Pub Date : 2021-07-14DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1948402
Jana Urbanovská, Martin Chovančík, M. Meislová
In the triangle of relations between major EU powers, the relationship between Germany and the UK remains historically under-examined. Its implications for the future of European defence cooperatio...
{"title":"German-UK defence cooperation amid Brexit: prospects for new bilateralism?","authors":"Jana Urbanovská, Martin Chovančík, M. Meislová","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1948402","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1948402","url":null,"abstract":"In the triangle of relations between major EU powers, the relationship between Germany and the UK remains historically under-examined. Its implications for the future of European defence cooperatio...","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09662839.2021.1948402","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41905047","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 : 2021-07-14DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1948837
Lance Davies
ABSTRACT Recent analysis has interpreted Russia’s approach to the EU-led dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia through the lens of its actions in Ukraine. This has been characterised as “hybrid warfare” designed to disrupt the negotiations to prevent the integration of the Balkans into Western institutions. This article examines whether Russian actions in Ukraine have signalled a recalibration of Russia’s response to the Kosovo issue based on a repudiation of the EU-led dialogue. This article argues that while Russia’s behaviour has been shaped by its growing competition with the Western powers, its approach has been ambiguous and driven by a range of humanitarian, legal and security-based arguments rooted in the context of the Kosovo problem. These arguments have emerged as important trends in Russia’s behaviour and can be traced to its response to the Kosovo conflict in 1999. This article shows that there has not been a complete recalibration in Russia’s policy towards the dialogue. Russia’s approach has shown both continuity with these trends and a growing politicisation accelerated by the sharp decline in Russia’s relations with the West since 2014. In a broader sense, this article questions the intent and form of Russia’s actions in Ukraine as an explanatory framework for Russia’s behaviour elsewhere.
{"title":"A “hybrid offensive” in the Balkans? Russia and the EU-led Kosovo-Serb negotiations","authors":"Lance Davies","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1948837","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1948837","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Recent analysis has interpreted Russia’s approach to the EU-led dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia through the lens of its actions in Ukraine. This has been characterised as “hybrid warfare” designed to disrupt the negotiations to prevent the integration of the Balkans into Western institutions. This article examines whether Russian actions in Ukraine have signalled a recalibration of Russia’s response to the Kosovo issue based on a repudiation of the EU-led dialogue. This article argues that while Russia’s behaviour has been shaped by its growing competition with the Western powers, its approach has been ambiguous and driven by a range of humanitarian, legal and security-based arguments rooted in the context of the Kosovo problem. These arguments have emerged as important trends in Russia’s behaviour and can be traced to its response to the Kosovo conflict in 1999. This article shows that there has not been a complete recalibration in Russia’s policy towards the dialogue. Russia’s approach has shown both continuity with these trends and a growing politicisation accelerated by the sharp decline in Russia’s relations with the West since 2014. In a broader sense, this article questions the intent and form of Russia’s actions in Ukraine as an explanatory framework for Russia’s behaviour elsewhere.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"31 1","pages":"1 - 20"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09662839.2021.1948837","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49138462","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 : 2021-07-06DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1945038
Frida Hansen, J. Pettersson
ABSTRACT While the construction of migration as a security threat in Europe has been thoroughly examined, how different groups of migrants become targets of security concerns has not received similar attention. In its fight against irregular immigration, the European Union uses visa liberalisation agreements with neighbouring states as an incentive for cooperation on migration control. At a first glance, this strategy appears somewhat contradictory, as visa liberalisation potentially increases the share of visa overstayers among irregular migrants. Through analysis of the annual “Risk Analysis” reports between 2015 and 2020 published by EU’s border and migration management agency, FRONTEX, this article shows that visa overstay is routinely left out of the agency’s security concerns of irregular migration, thus rendering risk assessments asymmetrically occupied with irregular migration by means of “illegal entry”. Although visa overstayers are not conceptualised as threats to security in discourse on par with other categories of irregular migrants, we find that they are increasingly subjected to a rationale of surveillance and risk.
