Europeanisation theory and EU counter-terrorism policies. This thesis therefore serves as a new perspective on the relation between Europeanisation theory and EU counter-terrorism policies. A gap remains in the literature regarding the question of whether internal EU counter-terrorism policies have been Europeanised, especially in light the dramatic increase in legislation and implementation of EU counter-terrorism policies across the European Union after 2015. The question of whether the European Union has therefore 51

increased its influence and involvement in a domain traditionally regarded as a sensitive stronghold of the Member States, in which these are rather reluctant to give up competence, is of relevance.52

Daniel Keohane, January 2008, “The Absent Friend: EU Foreign Policy and Counter-Terrorism”, Volume 46, Issue 1

44

Christopher Baker-Beall, August 20, 2009, “The Discursive Construction of EU Counter-terrorism Policy: Writing

45

the ‘Migrant Other’, Securitisation and Control”, Loughborough University

Oz Hassan, 2010, “Constructing crises, (In)securitising terror: the punctuated evolution of EU counter-terror strate

46

-gy”, European Security, 19:3, 445-466

Mathieu Deflem, 2006, “Europol and the Policing of International Terrorism: Counter-Terrorism in a Global Per

47

-spective”, Justice Quarterly, 23:3

Monica den Boer, September 2003, “9/11 and the Europeanisation of Anti-Terrorism Policy: A Critical Assessment”,

48

Policy Papers N°6, Notre Europe Ibid., p. 1-2

49

Neil Winn, 27 Feb 2008, “The European Union's external face: The ‘Europeanisation’ of JHA and CFSP”, Volume 4,

50

2003 - Issue 1: ‘Europeanisation’: Regulation and Identity in the New Europe, 147-166

Christine Andreeva, 2019, “EU Counter-terrorism Policy after 2015”, The Institute of International and European

51

Affairs, p. 208

Javier Argomaniz, 2011, “The EU and Counter-terrorism - Politics, polity and policies after 9/11”, Routledge, p. 17

1.3. Societal Relevance

From a societal perspective, terrorism remains one of the gravest threats to our security. This analysis focusses on the scope of existing EU counter-terrorism practices, which is timely because of the threat that terrorism continues to pose. These practices often remain outside the public discourse due to the inherent secrecy through which these policies are carried out in practice. Criticism has been voiced concerning questions of accountability and transparency in the decision-making process regarding counter-terrorism policies. In this regard the research may lead to a 53 54

better understanding of what practices and policies of the European Union are in place to combat terrorism, hence enriching the public discourse with greater knowledge on the issue. The research could provide the basis for a subsequent analysis of the transparency and accountability measures in place aimed at ensuring that counter-terrorism policies remain subject to the rule of law.

Moreover, if indeed a Europeanisation took place regarding counter-terrorism practices, such a development would serve as an example of European cooperation, and highlight that by elevating a topic to the European level positive outcomes for the European public can emerge. In times of doubt by parts of the European population on whether the EU even has a positive effect on their lives, this study could provide such impetus to strengthen European cooperation in respective fields. Highlighting the conflict regarding the division of competences between the EU and its Member States in the field of counter-terrorism is furthermore helpful to understand in which direction the European Union is developing. If the research shows that indeed a Europeanisation of counter-terrorism policies took place, one can subsequently deduct that Member States are more willing to give competences to the EU in the domain of national security.

1.4. The Link between the Crisis and Security Master Program and this Master Thesis

This thesis is fully rooted in the Crisis and Security Management (CSM) Master at Leiden University. On the one hand, an analysis into the field of terrorism is undertaken, a domain traditionally associated as a sub-field of security studies. The threat of terrorism to the EU and its 55

Member States remains grave and it is a prime example in which crisis management finds

Oldrich Bures, November 2012, “Informal counterterrorism arrangements in Europe: Beauty by variety or duplicity

53

by abundance?”, Cooperation and Conflict 47(4) 495–518, p. 509

Den Boer M, Hillerbrand C and Nölke A, 2008, “Legitimacy under pressure: the European web of Counter-terrorism

