Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1947804
Elodie Thevenin
ABSTRACT For the past few decades, the increased perception of migration as an issue in Europe resulted in the development of the externalisation of the EU’s migration governance to third countries. EU-Turkey and EU-Libya cooperation frameworks on migration have in this perspective been established in the wake of the 2015 migration crisis and triggered major controversies. The agreements received fierce contestation from non-governmental and international actors, highlighting the poor protection of human rights through this management. This paper analyses the dynamics of politicisation of EU-Turkey and EU-Libya agreements on migration in domestic political discourse. A qualitative comparison between German, French and Polish parliamentary debates constitutes the main empirical basis of this research. The analysis focuses on the different patterns of politicisation with emphasis on contesting arguments. This paper examines members of parliaments’ stances on EU-Turkey and EU-Libya cooperation focusing on humanitarian and securitisation frames. Results demonstrate an uneven process of politicisation in national parliaments dependent on the robustness of parliamentary majority and political parties’ issue positions. Overall, the analysis of discourse on the two agreements clearly illustrates the prioritisation of security over human rights when it comes to migration management.
{"title":"Between human rights and security concerns: politicisation of EU-Turkey and EU-Libya agreements on migration in national parliaments","authors":"Elodie Thevenin","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1947804","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1947804","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT For the past few decades, the increased perception of migration as an issue in Europe resulted in the development of the externalisation of the EU’s migration governance to third countries. EU-Turkey and EU-Libya cooperation frameworks on migration have in this perspective been established in the wake of the 2015 migration crisis and triggered major controversies. The agreements received fierce contestation from non-governmental and international actors, highlighting the poor protection of human rights through this management. This paper analyses the dynamics of politicisation of EU-Turkey and EU-Libya agreements on migration in domestic political discourse. A qualitative comparison between German, French and Polish parliamentary debates constitutes the main empirical basis of this research. The analysis focuses on the different patterns of politicisation with emphasis on contesting arguments. This paper examines members of parliaments’ stances on EU-Turkey and EU-Libya cooperation focusing on humanitarian and securitisation frames. Results demonstrate an uneven process of politicisation in national parliaments dependent on the robustness of parliamentary majority and political parties’ issue positions. Overall, the analysis of discourse on the two agreements clearly illustrates the prioritisation of security over human rights when it comes to migration management.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"30 1","pages":"464 - 484"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41728545","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1947800
H. Maurer, Nicholas Wright
ABSTRACT The Common Foreign & Security Policy (CFSP) is a transnational policy framework to deliver collective foreign policy and also to manage differences among member states. As such, it has always been dependent on their support. Since 2019, however, disagreement within this system is said to have reached a new level. Taking this political trend as our starting point, this article proposes a new, conceptual approach to understanding how contestation challenges the EU’s foreign policy cooperation system. While the majority of research focuses on disagreements in decision-making, we argue for a broader conceptualisation – systemic contestation. Drawing on norm contestation scholarship, we argue that systemic contestation manifests itself in two ways: as passive contestation, when member states disengage from and fail to take ownership of CFSP initiatives and their implementation; and as tacit contestation, when they fail to act when faced with the need to safeguard the system. This approach accounts for the transgovernmental character of the CFSP; and the central role of member states within it. Finally, we contend that our conceptualisation of systemic contestation offers promising new avenues for empirical research to understand the “black box” of EU foreign policy cooperation.