{"title":"Contradictory migration management? Differentiated security approaches to visa overstay and irregular border crossings in the European Union","authors":"Frida Hansen, J. Pettersson","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1945038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1945038","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT While the construction of migration as a security threat in Europe has been thoroughly examined, how different groups of migrants become targets of security concerns has not received similar attention. In its fight against irregular immigration, the European Union uses visa liberalisation agreements with neighbouring states as an incentive for cooperation on migration control. At a first glance, this strategy appears somewhat contradictory, as visa liberalisation potentially increases the share of visa overstayers among irregular migrants. Through analysis of the annual “Risk Analysis” reports between 2015 and 2020 published by EU’s border and migration management agency, FRONTEX, this article shows that visa overstay is routinely left out of the agency’s security concerns of irregular migration, thus rendering risk assessments asymmetrically occupied with irregular migration by means of “illegal entry”. Although visa overstayers are not conceptualised as threats to security in discourse on par with other categories of irregular migrants, we find that they are increasingly subjected to a rationale of surveillance and risk.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"14 8S","pages":"117 - 134"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09662839.2021.1945038","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41259772","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 : 2021-07-06DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1945037
C. Kollias, Panayiotis G. Tzeremes
ABSTRACT The European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB) is considered as a key element in the quest for a European Security and Defence Union. The EDTIB strategy initiated in 2007 aimed to lead to greater integration of the fragmented national defence industries of EU member-states, achieve economies through the coordination of defence industrial policy, the pooling of resources in the production and acquisition of weapons systems and better serve the political objectives of European defence. The paper examines the extent to which EU27 member-states satisfy their demand for arms through the procurement of EDTIB origin defence inputs. Moreover, it explores whether a process of convergence is present in terms of the share of EDTIB origin imports in the total arms imports of the EU member-states. The presence or not of a convergence process is examined empirically using β- and club convergence methodologies. In broad terms, the findings point to a process of convergence albeit at different speeds, as indicated by the club-convergence analysis.
{"title":"In the EDTIB we trust(?)","authors":"C. Kollias, Panayiotis G. Tzeremes","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1945037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1945037","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB) is considered as a key element in the quest for a European Security and Defence Union. The EDTIB strategy initiated in 2007 aimed to lead to greater integration of the fragmented national defence industries of EU member-states, achieve economies through the coordination of defence industrial policy, the pooling of resources in the production and acquisition of weapons systems and better serve the political objectives of European defence. The paper examines the extent to which EU27 member-states satisfy their demand for arms through the procurement of EDTIB origin defence inputs. Moreover, it explores whether a process of convergence is present in terms of the share of EDTIB origin imports in the total arms imports of the EU member-states. The presence or not of a convergence process is examined empirically using β- and club convergence methodologies. In broad terms, the findings point to a process of convergence albeit at different speeds, as indicated by the club-convergence analysis.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"31 1","pages":"58 - 75"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09662839.2021.1945037","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49397461","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: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1947801
Oriol Costa, G. Collantes-Celador, Diego Badell
ABSTRACT The cosmopolitan character of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is not immune to the growing surge in the contestation of international institutions. The African Union’s reaction to the ICC decision to indict the then sitting heads of state of Sudan and Kenya, and the actions undertaken by the Trump Administration against the Court over possible investigations into Afghanistan and Palestine, are cases in point. This article explores what that surge has meant for intra-EU debates on its position towards the ICC. We present a two-fold argument based on an empirical analysis of key moments in the institutional development of the Court that coincide with the pre- and post-rise phases in the politicisation of international institutions. First, the level of agreement on the ICC within the EU has been grossly exaggerated. Second, despite bouts of disagreement, patterns of political conflict over the ICC within the EU remain constant. That is, there is recurrent polarisation, with a range of opinions on the intractable debate about Westphalian sovereignty vs. cosmopolitan justice, but no change in the other two dimensions of politicisation (salience and actor range).