54

networks”, Journal of Common Market Studies 46(1): 101–124

Richard Jackson, Marie Breen Smyth, Jeroen Gunning, 2009, “Introduction - The Case for Critical Terrorism Stud

55

-ies”, 2009, Routlegde, p. 1 ff., in Richard Jackson, Marie Breen Smyth, Jeroen Gunning, “Critical Terrorism Studies: A

application, both in the prevention of and reaction to terrorism threats. On the other hand, Europeanisation theory, and its theoretical framework employed in this research, is a core component of the CSM Master Program, specifically in the context of the course ‘Europeanisation of Crisis and Security Management’. Europeanisation theory also allows researchers to assess the development of crisis management measures in various policy domains of the EU and its Member States. Consequently, this thesis reflects on both security studies and Europeanisation theory, as 56

the goal of the thesis is to assess the development of EU terrorism policy, (with counter-terrorism being a specific field of contemporary crisis management), through the lens of a theory, which precisely allows for an assessment of these policy developments. 57

1.5. Structure of the Thesis

The thesis is structured as follows: Chapter 1 has outlined the problem studied in the research, leading to the research question to be answered. Chapter 2 follows with a literature review on Europeanisation theory. Chapter 3 describes the theoretical framework of the thesis, leading to the creation of a working definition of Europeanisation theory, as well as linking Europeanisation theory with Neo-functionalism and Intergovernmentalism theory. Chapter 4 will subsequently provide the reader with further background information on the development of EU counter-terrorism policies. Following, Chapter 5 describes the methodology enjoyed in this thesis, leading to the analysis of the Europeanisation of EU counter-terrorism policies in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 contains the conclusion to the thesis, discusses the limitations and gives an outlook on possible future research.

Jim Buller, Andrew Gamble, 2002, “Conceptualising Europeanisation”, Public Policy and Administration Volume 17

56

No.2, p. 10 Ibid.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

This thesis attempts to assess whether distinct structures of governance have been created at the EU level in the domain of counter-terrorism following the wave of terrorist attacks in the European Union from 2015 onwards. Europeanisation theory lends itself useful to analyse the development of policy-making within the European Union. This chapter will provide the reader with a literature review on Europeanisation theory, delving into the definition stated by leading scholars.

2.1. An Overview of Definitions on Europeanisation Theory

An encompassing definition on Europeanisation theory is provided by Risse et al., who define the concept as “the emergence and development at the European level of distinct structures of governance, that is, of political, legal and social institutions associated with political problem-solving that formalise interactions among the actors and of policy networks specialising in the creation of authoritative European rules”. This definition highlights the descriptive component of 58

Europeanisation theory, as the theory can be used to analyse policy outcomes on the EU level. An assessment of the outcome of a respective policy allows the researcher to determine and describe its scope and assess the nature of its application in practice.

The development of a distinct (from the national policy), but common, ‘Europeanised’ policy is highlighted in the definition by Risse et al. Scholars have pointed out that such institutions of governance, whether they be legal, social or political, do not ‘emerge’ but are created by the Member States themselves. 59 60 61 Building on this assertion, Radaelli’s definition of Europeanisation focusses on the process of Europeanisation, as he argues that the concept “consists of processes of a) construction, b) diffusion and c) institutionalisation of formal and informal rules, procedures, policy paradigms, styles, ‘ways of doing things’ and shared beliefs and norms which are first defined and consolidated in the EU policy process and then incorporated in the logic of

Risse, T., Cowles, M.G. and Caporaso, J., 2001, “Europeanisation and Domestic Change: Introduction”, In Cowles,

58

M.G., Caporaso, J. and Risse, T. (eds) Transforming Europe: Europeanisation and Domestic Change (Ithaca, NY: Cor-nell University Press), p. 3

Dyson, K. and Goetz, K.H., 2003, “Living with Europe: Power, Constraint and Contestation”, In Germany, Europe

59

and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 13–15, 20

Featherstone, K., 2003, “Introduction: In the Name of Europe”, In Featherstone, K. and Radaelli, C.M. (eds) The Pol

60

-itics of Europeanisation (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 10

Radaelli, C.M., 2003, “The Europeanisation of Public Policy”, In Featherstone, K. and Radaelli, C.M. (eds) The Poli

