An EU Homeland Security?1

1. The notion of ‘homeland security’ in the European context is only similar to the US policy in terms of the idea of an integrated effort to guard domestic security.

Sovereignty vs. Supranational Order

Abstract

Since the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, and particularly since 9/11, the current path of European integration may mean the difference between a strong and secure Europe and the disintegration of a grand, idealistic experiment. This is especially true in light of a growing transatlantic divide, and the need for new security policies to combat terrorism. As Europe grapples with this security issue, will strongly held beliefs about sovereignty cede ground to an untested supranational order? This article provides evidence that this process is already occurring, in large part because of the influential role of transnational experts in security technology. In the context of Europe, the possibility of a kind of EU Homeland Security is at the core of its future security role in the world.

Notes

1. The notion of ‘homeland security’ in the European context is only similar to the US policy in terms of the idea of an integrated effort to guard domestic security.

2. Desmond Dinan, Europe Recast: A History of the European Union (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004).

3. See, for example, Jeffrey Checkel, ‘Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change’, International Organization 55/3 (2001), pp. 553–588; Thomas Risse, ‘The Euro between National and European Identity’, Journal of European Public Policy 10/4 (2003), pp. 487–505; Peter J. Katzenstein and Jeffrey Checkel (eds), The Politics of European Identity Construction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming); Jeffrey Legro, ‘The Transformation of Policy Ideas’, American Journal of Political Science 44/3 (2000), pp. 419–432; Emanuel Adler, ‘Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics’, European Journal of International Relations 3/3 (1997), pp. 319–367; Kathleen McNamara, The Currency of Ideas (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999).

4. Jeffrey Checkel, ‘International Institutions and Socialization in Europe’, International Organization 59/1 (2005), p. 802.

5. Even though the Constitution was rejected by popular referenda in France and the Netherlands, it had been unanimously accepted by member state representatives prior to the national approval process.

6. Mai'a K. Davis Cross, The European Diplomatic Corps: Diplomats and International Cooperation from Westphalia to Maastricht (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007).

7. Harald Müller, Terrorism, Proliferation: A European Threat Assessment, Chaillot Papers 58 (Paris: Institute for Security Studies, 2003), pp. 21–53.

8. I define ‘scientific’ loosely here.

9. Ronald D. Asmus, Antony J. Blinken and Philip H. Gordon, ‘Nothing to Fear’, Foreign Affairs (November/December 2004). pp. 174–177. Also, Andrew Moravcsik, ‘Striking a New Transatlantic Bargain’, Foreign Affairs (July/August 2003).

10. Joseph Nye Jr., Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: Public Affairs, 2005). pp. 174–189.

11. See for example: Khoen Liem, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Security Research: Next Steps, Brussels, 7 September 2004, COM 590 final.

12. Peter M. Haas, ‘Banning Chlorofluorocarbons: Epistemic Community Efforts to Protect Stratospheric Ozone’, International Organization 46/1 (1992), p. 192.

13. Haas, ‘Banning Chlorofluorocarbons’, p. 187.

14. Haas, ‘Banning Chlorofluorocarbons’, p. 190.

15. Michael Zürn and Jeffrey T. Checkel, ‘Getting Socialized to Build Bridges: Constructivism and Rationalism, Europe and the Nation-State’, International Organization 59/1 (2005), p. 1048.

16. Liesbet Hooghe, ‘Several Roads Lead to International Norms, but Few via International Socialization: A Case Study of the European Commission’, International Organization 59/1 (2005), p. 865.

17. Hooghe, ‘Several Roads Lead to International Norms, but Few via International Socialization’, p. 866.

18. Andrew Moravcsik, ‘Is Something Rotten in the State of Denmark? Constructivism and European Integration’, Journal of European Public Policy 6/4 (1999), pp. 669–681.

19. International Crisis Group, ‘EU Crisis Response Capability Revisited’, Europe Report No. 160 (2005), p. 2.

20. Jon Elster, ‘Social Norms and Economic Theory’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 3/4 (1989), pp. 99–117.

