Euro 2000 and public order policing: Sports mega-event impacts on the policing of public order.

Euro 2000 and public order policing:

Sports mega-event impacts on

the policing of public order

Anne Meilien Kootstra

s1551477

Thesis

A.L. van Leeuwen

G.M. van Buuren

January 11, 2017

Word count: 13.289

Crisis and Security Management

Leiden University

Acknowledgment

The thesis that is in front of you has required a lot of persistence. I would like to thank both my current supervisor, Anouk van Leeuwen as well as my previous supervisor, Richard ‘t Hart, for their extreme and utter patience, advice and confidence. They kept checking in with me and showed great interest and involvement in my development. Furthermore, I would like to thank my entire family. They have been a great help and inspiration and they kept believing in me, even when I sometimes did not believe in myself. I would also like to thank my interviewees. They were willing to spend some of their time and were very enthusiastic in telling me their stories. Last but not least, I am very grateful for the help of my good friend Eva, who pushed me to continue writing and commented on my thesis whenever needed.

Table of content

2.2.  PLANNED  AND  UNPLANNED  LEGACIES   8

2.3  PUBLIC  ORDER  POLICING   9

2.4  EURO  2000  AND  THE  PUBLIC  ORDER  POLICING  OF  COMMERCIAL  FOOTBALL  IN  THE  NETHERLANDS   10

2.5  AIM  OF  THIS  RESEARCH  AND  RESEARCH  QUESTION   13

3.  RESEARCH  METHODS   14

3.1  RESEARCH  STRATEGY   14

3.2  RESEARCH  DESIGN   14

3.3  RESEARCH  CONTEXT:  CASE  SELECTION   15

3.4  INSTRUMENTS   15

3.4.1  DESKTOP  RESEARCH   16

3.4.2  SEMI-­‐STRUCTURED  INTERVIEWS   17

3.5  DATA  ANALYSIS   18

4.  ANALYSIS   19

4.1  LEGAL  CHANGES   19

4.1.1  ADMINISTRATIVE  DETAINMENT   19

4.1.2  EXTENSION  OF  PENAL  PROCEEDINGS  POSSIBILITIES   21

4.1.3  EXTENSION  OF  THE  PENALIZATION  OF  PUBLIC  VIOLENCE   21

4.2  PUBLIC-­‐PRIVATE  COOPERATION   22

4.3  FOCUS  ON  INFORMATION  MANAGEMENT   22

4.4  POLICE  BEHAVIORAL  PROFILE   23

4.5  INTERNATIONAL  POLICE  COOPERATION   24

4.5.1  LEGISLATION  IN  INTERNATIONAL  POLICE  COOPERATION  –  BENELUX-­‐TREATY   24

4.5.2  INTERNATIONAL  POLICE  RELATIONS   26

4.6  PEER  REVIEW  EVALUATION   27

5.  CONCLUSION  AND  DISCUSSION   28

5.1  RESULT  CONCLUSIONS   28

5.2  REFLECTION   30

5.3  LIMITATIONS   31

5.4  FUTURE  RESEARCH  AND  POLICY  IMPLICATIONS   31

REFERENCES   33

APPENDIXES   37

APPENDIX  1.  OVERVIEW  OF  INTERVIEW  QUESTIONS   37

APPENDIX  2  /  APPENDIX  8.  INTERVIEW  TRANSCRIPTS   38

1. Introduction

Sports mega-events such as the Olympic Games, the World Cup by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and the Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) European Championship are large public events. Security plans are formulated in order to organize them safely. Attacks on events like these such as the terrorist attacks of 1972 during the Olympic Games in Munich or the 1996 Centennial Park bombing during the Olympics in Atlanta are well known. Both peaceful demonstrations as well as riots and violent outbursts are also common during such large scale events. Riots in Marseille and Nice during the UEFA European Championships of 2016 are a recent example. Reason enough for organizational committees and public security providers to invoke security plans and measures during sports mega-events to prevent or at least minimize incidents like these.

Existing research on sports mega-events has shown that these security measures taken for the event can result in ‘legacies’. These so-called security legacies are “(…) the range of security-related strategies and impacts which continue to have significance beyond the life of the sport event”

(Giulianotti & Klauser, 2010: 54). Legacies in sports mega-events are also found in other areas such as infrastructure (e.g. new sports venues used for other purposes after the event) and sports (e.g. new initiatives to get people to take on a sport) (Chappelet & Junod, 2006; Cornelissen, Bob & Swart, 2011; Cashman, 2006).

Preuss (2007) developed a framework in which he assigned several aspects to legacies. One of these aspects is the differentiation between planned and unplanned legacies. Others also mention the planning possibility of legacies (Cornelissen, Bob & Swart, 2011; Boyle & Haggerty, 2009). Research has shown that legacies can largely be planned as opposed to originating spontaneously. Planned legacies are for example tourism attractions and the extension of a city’s security camera network, while unplanned legacy structures are attacks or large scale rioting that damage a city’s image and force both public and private (security) organizers and governments to think about changing or intensifying their security policy, also for after the event (Preuss, 2007: 210). Boyle and Haggerty (2009) argue that planning for legacies can lead to the modernization of equipment such closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras or the justification and funding of increased security infrastructure (e.g. increased police or military deployment) through sports mega-events (Boyle & Haggerty, 2009: 267). Cornelissen, Bob and Swart argue similarly to Boyle and Haggerty, stating that in recent years event legacies have emerged as part of pre-event planning in order to use the event to implement (existing) governmental plans (Cornelissen, Bob & Swart, 2011: 307-308). In the organization of sports mega-events legacy planning is also a tendency as one can see from the fact that legacy proposals should already be included during the bid procedure.

Mega-event legacies were noticed first by organizational committees from the early 1990s onwards. In recent years, legacy proposals have become an essential component of bid procedures for the Olympics (Factsheet Olympic Legacies, website Olympic games, n.d.). The International Olympic Committee states that “As every host city is different and has different priorities, the IOC encourages each one to define its own objectives, long-term strategy and vision from the beginning of the bid process and to look at how the Games can be a catalyst for development” (Factsheet Olympic Legacies, website Olympic games, n.d.). Other large scale event organizers are also encouraging legacy planning through their event more and more, such as the FIFA and UEFA. Sustainability programs and anti-racism campaigns are an example of this push for the use of the event for developmental purposes.

The existing body of literature on security legacies is not big. Existing research largely focuses on the more short-term impact of mega-events on security (up to five years after the event) and in most cases focuses on the more material security legacies (e.g. expansion of the network of city surveillance cameras, attainment of more intelligence equipment or the number of officials deployed) rather than on the impact of an event on the internal functioning and development within security providers. Furthermore, research in the security realm is largely anti-terrorism related while public order legacies are mostly ignored. This is interesting, as the maintenance of the public order is vital to the peaceful and festive nature of hosting events.