61

domestic (national and sub-national) discourse, political structures and public policies”. Following 62

Radaelli, Europeanisation, therefore, does “not consist of processes of construction of EU rules, procedures, policy paradigms, styles, ‘ways of doing things’, beliefs and norms, but may originate

from such processes.” Moumoutzis consequently merges the focus on the outcome of processes of 63

Europeanisation with Radaelli’s initial definition, arguing that Europeanisation ought to be defined as “a process of incorporation in the logic of domestic (national and sub-national) discourse, political structures and public policies of formal and informal rules, procedures, policy paradigms, styles, ‘ways of doing things’ and shared beliefs and norms that are first defined in the EU policy processes.” 64

A more simplified, but comprehensive, analysis on Europeanisation is provided by Olsen, who argues that Europeanisation may be viewed from the perspective of “changes in external boundaries”, the “development of institutions at the European level”, the “central penetration of national systems of governance”, the “exportation of forms of political organisations”, and a “political unification project”. In this regard, Olsen emphasises that processes of change, both at 65

the national and EU level, are not static, but must be regarded as a “simultaneous process of change”. The definition on Europeanisation brought forward by Ladrech builds on the process of 66

change, focusing on domestic change due to cooperation on the European level, as he defines the theory as “an incremental process reorienting the direction and shape of policies to the degree that EC political and economic dynamics become part of the organisational logic of national politics and policy making”. In a similar vein, Börzel states that Europeanisation represents the process of 67

domestic policy fields increasingly becoming subject to the policymaking on the European Union level. Whereas Ladrech focusses on the transfer of knowledge from the EU to the national level, 68

Radaelli, C.M., 2004, “Europeanisation: Solution or Problem?”, European Integration Online Papers, Vol. 8, No. 16,

62

p. 3

Kyriakos Moumoutzis, 2011, “Still Fashionable Yet Useless? Addressing Problems with Research on the Euro

63

-peanization of Foreign Policy”, JCMS Volume 49, Number 3. p. 611 (emphasis added)

Ibid., p. 612

64

Olsen, J.P., 2002, “The Many Faces of Europeanisation”, JCMS, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 923–4, 943

65

Ibid., pp. 921, 943

66

Ladrech, Robert, 1994, “Europeanization of Domestic Politics and Institutions: The Case of France”, Journal of

67

Common Market Studies 32(1): p. 69

Börzel, T.A., 1999, “Towards Convergence in Europe? Institutional Adaptation to Europeanisation in Germany and

68

Lawton argues that Europeanisation refers to the de jure transfer of sovereignty to the EU level. 69

He thereby makes a distinction to the concept of “Europeification”, which according to him refers to the de facto sharing of power between the EU and national governments of Member States. 70

The theories mentioned above view Europeanisation as the emergence of new ways of governance on the European level , which “emphasise the socialisation potential of institutions — highlighting 71

the extent to which participation in permanent institutional structures leads to longer-term redefinitions of actor interests and self-perceptions” , or as a form of national adaptation in which 72

institutional structures within the Member States adapt to developments of European integration. 73

Europeanisation can however also be viewed from the perspective of “policy isomorphism”. Here 74

Europeanisation focusses on the level of convergence in policy areas, either directly, whereby legislative and regulatory competence is given from the Member States to the EU, or indirectly, whereby the Member States begin to emulate other countries regarding respective policy areas. A 75

further definition emphasises the scope of interaction between European policy-makers, who subsequently engage in the creation of a common set of ideas and values due to the socialisation among one another. Europeanisation is hereby understood as a form of transnationalism and cultural integration, as defined by Borneman and Fowler. 76

To conclude the overview of definitions on the subject, a few important considerations are to be mentioned. In particular, some scholars have argued that Europeanisation ought not to be regarded as the end state of a particular policy, but more as a process — consequently, a focus can also be

Lawton, T., 1999, “Governing the Skies: Conditions for the Europeanisation of Airline Policy”, Journal of Public Pol