{"title":"How much unity do you need? Systemic contestation in EU foreign and security cooperation","authors":"H. Maurer, Nicholas Wright","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1947800","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1947800","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Common Foreign & Security Policy (CFSP) is a transnational policy framework to deliver collective foreign policy and also to manage differences among member states. As such, it has always been dependent on their support. Since 2019, however, disagreement within this system is said to have reached a new level. Taking this political trend as our starting point, this article proposes a new, conceptual approach to understanding how contestation challenges the EU’s foreign policy cooperation system. While the majority of research focuses on disagreements in decision-making, we argue for a broader conceptualisation – systemic contestation. Drawing on norm contestation scholarship, we argue that systemic contestation manifests itself in two ways: as passive contestation, when member states disengage from and fail to take ownership of CFSP initiatives and their implementation; and as tacit contestation, when they fail to act when faced with the need to safeguard the system. This approach accounts for the transgovernmental character of the CFSP; and the central role of member states within it. Finally, we contend that our conceptualisation of systemic contestation offers promising new avenues for empirical research to understand the “black box” of EU foreign policy cooperation.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"30 1","pages":"385 - 401"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43412873","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1964473
Katja Biedenkopf, Oriol Costa, Magdalena Góra
ABSTRACT Contestation and politicisation are two concepts of increasing relevance to European foreign and security policy (CFSP) scholars and practitioners alike. However, reasonable doubts can be raised as regards this growing literature: first, political conflict has always been part of CFSP, and national and European politics have traditionally been at the centre of research in this field. Second, exploring how the two concepts relate to European foreign, security and defence policies is complicated by the fact that foreign affairs more broadly do not meet all the criteria set by the literature on politicisation, which usually requires that some form of mass mobilisation takes place, or at least a high degree of salience. This article addresses these concerns by looking at the changing politics of CFSP. As the introduction to the special issue, we explore the hypothesis that contestation of European foreign, security and defence policy is now more in line with the broader way in which political conflict is being re-structured in Europe. If this is so, political conflict over CFSP will more easily be associated with issues that have an appeal beyond the narrow community of its practitioners and observers.
{"title":"Introduction: shades of contestation and politicisation of CFSP","authors":"Katja Biedenkopf, Oriol Costa, Magdalena Góra","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1964473","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1964473","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Contestation and politicisation are two concepts of increasing relevance to European foreign and security policy (CFSP) scholars and practitioners alike. However, reasonable doubts can be raised as regards this growing literature: first, political conflict has always been part of CFSP, and national and European politics have traditionally been at the centre of research in this field. Second, exploring how the two concepts relate to European foreign, security and defence policies is complicated by the fact that foreign affairs more broadly do not meet all the criteria set by the literature on politicisation, which usually requires that some form of mass mobilisation takes place, or at least a high degree of salience. This article addresses these concerns by looking at the changing politics of CFSP. As the introduction to the special issue, we explore the hypothesis that contestation of European foreign, security and defence policy is now more in line with the broader way in which political conflict is being re-structured in Europe. If this is so, political conflict over CFSP will more easily be associated with issues that have an appeal beyond the narrow community of its practitioners and observers.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"30 1","pages":"325 - 343"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44603288","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-28DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1942850
J. Wither
ABSTRACT After the Cold War, international relations in the Arctic were characterised by cooperation and diplomacy. However, since Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, largely peaceful relations in the High North have been endangered by growing military competition between Russia and Western Arctic powers. The lack of military to military dialogue between Russia and the West has exacerbated the situation. Consequently, an Arctic security dilemma has arisen, which threatens stability and increases the danger of unintended armed conflict resulting from accidents or misunderstandings. Security dilemmas are as old as international politics. They occur when states feel threatened by the expanding military capabilities of their neighbours even if there is no deliberate hostile intent. This article will examine the developing Arctic security dilemma and the chances of its mitigation. Two recent developments provide potential grounds for optimism. The new United States’ administration has pledged to return America to global engagement and multilateralism. In 2021, the Russian Federation is scheduled to become chair of the Arctic Council and the Arctic Coastguard Forum, the main intergovernmental institutions in the region. These events provide an opportunity to rebuild greater trust and confidence in relations between Russia and its Arctic neighbours and alleviate dangerous tensions.