Public order can be defined as the normal, time and location specific, state of affairs in publicly accessible places. This normal state of affairs is characterized by the freedom to use these places safely in compliance with their allocation (Adang, 2007: 803). In situations were groups of people come together, the public order might be at risk. Events, and especially sports mega-events that bring together thousands of people, are therefore of interest as public order policing operations. One of such events in which the public order policing operation was thoroughly evaluated, is Euro 2000, the UEFA European Soccer Championship of 2000 in the Netherlands and Belgium in 2000. Adang and Cuvelier (2001) conducted the evaluation of Euro 2000 public order policing operation in preparation, during, and immediately after Euro 2000 and identified a series of good and bad practices in the process. However, it is unclear whether these good and bad practices were implemented in other public order policing operations in the long run.

In order to contribute to the research on mega-event security legacies, a long-term impact study was conducted focusing on the UEFA European Soccer Championship of 2000 in the

Netherlands and Belgium (Euro 2000). The study will elaborate on the impacts that Euro 2000 has had on public order policing in the Netherlands and will try and answer the research question of to what extent Euro 2000 public order policing measures are impacting on public order policing in the Netherlands today.

In order to answer the research question, the various public order policing measures that were taken for Euro 2000 were analyzed and related to data on public order policing today. The data on the

current situation and on how impacts of Euro 2000 are still visible today was retrieved from legislative and policy documents as well as through interviews with seven police officers who worked Euro 2000.

This study is both academically as well as socially relevant. Academically, it contributes to the body of research on (security) legacies as well as that on public order management. It tries to fill a gap in this realm of research regarding the lack of long-term effect studies on (security) legacies. Furthermore, it contributes to the body of research on public order policing, especially regarding evaluation procedures of public order policing and how results from these evaluations are implemented for further use.

Regarding societal relevance, this study will show how important it is to carefully plan the security plans for such large-scale events. It is important for event organizers and public security providers to realize how such an event can have its impact and what they want the impact to be. Furthermore, this research pushes for the follow-up of evaluations, to see whether and how recommendations from earlier evaluation have been implemented in other situations. This is important, as evaluations become highly irrelevant when they are not being put to good use.

In the next chapter I will provide for a theoretical framework regarding security legacy building in sports mega-events, focusing specifically on public order policing legacies. It will also relate these concepts to the case of this thesis, Euro 2000. The theoretical section will be followed by the methodological section, which elaborates on the research methods used and the processing of the data which?. In the results and analysis section, the results gathered throughout the research will be presented and analyzed. I conclude with answering the research question and a critical reflection regarding the limitations of this study, as well as some suggestions for further research and usability for practical implementation.

2. Theoretical framework

In this chapter, the main concepts of this thesis will be conceptualized. Furthermore, existing research on security legacies and (legacies of) public order policing will be synthesized. First, the concept of security legacies is discussed (paragraph 2.1), followed by the concept of planned and unplanned legacies (paragraph 2.2). Following is a discussion of public order legacies in paragraph 2.3. As this thesis focuses on Euro 2000, specific attention is given to literature available on this topic (paragraph 2.4). Finally, a concluding paragraph (2.5) will present the aim of this thesis and related research questions.

2.1. Security legacies

When large-scale sport events are organized, security measures are invoked to ensure safety for the public order. Often, these measures remain used after the mega sports event. These remains are referred to as security legacies (Giulianotti & Klauser (2010); Boyle & Haggerty (2009)). Security legacies are generally defined as: “(…) the range of security-related strategies and impacts which continue to have significance beyond the life of the sport event” (Giulianotti & Klauser, 2010: 54). This general definition includes six types of security legacies (Giulianotti & Klauser, 2010). The first type includes legacies of new security technologies, e.g. new city surveillance systems. The second type includes legacies of new security practices, e.g. the increased deployment of private security officials. The third type describes the legacies of changed social and trans-societal relationships. These legacies include for example, the relationships between citizens and the police due to event incidents or strategies. The fourth type of legacy includes governmental policies and legislative change, e.g. a new law that allows for the restriction of free movement of persons in specific situations. The fifth type describes legacies of social transformations. This includes the clearing of certain neighborhoods. The sixth and last type of legacy defined by Giulianotti and Klauser is that of urban redevelopment, which includes the clearance of slums (Giulianotti & Klauser, 2010: 54).

Boyle and Haggerty (2009) discuss the need for carefully planning these legacies. Security tactics such as modernization of equipment or the justification and funding of increased security infrastructure through sports mega-event need to be justified by keeping in mind that the investment made is valuable and still useful when the original context of the measure is not existent anymore. The careful inclusion of legacies in pre-event planning enables the opportunity to implement (existing) governmental plans and to make legacies not only beneficial to mega-sports events but also be a renewed impetus to regional development (Corneslissen, Bob & Swart, 2011: 307-308).

The focus on the multiple purpose use of security legacies of mega sports events can thus also be used to implement already planned (controversial) policies or legislation. In this way, not only the mega sports event but also other actors such as politicians and public security providers benefit. An

example of such a controversial implementation is the central surveillance integration security system (C4I) implemented for the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens (Samatas, 2007). This system was not only used for the Olympic Games but also used afterwards to modernize and improve various security aspects for the nation (Boyle & Haggerty, 2009: 266). Planning for legacies has become normalized in today’s mega-events.

2.2. Planned and unplanned legacies

Security legacies can be both planned and unplanned (Preuss, 2007; Kassens-Noor et al. 2015). Whereas Preuss (2007) explicitly differentiates between planned and unplanned security legacies, Kassens-Noor et al (2015) differentiate between forms of planned legacies, implicating that legacies can also be unplanned. In the planning of events, according to Preuss, the focus is primarily on legacies that are planned, positive and tangible (Preuss, 2007: 211). He argues that “A holistic evaluation of a mega sport event would be necessary to identify all legacies” (Preuss, 2007: 211). Kassens-Noor et al (2015) do not name the differentiation between planned and unplanned legacies. However, they do differentiate within the field of planned legacies, arguing that legacy building through the event comes in different forms. Legacies can either be event motivated or mega-event accelerated. Mega-mega-event motivated legacies came on the agenda as a consequence of bidding the event, while mega-event accelerated legacies are items that were on the agenda before bidding the event but were integrated and implemented earlier than they were planned to be due to the event. The event made that these items needed to be implemented faster (Kassens-Noor et al, 2015: 667).