69

-icy 19(1):91-112

Claudio M. Radaelli, 2003,“The Europeanisation of Public Policy”, In Featherstone, K. and Radaelli, C., The Politics

70

of Europeanisation, p. 29

Bartolini, S., T. Risse and B. Strnth, 1999, “Between Europe and the Nation-State: The Reshaping of Interests, Identi

71

-ties and Political Representation”, Framework for the 1999-2000 European Forum, Florence: European University

In-stitute, p. 2

Robert Harmsen and Thomas M. Wilson, 2000, “Introduction: Approaches to Europeanisation”, Yearbook of Eu

72

-ropean Studies, 14, p. 14

Ladrech, Robert, 1994, “Europeanization of Domestic Politics and Institutions: The Case of France”, Journal of

73

Common Market Studies 32(1): p. 70

Robert Harmsen and Thomas M. Wilson, 2000, “Introduction: Approaches to Europeanisation”, Yearbook of Eu

74

-ropean Studies, 14, p. 15

Robert Harmsen and Thomas M. Wilson, 2000, “Introduction: Approaches to Europeanisation”, Yearbook of Eu

75

-ropean Studies, 14, p. 15

Borneman, J. and N. Fowler, 1997, “Europeanization”, Annual Review of Anthropology 26, p. 497

placed on the process itself. Moreover, while Europeanisation can be seen as a vertical process 77

(both from the EU to the domestic level, and vice versa), the previously mentioned focus on socialisation renders a horizontal process of Europeanisation possible as well. Hence, following Radaelli, “the EU may provide the context, the cognitive and normative ‘frame’, the terms of reference, or the opportunities for socialisation of domestic actors who then produce ‘exchanges’ (of ideas, power, policies, and so on) between each other.” To conclude, as stated by Harmsen and 78

Wilson, despite viewing Europeanisation from different lenses, all scholars have in common that in some form the concepts attempt to assess the role of the European Union in policy change throughout the EU institutions and the Member States. 79

Goetz, K., 2002, “Four worlds of Europeanisation”, Paper prepared for the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops,

77

Turin, Italy, 22-27 March 2002

Radaelli, C.M., 2004, “Europeanisation: Solution or Problem?”, European Integration Online Papers, Vol. 8, No. 16,

78

p. 5

Robert Harmsen and Thomas M. Wilson, 2000, “Introduction: Approaches to Europeanisation”, Yearbook of Eu

79

Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework

3.1. Creating a Working Definition of Europeanisation Theory

The literature review presented in Chapter 2 has provided an overview of Europeanisation theory and has discussed how scholars view Europeanisation theory in relation to policy creation on the EU level. To analyse the Europeanisation of EU counter-terrorism policies, the following section will provide the reader with a working definition of Europeanisation. As mentioned previously, Europeanisation theory will furthermore be placed in relation to Intergovernmentalism and Neo-functionalism. Thereby, an explanatory component will be added to this research, as by using these theories an explanation can be provided to the reader on why EU counter-terrorism policies initiated since 2015 developed towards a Europeanised nature. The explanatory component of this research will not have any effect on the operationalisation of Europeanisation theory to be used the content analysis — the working definition developed is solely derived by using the definitions of Europeanisation theory of authoritative scholars. In Chapter 5, the working definition will subsequently be operationalised in the methodological framework, and afterward, be applied in the content analysis of the data.

The definition of Europeanisation by Risse et al. will serve as the basis of the research, as it provides the most complete description of the possible outcome of a Europeanisation of respective policies, and will be incorporated into the final working definition used in this research. Risse et al. define Europeanisation as “the emergence and development at the European level of distinct structures of governance, that is, of political, legal and social institutions associated with political problem-solving that formalise interactions among the actors and of policy networks specialising in the creation of authoritative European rules”. The scholars consequently mention several aspects 80

of Europeanisation theory which are important for the research: (1) the emergence and development at the European level of distinct political structures of governance, (2) these structures formalising interactions among the actors, and (3) these structures having the aim of enacting European rules on a respective policy field. The reference to “political problem-solving” found in the definition of Risse et al. will be disregarded in the working definition as this component is somewhat logical: the cooperation, deliberation, and subsequent decision-making by the EU Member States on a respective issue are always connected to a degree of problem-solving. If no problem needed to be solved, why would cooperation then be necessary? Although one can argue that the EU Member