{"title":"An Arctic security dilemma: assessing and mitigating the risk of unintended armed conflict in the High North","authors":"J. Wither","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1942850","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1942850","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT After the Cold War, international relations in the Arctic were characterised by cooperation and diplomacy. However, since Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, largely peaceful relations in the High North have been endangered by growing military competition between Russia and Western Arctic powers. The lack of military to military dialogue between Russia and the West has exacerbated the situation. Consequently, an Arctic security dilemma has arisen, which threatens stability and increases the danger of unintended armed conflict resulting from accidents or misunderstandings. Security dilemmas are as old as international politics. They occur when states feel threatened by the expanding military capabilities of their neighbours even if there is no deliberate hostile intent. This article will examine the developing Arctic security dilemma and the chances of its mitigation. Two recent developments provide potential grounds for optimism. The new United States’ administration has pledged to return America to global engagement and multilateralism. In 2021, the Russian Federation is scheduled to become chair of the Arctic Council and the Arctic Coastguard Forum, the main intergovernmental institutions in the region. These events provide an opportunity to rebuild greater trust and confidence in relations between Russia and its Arctic neighbours and alleviate dangerous tensions.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"30 1","pages":"649 - 666"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09662839.2021.1942850","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47837174","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-23DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1941896
M. Onderco, Michal Smetana
ABSTRACT Stationing of US nuclear weapons in Europe is a pillar of NATO deterrence. Despite their growing contestation, scholarly research on contemporary attitudes of both voters and political elites to the continued stationing of these weapons on their soil is lacking. We conducted original surveys of 2020 Germans and of 101 Bundestag members. Our results show scepticism about the military utility of US nuclear weapons in Germany, and aversion towards their use. At the same time, the results show a sizable support among both politicians and citizens for their removal from German territory as part of new nuclear arms control initiatives.
{"title":"German views on US nuclear weapons in Europe: public and elite perspectives","authors":"M. Onderco, Michal Smetana","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1941896","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1941896","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Stationing of US nuclear weapons in Europe is a pillar of NATO deterrence. Despite their growing contestation, scholarly research on contemporary attitudes of both voters and political elites to the continued stationing of these weapons on their soil is lacking. We conducted original surveys of 2020 Germans and of 101 Bundestag members. Our results show scepticism about the military utility of US nuclear weapons in Germany, and aversion towards their use. At the same time, the results show a sizable support among both politicians and citizens for their removal from German territory as part of new nuclear arms control initiatives.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"30 1","pages":"630 - 648"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09662839.2021.1941896","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42576217","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-10DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1912017
S. Efthymiou
ABSTRACT This article explores how the concept of military service develops in the post-conflict society of Cyprus (RoC), following its accession to the European Union (EU). It is based on an exhaustive series of individual interviews with soldiers, lawyers, politicians, ambassadors and civilians, as well as an analysis of media content. The article sets out exactly how EU accession presented a confusing ideological trajectory for the army, lowering motivation for defending the border against occupying forces. The diminishing value of military service takes place against a background of changing masculine ideals. Moreover, defence diplomacy aiming to create energy alliances between EU member states against Turkey had the unintended consequence of young men further disassociating from direct involvement in the defence project. The article also analyses a number of policies developed to deal with conscription issues. Through the case study of Cyprus, we come to see how policy on military service during the EU accession process should incorporate changing civil-military relations.
{"title":"How EU accession has affected military service in post-conflict Cyprus","authors":"S. Efthymiou","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1912017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1912017","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article explores how the concept of military service develops in the post-conflict society of Cyprus (RoC), following its accession to the European Union (EU). It is based on an exhaustive series of individual interviews with soldiers, lawyers, politicians, ambassadors and civilians, as well as an analysis of media content. The article sets out exactly how EU accession presented a confusing ideological trajectory for the army, lowering motivation for defending the border against occupying forces. The diminishing value of military service takes place against a background of changing masculine ideals. Moreover, defence diplomacy aiming to create energy alliances between EU member states against Turkey had the unintended consequence of young men further disassociating from direct involvement in the defence project. The article also analyses a number of policies developed to deal with conscription issues. Through the case study of Cyprus, we come to see how policy on military service during the EU accession process should incorporate changing civil-military relations.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"30 1","pages":"609 - 629"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09662839.2021.1912017","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43459197","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-05DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1906229
Calle Håkansson
ABSTRACT European Defence is in a new and formative phase in which the European Union’s long list of defence acronyms has steadily grown. One of the most noticeable new policy initiatives is the European Commission’s European Defence Fund (EDF). This article consequently investigates and outlines the establishment of the European Defence Fund and the European Commission’s new role within the field of security and defence through the lens of revised neofunctionalism. This article thus asks how and through what steps did the EDF come about; and secondly how can neofunctionalism explain the dynamics involved in the establishment of the European Defence Fund. The analysis uses a process-tracing method and draws on interviews with relevant policymakers and officials in Brussels as well as official EU documents. The conclusions argue that the ever-increasing involvement of the European Commission in a policy field close to national sovereignty is starting to blur the traditional dichotomy between intergovernmental and supranational decision-making. In this way, this study contributes to the growing literature on the weakening of intergovernmentalism within the EU security and defence policy field.