Existing literature on security legacies has focused primarily on those legacies that are planned, positive and tangible (Preuss, 2007). An example of planned legacies that have an impact on the configuration of space is the use of security measures in newly build facilities (Fussey & Coaffee, 2012). An example of this reconfiguration is the in-design of security measures that remain in the newly build facilities long after the event through technological equipment such as in-build closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras and high-tech alarm systems (Fussey & Coaffee, 2012: 277-278). Another planned legacy is related to the security requirements of the organizational committee. For example, Eick (2011) found that FIFA has a stringent role in imposing certain surveillance measures that have long-term consequences. These long-term consequences included the use of background

checks in other events, the maintenance of the RFID1 _{ticketing system which checks personal tickets}

to background in the stadia that hosted FIFA 2006 as well as the expansion of CCTV networks in stadia, at stations and in public transportation. Even though FIFA, and other big sports institutions such as the International Olympic Committee (IOC), do not lay down specific requirements on the execution of security measures, they require very elaborate security plans and measures to allow a

1  _{RFID  ticketing  is  ticketing  through  radio  frequency  identification  chips.  The  chips  contain  specified}   information  per  ticket  and  can  therefore  not  be  falsified  (Eick,  2011).    

nation to host their event (Eick, 2011). In this way, security measures are designed prior to the events and related security legacies can be planned.

An example of unplanned legacies is the phone-tapping scandal of the 2004 Olympics. Samatas’ inquiry into the 2004 Athens Summer Olympic Games lays out the security legacies from the event, focusing mostly on surveillance. Legacies include security technology and advancement in police training but also a phone-tapping scandal that started in relation to the Olympics but went on for almost a year after (Samatas, 2007: 231-232). Due to unknown reasons, the mobile phones of around a 100 Greek government officials were tapped from a few months before the Athens Olympics, until March 2005. The tappings were then kept a secret by the government for another year, until the media revealed them (Samatas, 2007: 232).

2.3 Public order policing

In the body of literature on security legacies, no focus was found on public order policing legacies. Whereas public order policing is an important part of security at events (if only to manage the large crowds that are usually part of events) (Muller et al, 2011: 64), no research was dedicated to its legacies or impacts later on.

Public order can be defined as the normal, time and location specific, state of affairs in publicly accessible places (Adang, 2007: 803). This normal state of affairs is characterized by the freedom to use these places safely in compliance with their allocation. Whenever this safety is threatened, through the restriction of the freedom of movement or because people and property are at risk, public order is disrupted (Adang, 2007: 803). Situations in which the public order is at risk are all situations in which groups of people come together in a way different from usual. These include clubbing areas, demonstrations, publicly celebrated holidays such as Dutch Kingsday, New Years Eve, and sports events, such as international tournaments and football games between rival competitors.

In the Netherlands, public order management is the task of both the local mayor and the police. Public order authorities that are assigned to both the police and the local mayor are administrative authorities rather than private or penal authorities. This means these authorities are aimed at prevention of disruptions or restoration of the public order, rather than at punishment (Zakboek Openbare orde en veiligheid, 2017: 13-14). The local mayor has three types of authorities; general authorities and emergency authorities as assigned in the Community Act, and specific

authorities assigned through specific laws (Zakboek Openbare orde en veiligheid, 2017: PP). The local mayor deploys the police in order to maintain public order and the police is assigned, amongst others, the right to use violence in order to keep this order. This makes the police the most important

instrument in the Netherlands for the management of public order (Zakboek Openbare orde veiligheid, 2017: 78).

The police in the Netherlands works along the lines of the definition of public order as provided by Adang (2007). However, different forms of public order policing are used in different

situations. Public order policing basically includes crowd management, crowd control and riot or incident control (Adang, 2007: 804). In this model, public order policing or public order management can be defined as the systematic planning and management of affairs in the public domain that pose possible risks to the public order (Adang, 2007: 804). Public order policing includes crowd

management, which is aimed at managing large groups of people. Part of crowd management is crowd control, which includes more restricting measures. Riot or incident control is only used in a small amount of public order policing cases, when situations escalate and security incidents are happening (Adang, 2007: 804-805). The Dutch police thus uses a very broad view on public order policing, but only uses restrictive or repressive measures when it is necessary.

At events, whether these are large-scale or not, public order is of primary importance. As Schaap et al (2009) mention, violence or incidents at events are generally considered as security risks from a public order aspects and include fights, verbal abuse, arson and noise disturbances (Muller et al, 2011). In the preparation of events, five factors are of considerable importance; 1) public, 2) activities, 3) space, 4) history, 5) organization (Schaap et al, 2009). The risks regarding the public are mostly related to the amount of people attending and the profile of these people. The risks regarding activities are related to the sort of activity and how this relates back to the public and the timespan of the activity. The factor space poses risks when there is insufficient space. A history of the event can provide for an overview of risks and incidents in earlier editions. The organization of the security of an event is the last factor (Schaap et al, 2009: 65-67). Based on these factors, it can be considered what form of public order policing needs to be applied and what security measures are needed.

2.4 Euro 2000 and the public order policing of commercial football in the

Netherlands

In the preparation for future mega sports events, the use of best and worst practices from past events create, the possibility to learn from previous made mistakes. However, only few evaluations on public order policing operations exist and no inquiry is available of the legacy building on public order policing. One event that has been systematically evaluated regarding its public order policing operation in the preparation, duration and the immediate aftermath of the event is Euro 2000, the UEFA European Football Championship in 2000 in the Netherlands and Belgium. However, it has not been assessed whether the best practices retrieved from this evaluation have turned into public order policing legacies.

Euro 2000 was the 11th UEFA European Football Championship held in 2000 in the Netherlands and Belgium. Euro 2000 was the first UEFA European Football Championship to be hosted by two nations. This made public order policing more complicated, as the policing systems of two nations had to be aligned in order to police the event. The 2000 tournament was allotted to the Netherlands and Belgium in 1995, after which the first preparations started. The national football associations of the two nations, the Royal Dutch Football Union and the Royal Belgian Football

Union, created the Euro 2000 Foundation for the overall organization of the tournament, including the security within the stadia. The tournament was played in June and beginning of July 2000 in eight venues across the Netherlands and Belgium; Amsterdam, Arnhem, Eindhoven and Rotterdam in the Netherlands and Bruges, Brussels, Charleroi and Liège in Belgium. Around 10 billion viewers were expected to watch the tournament on television, and an estimated 1.2 million visitors were to be hosted by the Euro 2000 foundation and the two nations. Visitor numbers like these require security and public order preparations and measures (website Euro 2000, n.d.).

During Euro 2000 the security within the stadia was largely organized by the private security organizations and private steward organizations already connected to the venue home clubs (website Euro 2000, n.d.). Security outside of the stadium was guaranteed by the Dutch and Belgian police forces, who joined forces in a binational police project. The division of security tasks between private security organizations on the inside and the police on the outside was nothing new in the public order

policing of Dutch commercial2 football. This division of tasks was used in the national football

competition before Euro 2000 as well.