Risse, T., Cowles, M.G. and Caporaso, J., 2001, “Europeanisation and Domestic Change: Introduction”, In Cowles,

80

M.G., Caporaso, J. and Risse, T. (eds) Transforming Europe: Europeanisation and Domestic Change (Ithaca, NY: Cor-nell University Press), p. 3

States may also come together and work cooperatively even if no problem needed to be solved, including this aspect of Risse’s definition into the working definition would unnecessarily complicate the analysis. The reference to “policy networks” will also be disregarded, as policy networks refer to the processes through which Europeanisation comes about, specifically the aspect of socialisation among policy elites and policy networks. In a similar vein, “social institutions” 81

will also be disregarded in the working definition, as these structures again refer to the degree of

social interaction between EU policymakers. While the formalisation of interaction is indeed of

interest to this research and will be assessed in the content analysis, how such interaction expresses itself through socialisation is not. Socialisation is important to be recognised as an integral part of the process through which Europeanisation comes about, however, it will not serve as the basis of the analysis, as the research is interested in determining whether distinct forms of governance were created, and why these came about, however not how these came about. The “legal institutions” mentioned in the definition of Risse are beyond the scope of this research — an analysis of the political structures in itself will provide a comprehensive assessment as to whether EU counter-terrorism policies have been Europeanised. An analysis of the legal structures existent within the EU counter-terrorism policy domain would include inter alia assessing the role of national courts and the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights on the implementation, monitoring or legality of counter-terrorism policies. This focus would require a legal analysis of the role of the judiciary, which is worthy of its independent thesis. To ensure that the components of Europeanisation theory are assessed adequately in-depth, the author decided to refrain from an analysis of the judiciary as such an analysis would only touch the surface of the role of the courts without going beyond the word limit of this thesis.

When incorporating the components of Risse et al.’s definition on Europeanisation theory mentioned above into the working definition, the following definition created by the author emerges: “Europeanisation refers to the creation of political structures of governance at the European level, which formalise the interaction among European Union actors with the aim of enacting European rules in a respective policy domain.” This working definition will subsequently serve as the basis of the content analysis and will be operationalised in Chapter 5.

Quaglia, L., F. De Francesco, and C.M. Radaelli, 2008, “Committee governance and socialization in the European

81

3.2. Neo-functionalism and Intergovernmentalism as the Explanatory Component

To provide an explanatory understanding of Europeanisation theory it is furthermore helpful to place the concept in context to other schools of thought, which describe the interaction of the Member States and the EU in policymaking. In this regard, Neo-functionalism and Intergovernmentalism, in particular, deserve greater attention. Placing Europeanisation theory in the context of these two schools of thought allows the researcher to distinguish between the different forms of governance at play within policymaking in the supranational and intergovernmental institutions of the EU. While Europeanisation theory can focus on the process of how respective policies come about, as well as on the outcome of such processes, Neo-functionalism and Intergovernmentalism focus on the underlying rationale why states seek to cooperate or not in the first place, and thereby provides an explanatory component to this research. Thereby, “both neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism are macro-level theories of international relations, which are designed to describe, clarify and predict the European integration as a process.” These 82

schools of thought can be regarded as the foundation upon which states decide to engage with one another on the European level, while Europeanisation theory subsequently can shed more light on how such cooperation comes about in practice, or what the scope and nature of the policy outcome is.

Neo-functionalism attempts to explain levels of European integration, and holds that cooperation among nation-states in a transnational setting such as the EU gradually leads to an increased need and demand for cooperation among the actors. So-called positive spillover effects, which result 83

from cooperation among actors in a respective policy field, may only be realised if cooperation in other domains takes place as well, hence leading to the increased need and demand for cooperation. Phrased differently, “Spillover refers to the mechanism by which integration in one 84

area creates the conditions and incentives for integration in another related policy area.” 85

Spillovers can thereby following two logics: (1) an expansive logic, which entails that cooperation

Teodor Lucian Moga, 2009, “The Contribution of the Neofunctionalist and Intergovernmentalist Theories to the Evo

82

-lution of the European Integration Process”, Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, Vol 1, No 3, p.