{"title":"The dog that did not bark: the EU and the clash between sovereignty and justice in the International Criminal Court","authors":"Oriol Costa, G. Collantes-Celador, Diego Badell","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1947801","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1947801","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 The cosmopolitan character of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is not immune to the growing surge in the contestation of international institutions. The African Union’s reaction to the ICC decision to indict the then sitting heads of state of Sudan and Kenya, and the actions undertaken by the Trump Administration against the Court over possible investigations into Afghanistan and Palestine, are cases in point. This article explores what that surge has meant for intra-EU debates on its position towards the ICC. We present a two-fold argument based on an empirical analysis of key moments in the institutional development of the Court that coincide with the pre- and post-rise phases in the politicisation of international institutions. First, the level of agreement on the ICC within the EU has been grossly exaggerated. Second, despite bouts of disagreement, patterns of political conflict over the ICC within the EU remain constant. That is, there is recurrent polarisation, with a range of opinions on the intractable debate about Westphalian sovereignty vs. cosmopolitan justice, but no change in the other two dimensions of politicisation (salience and actor range).","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"30 1","pages":"402 - 417"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42946471","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: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1964474
Antonio Karlović, Dario Čepo, Katja Biedenkopf
ABSTRACT This paper examines the response of the members of the European Council towards the EU’s sanctions policy against Russia following the 2014 Russian occupation and annexation of Crimea and the continued Ukraine crisis. The case is analysed to answer the question on the traits of the politicisation of the EU’s Russia sanctions policy. Concretely, the main research question is: what does the interplay of actor range, salience, and polarisation tell us about politicisation of CFSP in the case of sanctions policy? The secondary research question deals with how actors interact when contesting a sanctions policy to boost their success. Considering that the European Council, as the main actor in CFSP, is something of a “black box”, the paper heuristically focuses on statements (N = 223) on the sanctions policy given by its members from March 2014 till the end of 2019. The analysis shows how the politicisation of the sanctions policy seemingly entrenched itself into EUFP politics after it skyrocketed and fell in the wake of Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Finally, a latent class analysis indicates the existence of two latent coalitions with opposing views on the sanctions policy.
{"title":"Politicisation of the European Foreign, security, and defence cooperation: the case of the EU’s Russian sanctions","authors":"Antonio Karlović, Dario Čepo, Katja Biedenkopf","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1964474","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1964474","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper examines the response of the members of the European Council towards the EU’s sanctions policy against Russia following the 2014 Russian occupation and annexation of Crimea and the continued Ukraine crisis. The case is analysed to answer the question on the traits of the politicisation of the EU’s Russia sanctions policy. Concretely, the main research question is: what does the interplay of actor range, salience, and polarisation tell us about politicisation of CFSP in the case of sanctions policy? The secondary research question deals with how actors interact when contesting a sanctions policy to boost their success. Considering that the European Council, as the main actor in CFSP, is something of a “black box”, the paper heuristically focuses on statements (N = 223) on the sanctions policy given by its members from March 2014 till the end of 2019. The analysis shows how the politicisation of the sanctions policy seemingly entrenched itself into EUFP politics after it skyrocketed and fell in the wake of Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Finally, a latent class analysis indicates the existence of two latent coalitions with opposing views on the sanctions policy.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"30 1","pages":"344 - 366"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43798200","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: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1947799
Ana E. Juncos, K. Pomorska
ABSTRACT While there is increasing evidence in the literature of politicisation in the area of European foreign policy, we know less about how this has affected the dynamics of cooperation among EU member states and, specifically, the procedural norms that govern this policy. This article is concerned with how politicisation and contestation manifest at the micro-level and how they might shape everyday EU foreign policy negotiations. It seeks to establish to what extent politicisation – resulting from the emergence of a new political cleavage centred around issues of identity and supranational integration – has driven normative contestation within EU foreign policy negotiations and whether this has led to the erosion of long-standing procedural norms in European foreign policy. Our findings suggest that despite CFSP Council committees being an institutional arena, characterised by intergovernmental, relatively insulated, and technical decision-making, current processes of politicisation linked to the rise of populism and the increasing transfer of authority to the EEAS have increased contestation of norms within this setting. However, procedural norms have remained relatively resilient to these challenges.