The public order policing operation of Euro 2000 was academically evaluated. A research report of the evaluation was published in 2001 (Adang & Cuvelier, 2001). Several aspects of the police task in preparation of, during Euro 2000 and shortly after the event were evaluated. This led to a series of best practices and recommendations, of which an overview can be found in Appendix 9. The research focuses on some umbrella strategies that were deployed during Euro 2000; the use of a new evaluation method for evaluating public order policing operations, international police

cooperation, information management, public-private cooperation, and the police behavioral profile. Adang and Cuvelier (2001) argue that international police cooperation, which was intensive during Euro 2000, should be a continuous process also during the annual international competition (the international competition games played in Europe in competition rounds different from (qualifications for) tournaments, e.g. UEFA Champions League or UEFA Europa League). A binational police project between the Netherlands and Belgium was set up in preparation for Euro 2000. One of their tasks was to set up the international network with foreign police forces. Members of the project visited the FIFA World Cup in France in 1998 as well as several qualifying matches for Euro 2000 to familiarize with foreign fans and make international contacts (Adang, 2012: 9). This international police network was also deployed during Euro 2000.

During Euro 2000, foreign police support consisted of roughly two types: spotter teams and liaison officers to join the binational police information center. A liaison officer coordinated the information exchange between the binational police information center and the home country of the officer (Adang & Cuvelier, 2001: 28). A spotter is defined as:

2

Netherlands  in  1954,  because  Dutch  players  increasingly  left  the  country  to  play  for  foreign  clubs  where   commercial  football  was  already  introduced  earlier  (website  KNVB,  n.d.).

“(…) a police officer who has specialized knowledge of football fans and their habits and customs, especially about the identity, tactics and strategies of risk fans and who provides tactical and operational support in maintaining law and order (primary mission), by gathering and conveying relevant intelligence and by averting, restraining or stopping football-related disasters, and to offer assistance to judicial enquiries by identifying suspects and giving evidence (complementary secondary mission)” (Adang & Cuvelier, 2001: 28).

The binational police information center was not only set up to gather and share information during the tournament, it was also the base from where (international) police teams were coordinated. Foreign police teams from all of the nations of which a football team played during Euro 2000 were joined by Dutch and Belgian police officers (Adang, 2012: 13). The support from foreign nations that participated in the tournament was implemented through different roles such as spotters, operations coordinators or liaison officers (Adang, 2012). Host nation police as well as foreign police worked together in several police projects at binational, national and local levels.

For Euro 2000 a police behavioral profile was introduced in order to equalize the way in which Dutch, Belgian and foreign police officers approached the public. The police behavioral profile was a profile that provided a structure of how the police should approach the public and in what way the police should be deployed (Adang & Cuvelier, 2001: 58). Regarding the deployment of the police, Adang and Cuvelier (2001) differentiate between a so-called high profile’ and ‘low profile’ policing strategy, both of which were deployed during Euro 2000. The strategies differ mostly in the number of police and their appearance. In the high profile strategy a larger number of police is present of which some appear in riot gear, while in the low profile strategy the police appear in smaller numbers and avoid to appear in groups (Adang & Cuvelier, 2001).

In order to identify good practices and important lessons from Euro 2000, the evaluation was requested by the binational police project that was created for Euro 2000. Experiments were carried out in the mid-1990s, after which the first model was applied during Euro 2000 (Adang & Brown, 2008). The evaluation method was based upon the information provided by peers, evaluation teams of international experts as well as through feedback provided by (foreign) police officers. The method was called peer review evaluation, because it is based on data provided by peers that join the policing operation solemnly to evaluate it (Adang & Cuvelier, 2001). It was continued in later public order policing operations.

Adang and Brown (2008) present their findings from peer review evaluations for European football games and tournaments, including football mega-events such as Euro 2000 in the Netherlands and Belgium and Euro 2004 in Portugal. One of the reasons to start with the peer reviews was the fact that most previous review investigations were commissioned due to incidents and therefore after the fact. Adang and Brown (2008) argue that valuable lessons can be learned also when things do not go

wrong (e.g. events escalate in violence or complaints are filed against the police due to wrongful

treatment)and hence introduced the peer review. Due to its success, the model for peer review

evaluations was applied both at Euro 2004 in Portugal and during Euro 2008 in Switzerland and Austria as well as in other regular football competition matches.

Legislative measures were also taken to support public order policing during Euro 2000. Legislative measures for Euro 2000 included changes in Dutch law, as well as temporary measures in cooperation with other states such as banning orders (the United Kingdom), obligations for notorious hooligans to report to local police (Germany) (Adang, 2012: 14), and arrangements regarding the Schengen Treaty to allow for border controls (Adang & Cuvelier, 2001: 15). Furthermore, a temporary cross-border policing treaty was introduced to facilitate the cooperation between Dutch and Belgian police.

2.5 Aim of this research and research question

While Adang and Cuvelier (2001) provide for an extensive overview of best practices and lessons learned from the public order policing operation of Euro 2000, it remains unclear whether these have also been integrated in public order policing today. No other sports mega-events has been

academically evaluated on its impact regarding public order policing measures as thoroughly as Euro 2000. However, the evaluations by Adang and Cuvelier (2001) were conducted only a year after, based on feedback and data from evaluation teams from during and directly after the event. Their research has not been continued into assessing how the measures taken have become integrated into public order policing today or to say whether these measures became legacies. This was not the intent of their research evaluation, but it is a problem with evaluations and in research on legacy building. Research on legacy building through sports mega-events is often conducted too soon after to see whether long-lasting legacies have indeed been established. Long-lasting legacies can only be established at least a decade after the event (Chappelet, 2012).

This thesis aims to assess whether and in what way the public order measures that were taken for Euro 2000 and were evaluated by Adang and Cuvelier (2001) are still in place sixteen years after the event. Therefore, the following research question was formulated:

To what extent are Euro 2000 public order policing measures impacting on public order policing in the Netherlands today?

The best practices and other measures of Euro 2000 public order policing as identified by Adang and colleagues will provide the basis for this thesis, to see whether they were indeed implemented as best practices and still used today, or whether they were lost shortly after Euro 2000.

3. Research methods

This chapter discusses the choice for a research strategy to answer the formulated research question. In this chapter, the rationale is outlined for the use of a single-case study method and associated methods (semi-structured interview and desktop research).

