ABSTRACT
Despite inherent political tensions, supranational institutions are increasingly involved in national security. EU institutions not only guide but also mobilize national resources or directly produce collective security. To make sense of those variations, the article conceptualizes ideal types of ‘supranational security states’ and develops a typological theory for understanding the emergence of the studied states. Based on policy documents and secondary sources, the article conducts a case-centric process-tracing analysis of three decades of EU reforms in (1) export control over dual-use technologies, (2) network and information security and (3) border security. Three types of supranational security states emerge, driven by their path-dependency logics and response to crises. Findings suggest a more nuanced understanding of security policy instruments and the dynamics of political authority in shared security spaces, contributing to debates on the positive and regulatory European security state, technology-driven security governance, and the coherence of the EU as a security actor.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful for the terrific feedback by the anonymous reviewers and for the wonderful comments provided by special issue editors, Andreas Kruck and Moritz Weiss, throughout the development of the paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Correction Statement
This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
Notes
1 Since direct interaction with threat actors is only possible through capacities, rather than rules, the logical 4th type of a supranational security state – ‘Rules-Direct’ – does not exist empirically.