{"title":"Contesting procedural norms: the impact of politicisation on European foreign policy cooperation","authors":"Ana E. Juncos, K. Pomorska","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1947799","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1947799","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT While there is increasing evidence in the literature of politicisation in the area of European foreign policy, we know less about how this has affected the dynamics of cooperation among EU member states and, specifically, the procedural norms that govern this policy. This article is concerned with how politicisation and contestation manifest at the micro-level and how they might shape everyday EU foreign policy negotiations. It seeks to establish to what extent politicisation – resulting from the emergence of a new political cleavage centred around issues of identity and supranational integration – has driven normative contestation within EU foreign policy negotiations and whether this has led to the erosion of long-standing procedural norms in European foreign policy. Our findings suggest that despite CFSP Council committees being an institutional arena, characterised by intergovernmental, relatively insulated, and technical decision-making, current processes of politicisation linked to the rise of populism and the increasing transfer of authority to the EEAS have increased contestation of norms within this setting. However, procedural norms have remained relatively resilient to these challenges.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"30 1","pages":"367 - 384"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48155080","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: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1957841
Magdalena Góra
ABSTRACT The European Union’s security depends on how stable and peaceful its neighbours are, and yet the security situation around it has been deteriorating in recent years. The EU policies designed to stabilise the neighbourhood – the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and EU enlargement – were originally designed as “low politics” of foreign policy focusing on economic instruments and tools of democratisation, but in time security became a prime concern. The article firstly shows how the European Parliament and national parliaments narrate these challenges in the neighbourhood and how security-related concerns become central to the ENP and enlargement. Secondly, in capturing the security concerns, it also shows how such changes contribute to the politicisation of relations with neighbours and how these processes differ between national and supranational level. Empirically, the politicisation of the ENP and EU enlargement in national parliaments (the UK, Poland and Ireland) and the European Parliament between 2004 and 2014 is compared and analysed.
{"title":"It's security stupid! Politicisation of the EU’s relations with its neighbours","authors":"Magdalena Góra","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1957841","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1957841","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The European Union’s security depends on how stable and peaceful its neighbours are, and yet the security situation around it has been deteriorating in recent years. The EU policies designed to stabilise the neighbourhood – the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and EU enlargement – were originally designed as “low politics” of foreign policy focusing on economic instruments and tools of democratisation, but in time security became a prime concern. The article firstly shows how the European Parliament and national parliaments narrate these challenges in the neighbourhood and how security-related concerns become central to the ENP and enlargement. Secondly, in capturing the security concerns, it also shows how such changes contribute to the politicisation of relations with neighbours and how these processes differ between national and supranational level. Empirically, the politicisation of the ENP and EU enlargement in national parliaments (the UK, Poland and Ireland) and the European Parliament between 2004 and 2014 is compared and analysed.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"30 1","pages":"439 - 463"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44058081","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: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1947803
W. Wagner, Luis Pelaez, Tapio Raunio, M. van de Koppel
ABSTRACT The USA is one of the “geopolitical others” of the European Union. Different geopolitical worldviews and normative commitments, therefore, often clash when relations with the USA are at stake. Whereas most analyses focus on differences between EU member states and their foreign policy traditions, this paper examines to what extent and in what way politicisation is driven by party politics by studying roll call votes in the European Parliament (EP) between 2004 and 2019. We find evidence that transatlantic relations have become more politicised. We show that voting behaviour is influenced first and foremost by MEPs’ affiliation with one of the political groups, not by their nationality. Furthermore, we demonstrate that support for the USA follows a bell-curve where centrist political groups are most supportive of the USA and political groups at the far ends of the left/right spectrum are most critical. Policies towards the USA are also related to the “new politics” dimension that pits cosmopolitans against nationalists, but the correlation is weaker than the one with the traditional left/right dimension. We examine the arguments brought forward in support for political groups’ voting behaviour by analysing the parliamentary debates preceding key votes on EU-US relations.