796

Robert Harmsen and Thomas M. Wilson, 2000, “Introduction: Approaches to Europeanisation”, Yearbook of Eu

83

-ropean Studies, 14, p. 18

Holger Scheidt, 2011, “Neofunctionalism Vs Liberal Intergovernmentalism; The Creation Of The European Stability

84

Mechanism And The Limits Of Political Theory”, City University of New York, p. 7

see:

http://hum.port.ac.uk/europeanstudieshub/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Module-4-extract-5-Neofunctionalism-85

and integration in one policy domain incentives cooperation in another policy domain, and (2) a deepening logic, entailing an increasing cooperation and integration in the same policy domain. 86

Moreover, Neo-functionalism predicts that supranational bodies which oversee cooperation, in the case of the EU the European Commission, take over a role in enhancing such integration by promoting the positive spillover effects from previous cooperation. Consequently, in the context 87

of EU policy-making, the cooperation, and interaction among national state actors and the EU institutions leads to “réflexe communautaire becoming the norm rather than the exception.” 88

Intergovernmentalism, in contrast, places great emphasis on the role of sovereign nation-states in defining their national interests and policy objectives, and only subsequently bringing these to the level of the EU for negotiation with other actors. Therefore, in the context of European 89

cooperation, Intergovernmentalism posits that “the primary source of (European) integration lies in the interests of the states themselves and the relative power each brings to Brussels”. Hence, the 90

protection and preservation of the sovereign capacity to decide one’s policies are the driving forces behind integration, not a spill-over from cooperation among the policy elites as argued for by neo-functionalists. When assessing the development of policy on the EU level, Intergovernmentalism 91

therefore allows researchers to “explain periods of radical change in the EU as when the interests of the member states governments converge and they have shared goals, and periods of slower integration as when governments’ preferences diverge and they cannot agree.” Inherent to the 92

theory is, therefore, the assumption that there are natural limits to integration: cooperation among the Member States will only take place as long as national interests, the assumed driving force behind any national policy, are protected and preserved. 93

see:

http://hum.port.ac.uk/europeanstudieshub/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Module-4-extract-5-Neofunctionalism-86

logic-and-crtique.pdf, p. 2

Holger Scheidt, 2011, “Neofunctionalism Vs Liberal Intergovernmentalism; The Creation Of The European Stability

87

Mechanism And The Limits Of Political Theory”, City University of New York, p. 7

R. Wong & C. Hill, eds. 2011, “National and European Foreign Policies: Towards Europeanization”, p. 5

88

Holger Scheidt, 2011, “Neofunctionalism Vs Liberal Intergovernmentalism; The Creation Of The European Stability

89

Mechanism And The Limits Of Political Theory”, City University of New York, p. 8

R. Wong & C. Hill, eds. 2011, “National and European Foreign Policies: Towards Europeanization”, p. 5

90

Ibid.

91

Civitas, “Theories of European Integration”, see: https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/OS.16-Theories.pdf

92

Robert Harmsen and Thomas M. Wilson, 2000, “Introduction: Approaches to Europeanisation”, Yearbook of Eu

93

3.3. Linking Europeanisation Theory with Neo-functionalism and Intergovernmentalism

Hill and Wong argue that Europeanisation seeks to transcend the two rivalling theories into the analysis of EU policymaking. In this vein, scholars distinguish between two strands of thought. The first one is labelled as the “State-Centrist” which regards nation-states as “utility-maximizing, selfish and purposive actors” , leading to a situation in which policy decisions will always be 94

achieved through agreeing on the lowest common denominator among the actors. The second strand is defined as the “Europeanist”, which regards EU policy as a given and places a high value on supranational EU institutions, which engage in forming a common identity and shared set of norms and values. As both neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism offer explanations of why 95

governments decide to cooperate with one another on a respective policy domain, “the Europeanization process reveals in a suggestive way the interconnectivity between the two grand theories”, resulting in a “merger of the top-down (neofunctionalism) and bottom-up (intergovernmentalism) approaches.” 96

R. Wong & C. Hill, eds. 2011, “National and European Foreign Policies: Towards Europeanization”, p. 5

94

Ibid.