3.1 Research strategy

When deciding on the research strategy to use a balanced decision should be made based on three different decisions (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2007). First, one should consider the breadth versus the depth of research. On the one hand, a broad approach to research offers the opportunity to compare general characteristics of mega sports events. On the other hand, an in-depth study of one specific case is preferred when the more detailed and context related components of a specific mega sports event is the topic of study. The second consideration regards the use of qualitative or quantitative research. For this study, the use of a qualitative research approach is evident because mega sports events have unique characteristics that are hard to compare (Kassens-Noor et al, 2015). Therefore, quantitative research using surveys is not preferred and impossible, because the population is hard to define. Third, one should consider desk research versus field research. Both desk and field research offer additional value one each other. While desk research can gather the factual information on a case, field research identifies the opinions, experiences and perceptions of those involved. These two research methods do not exclude one other, but are rather complementary. This study conducts an in-depth qualitative research through the use of both desk and field research methods to benefit from the advantages of both methods and to ensure methods triangulation (Yin, 2003).

3.2 Research design

To study the impact of mega sport events on public order policing, this study uses a single case-study design.

“A case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (Yin, 2003, p. 13).

A single-case study design offers the opportunity to study a specific mega sports event in relationship to the context it was organized in. In order to acquire in-depth knowledge about the effects of security strategies over the long-term, a focus on a single case is necessary. A single case study was chosen for this research, as in this field of research the context of the event, in this case Euro 2000, is always a unique one as is the public order policing strategy of a nation, in this case the Netherlands (Baxter & Jack, 2008).

Case study research can serve three purposes. It can either be exploratory, descriptive, or explanatory (Yin, 2003). This study aims to answer a research question that is of explanatory nature, as it searches to explain to what extent and how public order policing strategies taken for Euro 2000 have had their impact on public order policing today. The study is longitudinal, which means that it researches a long period of time (Bryman, 2008: 57). While a single case study is adequate in longitudinal research, it has its weaknesses and vulnerabilities (Yin, 2003). Single case study designs are vulnerable as they rely on the data of a single case. Furthermore, a single case study lacks

generalizability but the exploratory nature of the case study offers opportunities for future research.

3.3 Research context: case selection

In the selection of the case for this thesis, several criteria were kept in mind. The theoretical

framework shows that a gap in literature regarding research on legacies in the long-term needs to be filled. A case thus had to satisfy the criteria of a certain timeframe. Literature on legacy building shows that one can speak of long-term legacy after at least a decade after the event (Chappelet, 2012). Therefore, a case was chosen that occurred longer than ten years ago. Furthermore, as the focus of this study lies in public order policing, an event had to be chosen that faced mostly public order

challenges. Due to the nationalist, partisan audience it attracts, football tournaments face more public order challenges than other sports events such as the Olympic games that attract a more culturally diverse public (Jennings & Lodge, 2011). Therefore, a football tournament was chosen.

This single-case study focus on Euro 2000 for four reasons. First, Euro 2000 was organized 16 years ago, which makes the timeframe for analyzing long-term legacies sufficient. Second, Euro 2000 was a football tournament which dealt with considerable public order challenges and therefore could provide for interesting public order policing developments. Third, considerable research was already performed into Euro 2000 public order policing on the short-term. As Adang and Cuvelier (2001) note in their evaluation of Euro 2000 public order policing, there existed little to no evaluations on earlier similar events. Their evaluation on Euro 2000 (evaluating the period of the preparation, the event and immediately after the event, covering a period from mid-1999 until 2001) provided for a head start, which is another reason for selecting Euro 2000 as a case. It is valuable to see how their points of evaluation, their recommendations, best practices and discouragements have been integrated into public order policing in the Netherlands today. A short-term evaluation as extensive as the one on Euro 2000 did not exist for other similar events. The fourth and final reason for the decision to use Euro 2000 was the limited time and scope of this research. The time and scope of the research limited it to a case in the Netherlands.

3.4 Instruments

Case studies can be built on a variety of data. Yin (2003) distinguishes six sources of evidence from which data might come as most commonly used; “(…) documentation, archival records, interviews,

direct observation, participant-observation, and physical artifacts” (Yin, 2003: 83). This study uses three out of these six sources of evidence, namely documentation, archival records, and interviews. Documentation includes agendas, minutes, reports and administrative documents. Archival records include organizational charts and survey data. Interviews provide in-depth and personal information on the case (Yin, 2003). It is essential to use multiple methods in conducting a case study. The use of multiple sources leads to more credible data and stronger findings, “(…) as the various strands of data are braided together to promote a greater understanding of the case” (Baxter & Jack, 2008: 554). The use of multiple sources is also called data triangulation (Patton, 1987). Triangulation contributes to what is called construct validity, as multiple measures are provided for the same phenomenon (Yin, 2003). For each method used in this single-case study a specific procedure was established that describes how data was collected and reported.

3.4.1 Desktop research

The aim of desktop research was to summarize basic factual information on the changes in public order policies introduced for Euro 2000. The desktop research phase can be split in two subsequent phases. First, in phase 1 is a literature study was performed to establish the existing research on Euro 2000 public order policing. The results from this first phase were displayed in the theoretical

framework of this thesis. Second, in phase 2 the study of official documentation and legislation regarding public order policing during and after Euro 2000 that provided for the first data. The results of this phase are presented in the analysis chapter.

To identify relevant studies for the literature research, a literature search was performed in multiple open-access databases (Google Scholar; JSTOR; Taylor & Francis). The following search terms were used: “security legacies”, “sports mega-events”, “Euro 2000”, “public order”, and combinations of these. The keywords were combined using both OR and AND. For the second phase of the desktop research, non-academic databases were used (Google; wetten.overheid.nl; overheid.nl). More specific search terms were used in this second phase, including “police behavioral profile”, “administrative detainment”, “Benelux treaty”, and “spotters”. The search terms for the second phase were also applied in Dutch (bejegeningsprofiel, bestuurlijke ophouding, Beneluxverdrag, spotters).

The documentation retrieved from the second phase of desktop research included legal changes and policy guidelines. While this documentation provides for some factual information on public order policing and the impact of Euro 2000, it does not provide a full picture of the functioning of the police and the implementation of public order policing strategies in the field. Interviews were conducted additionally to see how public order policing strategies from Euro 2000 had affected the internal workings within the police on the long term and to see how the legal changes and policy guidelines were integrated in the work place.

3.4.2 Semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews have the ability to collect data on the impact of certain strategies and policies imposed on the people involved. As Yin (2003: 90) mentions, interviews allow to ask for both the facts as well as the perception and opinion of the respondent. Semi-structured interviewing is more flexible and creates more room for clarification of certain aspects that need more attention. While in semi-structured interviews a list of topics and questions is constructed in advance, questioning is flexible, additional questions might have been added and the order might be different (Saunders et al, 2009).

A total of seven interviews were conducted with police professionals in the Netherlands. To be included in this research as an interviewee, two inclusion criteria were formulated to ensure that interviewees had sufficient knowledge about and experience with Euro 2000 and the consequences for public order policing afterwards. First, the interviewee had to have worked with the police during Euro 2000. Second, the interviewee continued his or her career with the police after Euro 2000. An

overview of the interviewees can be found in figure 3.1 below.