{"title":"The European Commission’s new role in EU security and defence cooperation: the case of the European Defence Fund","authors":"Calle Håkansson","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1906229","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1906229","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT European Defence is in a new and formative phase in which the European Union’s long list of defence acronyms has steadily grown. One of the most noticeable new policy initiatives is the European Commission’s European Defence Fund (EDF). This article consequently investigates and outlines the establishment of the European Defence Fund and the European Commission’s new role within the field of security and defence through the lens of revised neofunctionalism. This article thus asks how and through what steps did the EDF come about; and secondly how can neofunctionalism explain the dynamics involved in the establishment of the European Defence Fund. The analysis uses a process-tracing method and draws on interviews with relevant policymakers and officials in Brussels as well as official EU documents. The conclusions argue that the ever-increasing involvement of the European Commission in a policy field close to national sovereignty is starting to blur the traditional dichotomy between intergovernmental and supranational decision-making. In this way, this study contributes to the growing literature on the weakening of intergovernmentalism within the EU security and defence policy field.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"30 1","pages":"589 - 608"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09662839.2021.1906229","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42069319","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1872545
J. Klemenc, Martin Hrabálek, Vladimir Đorđević
ABSTRACT In this article, we offer a fresh look at the Western Balkans by addressing EU external governance with respect to a regional security cooperation perspective as a major EU external governance venue. We analyse how the said cooperation represents a positive example of EU rule transfer by paying attention to the results and to the level of regional ownership in the EU-Western Balkans security engagement. We pay tribute to the existing research on the EU external governance model with respect to regional cooperation and security and build our arguments by extending the said model. The said analysis represents the basis for our claims that the region has transformed from a consumer (of European security) into a security provider. Hence, the Western Balkans has witnessed an EU-induced security framework allowing it to build its capabilities and experience towards finding a more efficient role in the European security system and its governance. We aim to establish a basis for rethinking the concept of the EU-Western Balkans engagement from the Justice and Home Affairs perspective as the core element of what is described in EU strategic documents as EU external governance, outlining a more symmetric relationship between Brussels and the region.
{"title":"Regional security cooperation revisited: the Western Balkans as the future security provider","authors":"J. Klemenc, Martin Hrabálek, Vladimir Đorđević","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1872545","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1872545","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this article, we offer a fresh look at the Western Balkans by addressing EU external governance with respect to a regional security cooperation perspective as a major EU external governance venue. We analyse how the said cooperation represents a positive example of EU rule transfer by paying attention to the results and to the level of regional ownership in the EU-Western Balkans security engagement. We pay tribute to the existing research on the EU external governance model with respect to regional cooperation and security and build our arguments by extending the said model. The said analysis represents the basis for our claims that the region has transformed from a consumer (of European security) into a security provider. Hence, the Western Balkans has witnessed an EU-induced security framework allowing it to build its capabilities and experience towards finding a more efficient role in the European security system and its governance. We aim to establish a basis for rethinking the concept of the EU-Western Balkans engagement from the Justice and Home Affairs perspective as the core element of what is described in EU strategic documents as EU external governance, outlining a more symmetric relationship between Brussels and the region.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"30 1","pages":"285 - 304"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09662839.2021.1872545","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46443563","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1872546
Kristian Åtland
ABSTRACT Since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March 2014, severe limitations have been placed on Ukraine’s coastal state rights and navigational freedoms in the Black and Azov Seas and the Kerch Strait. The “Kerch Strait clash” in November 2018, which resulted in the Russian capture of three Ukrainian naval vessels in international waters south of the strait, can be seen as the temporary culmination of tensions that have been building up over a longer period. In violation of international law and bilateral agreements, Russia has in recent years pursued an increasingly assertive and revisionist policy in the region and sought to turn the maritime spaces on the country’s southwestern flank into a “Russian lake”. This policy is affecting not only the security and economy of neighbouring states such as Ukraine and Georgia, but also the strategic balance in the southeastern corner of Europe. Drawing on empirical evidence derived from Russian, Ukrainian and Western sources, as well as insights from neoclassical realist theory, this article discusses legal, economic and security aspects of Russia’s ongoing quest for a dominant position in the Black Sea region.