{"title":"The party politics of the EU’s relations with the USA: evidence from the European Parliament","authors":"W. Wagner, Luis Pelaez, Tapio Raunio, M. van de Koppel","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1947803","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1947803","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The USA is one of the “geopolitical others” of the European Union. Different geopolitical worldviews and normative commitments, therefore, often clash when relations with the USA are at stake. Whereas most analyses focus on differences between EU member states and their foreign policy traditions, this paper examines to what extent and in what way politicisation is driven by party politics by studying roll call votes in the European Parliament (EP) between 2004 and 2019. We find evidence that transatlantic relations have become more politicised. We show that voting behaviour is influenced first and foremost by MEPs’ affiliation with one of the political groups, not by their nationality. Furthermore, we demonstrate that support for the USA follows a bell-curve where centrist political groups are most supportive of the USA and political groups at the far ends of the left/right spectrum are most critical. Policies towards the USA are also related to the “new politics” dimension that pits cosmopolitans against nationalists, but the correlation is weaker than the one with the traditional left/right dimension. We examine the arguments brought forward in support for political groups’ voting behaviour by analysing the parliamentary debates preceding key votes on EU-US relations.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"30 1","pages":"418 - 438"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45185918","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: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1947802
Lina Liedlbauer
ABSTRACT The article examines the role of NGOs in the politicisation of EU security. The focus of the empirical analysis lies on the field of EU counter-terrorism. The cases selected are two different types of legal acts, adopted in the aftermath of serious terrorist attacks in EU member states: The EU data retention directive and the EU passenger name record (PNR) directive. These policies present intrusiveness and relevance for Brussels-based and national civil rights NGOs since they both aim to touch upon individual liberties, like privacy rights or the right to protect personal data. The article goes further by opening up the black box of politicisation. It does so by assuming that politicisation is characterised by a certain level of salience, actor range and polarisation. The paper links politicisation literature to research on the influence of interest groups that are discussing, for example, voice, access or litigation as strategies. Therewith, the paper contributes to the scientific debate on politicisation in two ways: First, it sheds light on the so far disregarded role of NGOs in politicisation. Second, it builds a bridge to interest group literature by examining repertoires of NGOs in politicisation.
{"title":"Politicising European counter-terrorism: the role of NGOs","authors":"Lina Liedlbauer","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1947802","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1947802","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The article examines the role of NGOs in the politicisation of EU security. The focus of the empirical analysis lies on the field of EU counter-terrorism. The cases selected are two different types of legal acts, adopted in the aftermath of serious terrorist attacks in EU member states: The EU data retention directive and the EU passenger name record (PNR) directive. These policies present intrusiveness and relevance for Brussels-based and national civil rights NGOs since they both aim to touch upon individual liberties, like privacy rights or the right to protect personal data. The article goes further by opening up the black box of politicisation. It does so by assuming that politicisation is characterised by a certain level of salience, actor range and polarisation. The paper links politicisation literature to research on the influence of interest groups that are discussing, for example, voice, access or litigation as strategies. Therewith, the paper contributes to the scientific debate on politicisation in two ways: First, it sheds light on the so far disregarded role of NGOs in politicisation. Second, it builds a bridge to interest group literature by examining repertoires of NGOs in politicisation.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"30 1","pages":"485 - 503"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48700551","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：