Interviewee Current occupation Occupation during Euro 2000

Respondent 1 Retired Coordinator National Police

Project Euro 2000

Respondent 2 Strategic advisor public affairs at the Police Academy

Communication manager National Police Project Euro 2000

Respondent 3 Football coordinator at Football and Events Eindhoven

Executive Support at Investigations department Eindhoven

Respondent 4 Operational specialist at Police profession Rotterdam

Chief at Arrestee dispatch and aliens care Rotterdam

Respondent 5 Project manager at Football and Events Amsterdam

Project manager at Football and Events Amsterdam

Respondent 6 Operational specialist at Security, Integrity and Complaints Limburg

Detached as security consultant to the Euro 2000 Foundation

Expert interviewee National coordinator peer reviews and quick knowledge mobilization

Preparation, coordination and evaluation of Euro 2000 at (inter)national level

Figure 3.1 Interviewees

Initially, the Centraal Informatiepunt Voetbalvandalisme (CIV) was contacted for interviewee contacts. They proposed to contact the host city police offices (Amsterdam, Arnhem, Eindhoven, Rotterdam) through the National Police. The National Police was contacted through the contact form on the website. This led to two interviewees, of which one of them proposed to contact another interviewee. The other three interviewees were contacted via LinkedIn based on their described job history with the police. Seven others were contacted via LinkedIn, but either declined or did not respond.

Four out of seven interviews were conducted by phone from home and recorded by a

computer simultaneously, after having asked for permission to do so. Three interviews were conducted at the police station the interviewee was stationed and recorded by a computer, with permission as well. Three out of seven interviews took place on Thursday, June 2, 2016. Two interviews took place on Monday, June 6, 2016. One interview took place on September 7, 2016. The final interview took place on January 2, 2017. The interviews took twenty minutes to an hour. All interviews were conducted in Dutch, as this was the native language of both the interviewer as the interviewee. The interviews were stored as recordable files on a personal computer, transcribed into Dutch first and then translated into English.

Six of the interviews were conducted with police professionals, in order to assess how Euro 2000 public order policing strategies affected their work and whether it continued to do so today. Interviewees were asked whether they were familiar with certain strategies imposed during Euro 2000 and whether they thought these strategies were integrated in public order policing in football today. The seventh interview was an expert interview with an expert of the Police Academy on public order policing who also contributed to earlier evaluations on Euro 2000 public order policing. The expert interview was conducted in order to verify the information retrieved from the other six interviews and assess whether any essential information was still missing. A list of interviewees as well as the topic list for the semi-structured interviews and the expert interview are included in appendix X.

3.5 Data analysis

Data analysis can either be done deductively or inductively. In deductive coding, coding is done on specific, set terms. In inductive coding, the researcher is more flexible. Codes are not set in advance, but are rather found will studying the data. In this thesis, an inductive coding method was used. All data that was deemed relevant was coded into continuously added codes. The coding scheme as provided by Thomas (2003) was used. Data files were first created for each interview and all documentation. These were all read closely to gain an understanding of the themes presented. The themes found were then categorized (Thomas, 2003). This categorization was done in Word. Categories included “legislative changes”, “international police cooperation”, “public-private

4. Analysis

This chapter presents an analysis of the data gathered via interviews and desktop-research in order to answer the research question: To what extent are Euro 2000 public order policing measures impacting on public order policing in the Netherlands today?

The public order policing measures of Euro 2000 that are still impacting public order policing today will be outlined in this chapter. In paragraph 5.1 the legal changes of Euro 2000 will be outlined. Paragraph 5.2 will elaborate on public-private cooperation. In paragraph 5.3 the shift to a focus on information management will be discussed. Paragraph 5.4 elaborates on the police behavioral profile introduced for Euro 2000. Paragraph 5.5. addresses both the legislative as well as the relational aspects of international police cooperation. Paragraph 5.6 discusses the peer review evaluation method.

4.1 Legal changes

Desktop-research showed that in order to harmonize legal systems in the Netherlands and Belgium some legal changes were made in relation to Euro 2000. These legal changes extent the possibilities of the police in case of large public order disturbances during this mega-sports event. A total of three legislative changes were introduced that have remained after Euro 2000 and are still intact in Dutch law today. First, the introduction of administrative detainment in the Community Act (website Eerste Kamer a, n.d.). The impact of this change is presented in paragraph 5.1.1. The second legislative change was the extension of penal proceedings possibilities for the purpose of maintenance of public order in case of major public order disruptions in the Criminal Proceedings Code (website Eerste Kamer b, n.d.) (paragraph 5.1.2). The third and last identified legislative change encompassed the extension of the penalization of public violence in the Penal Law (website Eerste Kamer c, n.d.) (discussed in paragraph 5.1.3).

4.1.1 Administrative detainment

Through the introduction of administrative detainment in the Community Act, a mayor can decide to detain certain groups when serious disorder occurs or when there is grave fear for serious order to occur. This is meant to prevent (further) public order disruption (website Eerste Kamer, n.d.). Administrative detainment has not been used during Euro 2000. Because it is a measure that restricts the freedom of movement, many legal conditions were attached to the measure when it was

introduced. These conditions include, amongst others, the availability of sufficient sanitary facilities at the detainment site, the accessibility of the detainment site for emergency services, the opportunity to use a telephone at the detainment site, and the possibility for the detained to appeal their case at the detainment site (Besluit Plaatsen Bestuurlijke Ophouding, 2000). Due to these conditions,

administrative detainment would generally be unexpected. Preparation time for all these conditions is therefore not feasible.

Administrative detainment has only been used once after Euro 2000 for purposes of a national football match between Heracles Almelo and PSV in Almelo. The mayor of Almelo declared an emergency ordinance that prohibited all supporters from other clubs than Heracles Almelo to sojourn in the city center of Almelo. This emergency ordinance included administrative detainment for those who violated it. This led to the administrative detainment of a group of PSV supporters. In appeal, the application of administrative detainment in this case was ruled inappropriate because some of the conditions were not met. Amongst others, it was ruled that the emergency ordinance was not communicated sufficiently (website Nederlands Genootschap van Burgemeesters a, n.d).

The introduction of administrative detainment has had other counterproductive effects. Not only was it deemed invalid the one time it was applied. In other cases, when emergency authorities were used instead of administrative detainment (for example mass arrests), it was ruled in court that administrative detainment should have been opted for in order to have made these arrests liable. Examples of these cases in which administrative detainment was used against the mayor occurred in Rotterdam twice. In February 2016 around 300 Feyenoord-supporters were closed in and arrested because of a perceived threat of violent escalation. Years before, in 2008, the ombudsman already inquired the mass arrest of 800 Feyenoord supporters (website NRC, March 16, 2016). In this way, administrative detainment is used against the police and the mayor and discredits them, while it was essentially introduced to provide an extra measure for public order management. However, this measure is still in the Community Act today. This measure was not taken out post-event and can still be applied in various situations, not only those related to football matches.