{"title":"Redrawing borders, reshaping orders: Russia’s quest for dominance in the Black Sea region","authors":"Kristian Åtland","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1872546","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1872546","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March 2014, severe limitations have been placed on Ukraine’s coastal state rights and navigational freedoms in the Black and Azov Seas and the Kerch Strait. The “Kerch Strait clash” in November 2018, which resulted in the Russian capture of three Ukrainian naval vessels in international waters south of the strait, can be seen as the temporary culmination of tensions that have been building up over a longer period. In violation of international law and bilateral agreements, Russia has in recent years pursued an increasingly assertive and revisionist policy in the region and sought to turn the maritime spaces on the country’s southwestern flank into a “Russian lake”. This policy is affecting not only the security and economy of neighbouring states such as Ukraine and Georgia, but also the strategic balance in the southeastern corner of Europe. Drawing on empirical evidence derived from Russian, Ukrainian and Western sources, as well as insights from neoclassical realist theory, this article discusses legal, economic and security aspects of Russia’s ongoing quest for a dominant position in the Black Sea region.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"30 1","pages":"305 - 324"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09662839.2021.1872546","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47915666","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2020.1865930
H. Jaffel
ABSTRACT This article examines how security-politics relationships play out in the routines of security elites when confronted with political decisions pertaining to European security cooperation. To do so, the article reflects upon British debates about police and judicial cooperation in a post-Brexit Europe along with debates on the 2014 opt-out from Justice and Home Affairs. How security elites respond to political decisions is investigated from a sociological lens that mobilises lessons from Norbert Elias. The article thus shows how security elites play out distinct roles and conduct distinct types of work when embedded chains of interdependence with professionals of politics that define what legitimate security cooperation is; a neglected aspect in bureaucratic politics and practice turn literature, and Critical Security Studies. It also exposes how security elites fight for EU-led cooperation because of attributes seemingly drawn from lived experiences in EU cooperation and triggered by the constraints of the relationships in which they are situated. The article thus complements existing debates on practices and security professionals by building knowledge on security elites and their routines from the angle of security-politics relationships.
{"title":"When security elites deal with politicians: rethinking practices from the perspective of security-politics relationships","authors":"H. Jaffel","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2020.1865930","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2020.1865930","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article examines how security-politics relationships play out in the routines of security elites when confronted with political decisions pertaining to European security cooperation. To do so, the article reflects upon British debates about police and judicial cooperation in a post-Brexit Europe along with debates on the 2014 opt-out from Justice and Home Affairs. How security elites respond to political decisions is investigated from a sociological lens that mobilises lessons from Norbert Elias. The article thus shows how security elites play out distinct roles and conduct distinct types of work when embedded chains of interdependence with professionals of politics that define what legitimate security cooperation is; a neglected aspect in bureaucratic politics and practice turn literature, and Critical Security Studies. It also exposes how security elites fight for EU-led cooperation because of attributes seemingly drawn from lived experiences in EU cooperation and triggered by the constraints of the relationships in which they are situated. The article thus complements existing debates on practices and security professionals by building knowledge on security elites and their routines from the angle of security-politics relationships.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"30 1","pages":"259 - 284"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09662839.2020.1865930","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43661422","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：