95

Teodor Lucian Moga, 2009, “The Contribution of the Neofunctionalist and Intergovernmentalist Theories to the Evo

96

-lution of the European Integration Process”, Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, Vol 1, No 3, p. 804

Chapter 4: The Development of EU Counter-Terrorism Policies

The purpose of this chapter is to elaborate on the development of EU counter-terrorism policies since the 1970s to provide further background to the motivation of this thesis. In order to assess whether a Europeanisation of EU counter-terrorism policies took place after 2015, an understanding of the role which the EU had in fighting terrorism prior to the wave of terrorism which started in 2015 is important. The following overview will provide the reader with a background understanding on the development of EU counter-terrorism policies from the 1970s onwards. As the research is concerned solely with the internal aspects of EU counter-terrorism policies, i.e., the structures of governance, which apply to the European Union, its Member States, and are effective solely within the jurisdiction of the European Union, the external dimension of EU counter-terrorism policies will be disregarded. The internal dimension of EU counter-counter-terrorism policies refer to policies, which find application within the jurisdiction of the EU and are implemented by the respective Member States. As mentioned previously, the external dimension of EU counter-terrorism policies refer to the mandate of the EU to combat counter-terrorism abroad through the CSDP military operations, military missions, and civilian missions. 97

The respective policies on countering terrorism underwent significant development throughout the last two decades, partially influenced by change in the institutional set-up of the European Union (e.g., the Lisbon Treaty), but more importantly through the tragic events of the September 11 attacks, the Madrid (2004) and London (2005) attacks. In a general sense, counter-terrorism policies initiated by the EU find application on a wide spectrum of policy areas, ranging from border control, the exchange of information between Member States, the protection of critical infrastructure, to measures countering radicalisation and terrorist recruitment and financing. While 98

it remains nonetheless true that the EU as an independent actor plays a smaller role vis-a-vis the Member States on combating terrorism , the role of the EU has gradually emerged to become an 99

important impetus for the coordination, implementation, and communication among the Member States in fighting terrorism. Specifically, Rhinard, Boin and Ekengren argue that the role of the EU can be divided into three capacities: a) capacities which are created specifically to fight terrorism;

Ester Herlin-Karnell, Claudio Matera, 2014, “External dimension of the EU Counter-terrorism policy”, Centre for the

97

Law of EU External Relations (CLEER), Working Papers 2014/2

Javier Argomaniz, Oldrich Bures & Christian Kaunert, 2015, “A Decade of EU Counter-terrorism and Intelligence: A

98

Critical Assessment”, Intelligence and National Security, 30:2-3, p. 192 f.

Ibid., p. 201

b) capacities which are devised to manage and control threats and natural disasters, and c) capacities which aim to assist agencies of Member States to respond to adverse events. 100

Beginning with the emergence of the initial efforts of EU Member States in the 1970s to engage in a transnational forum to discuss how terrorism could be collectively combated, the overview will be continued by describing key initiatives introduced after 9/11, highlighting how the EU gradually emerged as an increasingly capable actor in fighting terrorism. The Madrid and London bombings resulted in a new sense of urgency within the EU to tackle terrorism, which was subsequently cemented through the institutional change brought about by the Lisbon Treaty in the field of Justice and Home Affairs. 101

4.1. Pre-9/11 EU Counter-Terrorism Policies

The initial efforts to coordinate counter-terrorism measures on the European level can be traced back to the 1970s, when Member States of the European Communities became increasingly dissatisfied with existing procedures aimed at tackling the threat of terrorism. As was later the 102

case in regard to 9/11 and the Madrid and London attacks, the impetus to establish common European policies on fighting terrorism emerged as a response to the growth of terrorist organisations and attacks, including, inter alia, the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) in Ireland, as well as attacks initiated by organisations from Western Europe and the Middle East. 103

Believing that a regional response was necessary to tackle the increasing threat of terrorism the