Results from the interviews show a similar perspective on the application of administrative detainment as a security measure. All interviewees pointed out that the measure of administrative detainment is redundant. According to the interviewees, administrative detainment can only be applied in very exceptional situations and has to satisfy to a lot of requirements, as those mentioned above. The fact that the instrument of administrative detainment has only been used once shows that the measure is dispensable. The interviewees also assert that there are sufficient other means to generate a similar result as through administrative detainment, which are easier to deploy. According to

respondent 5 in Amsterdam, administrative detainment was once fully prepared during a high risk game after Euro 2000, but never actually used. The site and the conditions for administrative

detainment were all prepared, but eventually there was no necessity to use the measure. Respondent 5 argues that “It takes a lot of preparation and costs. It is used rarely. We use emergency orders from the municipality way more”.

Such instruments include the emergency authorities that the mayor has at its disposal. In case of severe disorder or serious threat of occurrence of severe disorder, the mayor can give orders to restore this order that are not laid out in the Community Act and which might even be diverging from

the Constitution (website Nederlands Genootschap van Burgemeesters b, n.d.). However, the fact that emergency authorities are used far more frequently than administrative detainment has discredited the police and the mayor in the maintenance of public order more than once. Three out of seven

respondents mention the discussion about administrative detainment regarding the cases in Rotterdam. Three of the interviewees recognize that the instrument of administrative detainment was introduced in the context of Euro 2000 to be able to implement it. Euro 2000 was used as leverage to introduce the instrument. As it concerns a measure that restricts people’s freedom, its implementation gave resistance already in Euro 2000 context. Without the context of Euro 2000 it might not have been possible to implement it at all. This resistance is also why so many conditions are attached to the deployment of administrative detainment. Respondent 2 argues that “Back then, we had the support for measures of increased authority, for halting, arresting, detainment”. Respondent 1 called it a statement, in order to equalize levels of authority among the Netherlands and Belgium.

Administrative detainment has had its impact on public order policing, but the impact has been rather counterproductive. It was introduced in the hope that it would give the police an extra measure to take precautionary action in order to manage the public order. However, due to its many conditions and difficulties, it rather restricts them from doing so.

4.1.2 Extension of penal proceedings possibilities

Through a series of changes in the Criminal Proceedings Code, possibilities of penal proceedings were extended, in the context of Euro 2000. These changes were made for the purpose of the maintenance of public order in case of major public order disruptions. The law was changed in relation to

administrative detainment. In cases were administrative detainment would not suffice, the changes in the Criminal Proceedings Code would allow for the restriction of freedom for a longer period of time (website Eerste Kamer b, n.d.).

None of the interviewees mentioned this change in legislation. However, the changes have not been reverted after Euro 2000 and are still included in Dutch law. This would mean that it has become a legacy. However, it has not impacted on the workings of the police or public order policing at large.

4.1.3 Extension of the penalization of public violence

The extension of the penalization of public violence in the Penal Law is another change in law in the series of changes made for Euro 2000. The change entails the modification of article 141.1 of the Penal Law. Instead of “united force” (NL: “in verenigde krachten”), the law now reads “in unity” (NL: “in vereniging”) (website Eerste Kamer c, n.d.). The change was aimed at aligning the penal

responsibility for the co-commitment of criminal offenses.

Similar to the changes in law regarding the extension of penal proceedings possibilities, none of the interviewees was familiar with this change in legislation. This leads to a similar analysis of the change in law; while it might be regarded as a legacy, it has not directly impacted public order policing.

4.2 Public-private cooperation

Regarding public-private cooperation, several measures were taken in order to regulate Euro 2000. Measures included a clear division of tasks and cooperation between Euro 2000 organizers and the police, as well as the introduction of (international) stewards. One the interviewees asserted that Euro 2000 was the event that led to the current division of tasks and responsibilities between the

commercial football organizations and the police. Respondent 6 argued that since Euro 2000, the commercial football organizations organize the safety and security within the stadium entirely, the maintenance of the public order outside of the stadium is still a police task. According to respondent 6, Euro 2000 was also the event that led to the shift in responsibility. The idea that the organizer of the event is the one that wants the event and therefore is primarily responsible was born during Euro 2000.

The cooperation is however strong. Since Euro 2000, all commercial football games are planned in advance regarding public order management. Information gathering has become crucial in this planning process and the police and commercial football organizations have contact about the proceedings of every game, since every game is different. According to all interviewees, while before Euro 2000 the police deployment was rather similar for every game in commercial football, due to Euro 2000 police deployment is adjusted for every game through meetings with the commercial football organizations and the usage of gathered information on, for example, risk supporters or game specificities. According to respondent 3, the local network between the municipality, the police, and the football club has become stronger due to Euro 2000. Meetings have become more structural and games are planned more in cooperation and deliberation than before.

Stewards were deployed before Euro 2000, but were not mandatory. Not every club therefore provided for private stewards during football games. Today, stewards cannot be missed from football games. The most important shift in Euro 2000 regarding stewarding, is that from the maintenance of order to hospitality, according to respondent 6. It is now also mandatory to send stewards to

international football games, as the expert interviewee claims.

Public-private cooperation has mostly been influenced by Euro 2000 regarding ideas, rather than completely new measures. While there already was cooperation between (commercial football) organizers and the police, the idea that the organizer is the primary responsible entity has emerged since Euro 2000. Furthermore, the shift from maintenance of order to hospitality has been emerging since Euro 2000 and changed the way in which stewards are deployed.

4.3 Focus on information management

The focus on information management during Euro 2000 was one of the key new public order policing measures installed for the tournaments. The information-driven police operation, as Adang and

Cuvelier (2001) call it, steered international cooperation but was also made possible through this cooperation. Information was gathered by all participating nations and fed to the host nations. The feed of information also accommodated the behavioral profile, as on the basis of the information

gathered and risk analyses based on this information, the police could decide how to deploy its men (Adang & Cuvelier, 2001)

Six out of seven interviewees assert that Euro 2000 resulted in a permanent shift towards information management in public order policing. Respondent 6 argues that Euro 2000 has led public order policing operations to focus on information rather than on the available manpower. While before Euro 2000 a focus was on the manpower available and how to deploy them, while today’s focus is on the information available and how this information should lead to a specific form and size of police deployment. The expert interviewee agreed with the shared view among the interviewees that Euro 2000 has created a shift towards information management, stating that “(…) whether it is a

demonstration, a festival or a football game, there are certain principles, certain rules from which one views an event and assesses the risks. This professionalization has certainly found ground since then”.