21. Elster, ‘Social Norms and Economic Theory’, p. 4.

22. EU Commissioners Busquin and Liikaen convened this core group of security experts from a much larger population of possible candidates.

23. Epistemic communities are often conceived of as a category of professionals, but this does not preclude it from being coterminous with an official international body.

24. Khoen Liem, European Conference on Security Research, Brief Outlook to Security Research in the 7 ^th Framework Programme, Vienna, February 2006, DG ENTR-H4.

25. Khoen Liem, Security Research: The Next Steps.

26. The Group of Personalities is not simply a Commission committee, and therefore does not have official authority to propose legislation.

27. European Union Enterprise and Industry, Strong Response to EU Call for Security Proposals, 3 August 2004, available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/security/articles/article_1319_en.htm accessed on 7 May 2007.

28. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Research for a Secure Europe: Report of the Group of Personalities in the field of Security Research, Luxembourg, 2004.

29. European Union Research News Alert, EU Blueprint for Security Research Programme, Brussels, 9 September 2004, IP/04/1090.

30. Projects were categorized as either major or supporting projects.

31. European Union Press Releases, 13 New Security Research Projects to Combat Terrorism, Brussels, 2 August 2005, MEMO/05/277. The US Homeland Security Department also mobilizes a variety of technological responses to border and internal security. Certainly, technology is important but consumes no where near the amount of resources as are consumed in somewhat conventional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

32. European Union Press Releases, PASR 2006: 15 New Security Research Projects to Combat Terrorism, Brussels, 13 October 2006, MEMO/06/375.

33. Khoen Liem, Brief Outlook to Security Research in the 7 ^th Framework Programme.

34. United States General Accounting Office, Report to Congressional Committees, Combating Terrorism: Selected Challenges and Related Recommendations, September 2001.

35. Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000, Presidency Conclusions.

36. EU Blueprint for Security Research Programme.

37. European Defence Agency Press Release, Solana, Verheugen, Enders Urge Boost for EU Spending and Collaboration on Defence R&T, Brussels, 9 February 2006.

38. Mark John, ‘UK Stays Out as EU Launches Defence Research Fund’, Reuters, Brussels, 13 November 2006.

39. Mark Pollack, The Engines of European Integration: Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the EU (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).

40. Andrew Moravcsik, ‘A New Statecraft? Supranational Entrepreneurs and International Cooperation’, International Organization 53/2 (1999), pp. 267–306.

41. The main difference between CFSP and ESDP is that CFSP was created as part of the Maastricht Treaty to allow EU member states to speak with one voice on the international stage. The Amsterdam and Nice treaties added to CFSP, and one of those important additions was ESDP, which became operational in 2001.

42. Ferruccio Pastore, ‘Reconciling the Prince's Two “Arms”: Internal–External Security Policy Coordination in the European Union’, Occasional Paper 30 (Paris: Institute for Security Studies, October 2001).

43. European Union, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Prevention, Preparedness and Response to Terrorist Attacks, Brussels, 20 October 2004, Eurodocs COM 698 final.

44. Pastore, ‘Reconciling the Prince's Two “Arms”’.

45. For example, see: Finnish Minister of the Interior Kari Rajamäki, Press Release Finland's EU Presidency, Immigration, Terrorism Border Control, and more Effective Decision-Making on Police Cooperation High on the Agenda in Tempere, 15 September 2006.

46. Elspeth Guild and Sergio Carrera, ‘No Constitutional Treaty? Implications for the Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice’, Centre for European Policy Studies, Working Document No. 231, October 2005, p. 1.

47. Personal interviews with Commission officials, Brussels, Summer 2005.

48. Robert Keohane, ‘Political Authority after Intervention: Gradations in Sovereignty’, in J.L. Holzgrefe and Robert Keohane (eds), Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 289.

49. Emanuel Adler, ‘Imagined (Security) Communities: Cognitive Regions in International Relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 26/2 (1997), pp. 249–277.

50. Müller, Terrorism, Proliferation.