104

Terrorism, Radicalism, Extremism, and Political Violence (TREVI) Group was founded in 1975 upon a Dutch initiative by European police officials. The goal of the group was to exchange 105

information with one another, as well as to provide assistance on fighting terrorism and other

Mark Rhinard, Arjen Boin and Magnus Ekengren, October 2007, “Managing Terrorism: Institutional Capacities and

100

Counter-terrorism Policy in the EU”, Spence, The European Union and Terrorism, pp.88–104

Thomas Renard, September 2012, “EU Counterterrorism Policies and Institutions After the Lisbon Treaty”, Center

101

on Global Counterterrorism Cooperation, Policy Brief, p. 1

Lodge J., 1989, “Terrorism and the European community: towards 1992”, Terrorism and Political Violence 1(1), p.

102

30

Doyle L., 1993, “Fears grow as EU police forces forge secret links: report cites lack of accountability and data pro

103

-tection”, The Independent, Available at:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/fears-grow-as-eu-police-forces-forge-secret-links-report-cites-lack-of-account-ability-and-data-protection-1465695.html

Oldrich Bures, November 2012, “Informal counterterrorism arrangements in Europe: Beauty by variety or duplicity

104

by abundance?”, Cooperation and Conflict 47(4), p. 504

Ibid., p. 498 f.

criminal activity. A significant additional development was the signing of the Schengen 106

Agreement (1985), stipulating the abolishment of border controls and thereby established the free movement of persons and goods within the Schengen area. While the agreement was not directly 107

focussed on combating terrorism, it did nonetheless provide significant stimulus to European cooperation on the issue, as the agreement allowed for Member States of the European Communities to “co-operate in the combating of terrorism, crime, traffic in drugs and illicit trading in works of art and antiques”. Specifically the Schengen Information System (SIS) now allowed 108

for a digital database on suspected terrorists, gradually emerging as a critical instrument in coordinating information exchange to prevent terrorist attacks. The signing of the Maastricht 109

Treaty in 1992 was an additional significant step, as the TREVI framework was incorporated under the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) pillar. The effect of this restructuring was three-fold , as it 110 111

a) aimed at closer cooperation between the national police, customs authorities, and Europol, b) enhanced collaboration between judicial authorities of the Member States, and c) strived for approximation of national criminal law. On police matters the creation of Europol brought police 112

cooperation to the forefront of the European anti-terrorism agenda, as the mandate included a provisions to deal with terrorist activities on European soil. However, until 1999 these activities 113

were not conducted in practice as only then had the Europol Convention been signed by all Member States of the EU. 114

Peek J., 1994, “International Police Cooperation within justified political and judicial frameworks: five theses on

106

TREVI”, In: Monar J and Monar R (eds) The Third Pillar of the European Union. Brussels: European Interuniversity

Press, p. 201

Oldrich Bures, November 2012, “Informal counterterrorism arrangements in Europe: Beauty by variety or duplicity

107

by abundance?”, Cooperation and Conflict 47(4), p. 500

Benyon J., 1994, “Policing the European Union: the changing basis of cooperation on law enforcement”, In

108

-ternational Affairs 70(3), p. 498

Zimmermann D. 2006, “The European Union and post-9/11 counterterrorism: a reappraisal”, Studies in Conflict &

109

Terrorism 29(2), p. 125

Oldrich Bures, 2006, “EU Counterterrorism Policy: A Paper Tiger?”, Terrorism and Political Violence, 18:1, p. 59

110

Ibid.

111

Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities

112

and certain related acts, 2 October 1997, PROVISIONS ON POLICE AND JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CRIMI-NAL MATTERS, Article K.1, see: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/treaty/pdf/amst-en.pdf

Council of the European Union, Council Decision of 3 December 1998, 3 December 1998, “Instructing Europol to

113

Deal with Crimes Committed or Likely to Be Committed in the Course of Terrorist Activities Against Life, Limb, Per-sonal Freedom or Property”, EN OJ C 026 (1999), 0022-22

Oldrich Bures, 2006, “EU Counterterrorism Policy: A Paper Tiger?”, Terrorism and Political Violence, 18:1, p. 59