The focus on information management has indeed become a Euro 2000 legacy and has impacted public order policing at large. At today’s public order policing operations and event management information is key. Risk analyses have become standardized and information is shared among the different actors involved in the organization of an event (organizer, municipality, police).

4.4 Police behavioral profile

The Euro 2000 police behavioral profile has impacted on today’s public order policing of commercial football, as it has been integrated into action planning before games and has changed the approach of the police towards the public in its entirety, from a more authoritarian approach to a ‘firm but friendly’ approach.

The police behavioral profile was introduced due to Euro 2000. It is what the CIV calls a description of attitude and action, meant for individual police officers (Centraal Informatiepunt Voetbalvandalisme, 2001: 20). The profile also contained tolerance limits and a manner in which the police was supposed to be deployed. It was introduced for Euro 2000 in order to equalize the manner in which supporters were treated by the Dutch and Belgian police. This was important, because supporters travelled across venues in the Netherlands and Belgium to see their team play, and a similar treatment by the police in both nations was thought to contribute to more clarity and therefore more understanding among supporters.

Five out of seven interviewees assert that the basics of the police behavioral profile of Euro 2000 are still applied during today’s commercial football games. Respondent 1 does not know whether it is still used in today’s police work, but asserts that the behavioral profile of Euro 2000 has changed the entire behavior of the police ever since. While the police were, according to him, rather short-tempered and authoritarian before Euro 2000, the behavioral profile has resulted in a more friendly approach of the police towards the public. Only one of the respondents thinks that the behavioral profile is an example of something that worked really well for Euro 2000, but was not continued after the event.

Three of the interviewees argued that a behavioral profile is part of every game’s action plan today. They do not see it as an isolated element, but rather as part of a bigger picture. Respondent 4 argues that “(…) the behavioral profile is something that we include in our action plan. You may assume that we have a behavioral profile ready when Ajax visits”. Respondent 3 agrees with respondent 4 and argues that this preparation of an action plan for every game has indeed been

professionalized due to Euro 2000. The expert interviewee acknowledges this idea of the integration of the police behavioral profile into risk assessments and action plans made for today’s football games.

The police behavioral profile has been integrated into today’s planning of public order

policing operations. Based on risk analyses and action plans, a certain behavioral profile is included as well. Furthermore, the behavioral profile has led to an overall change of approach of the police

towards the public. One of the interviewees asserts that while the police used to act in an authoritative fashion, this has changed. The approach of the public is now based on the idea that the police is friendly when possible, but firm when necessary.

4.5 International police cooperation

International police cooperation was twofold for Euro 2000. As the Netherlands and Belgium hosted the event together, this already requested police cooperation between these two nations. However, international police cooperation was also sought with the tournament’s participating nations. Some agreements were written down in legislation and led to international treaties. The legislation accommodating international police cooperation is outlined in paragraph 5.5.1. Paragraph 5.5.2 discusses the relational aspects of international police cooperation.

4.5.1 Legislation in international police cooperation – Benelux-treaty

In order to be able to support each other and to act beyond the boundaries of their own nation, a temporary treaty was introduced between the Netherlands and Belgium. The Treaty between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Belgium regarding cross-border police action for maintenance of the public order during the European Soccer Championship for national teams in the year 2000 was introduced in 1999 and dissolved soon after Euro 2000 (Verdrag tussen het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden en het Koninkrijk België inzake grensoverschrijdend politie-optreden ter handhaving van de openbare orde en veiligheid tijdens het Europees Kampioenschap voetbal voor landenteams in het jaar 2000, 1999). However, the perceived success of the cooperation through this treaty led to the creation of a permanent treaty known as the Benelux-treaty, which also includes Luxembourg. In 2004 the Netherlands signed the Treaty between the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg regarding border police action, which enables cross-border police action in a variety of fields beyond the ones included in the Euro 2000 treaty (Verdrag tussen het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk België en het Groothertogdom Luxemburg inzake grensoverschrijdend politieel optreden, 2004). These fields include public order such as the cooperation during events, but also the fight against criminality such as drug smuggling.

As Euro 2000 was organized by both the Netherlands and Belgium, some police cooperation was necessary. In order to coordinate this legally, the Treaty between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Belgium regarding cross-border police action for maintenance of the public order during the European Soccer Championship for national teams in the year 2000 was introduced in 1999 (Verdrag tussen het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden en het Koninkrijk België inzake grensoverschrijdend politie-optreden ter handhaving van de openbare orde en veiligheid tijdens het Europees

Kampioenschap voetbal voor landenteams in het jaar 2000, 1999). This was a temporary treaty. However, the cooperation through this treaty was satisfactory to such an extend that in 2004 the Netherlands signed the Benelux-treaty, this time including both Belgium and Luxembourg (Verdrag tussen het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk België en het Groothertogdom Luxemburg inzake grensoverschrijdend politieel optreden, 2004). The Treaty between the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg regarding cross-border police action creates possibilities for police cooperation not only regarding the maintenance of public order, but also the protection of people and products as well as the investigation of criminal facts (Verdrag tussen het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk België en het Groothertogdom Luxemburg inzake grensoverschrijdend politieel optreden, 2004: article 2). While other factors also led to the creation of this treaty, Euro 2000 was its major success case, as mentioned in the

considerations of the treaty. The Treaty of Bergen op Zoom is named as the only event-related treaty in the Benelux-treaty considerations (Verdrag tussen het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk België en het Groothertogdom Luxemburg inzake grensoverschrijdend politieel optreden, 2004).

While international cooperation was mentioned by all interviewees, only three interviewees were familiar with the Treaty of Bergen op Zoom en de Benelux-treaty. Respondent 3 argued that, while not knowing about the specificities of both the 1999 or the 2004 treaty, “ (…) I do know that the cooperation with the Belgian colleagues is good, very good”. Only one of the interviewees recalled the Treaty of Bergen op Zoom as one of the legislative changes for Euro 2000. According to respondent 1, “The Treaty of Bergen op Zoom had a permanent influence on cross border policing regarding public order”.

Respondents 6 and the expert interviewee agree with respondent 1. Especially in the Dutch border area, the Benelux treaty, inspired by the Treaty of Bergen op Zoom, has significant influence as it legalizes already tight international cooperation. The expert interviewee would like to see cross-border policing treaties being extended to other regions other than the Benelux. A similar treaty with Germany and France would have his preference, to legally secure international police cooperation even more.

The Benelux Treaty does not seem to have had a great impact on the workings within the police immediately. However, the introduction of the Benelux treaty can be seen as a legal legacy stemming from Euro 2000’s police cooperation treaty. While most of the interviewees do not directly tie their cooperation with Belgium to this treaty, public order policing measures such as cross border