The dynamics of institutional behaviour in EU justice and home affairs: roles, representative claims, and varying policy positions

Abstract

This article investigates the reasons behind varying institutional positions in the European Union’s (EU) area of justice and home affairs (JHA). It argues that such instances of institutional behaviour cannot be fully understood without examining how each institution seeks to legitimize its role in the EU political system. A novel theoretical framework on institutional behaviour is advanced, connecting individual policy positions and governance choices to (1) institutional roles developed within different types of organizational structure, and (2) the representative claims made by officials involved in decision-making. The framework draws on insights from organizational theory regarding institutional role expectations and a constructivist approach to representation borrowed from the work of Michael Saward. Using three cases of JHA legislation from the post-Lisbon period, it is shown that the framework can explain varying patterns of institutional behaviour by exploring lines of justification present in the institutional discourse.

Keywords:

• EU decision-making
• institutional behaviour
• justice and home affairs
• representative claims-making
• Lisbon Treaty

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this article was presented at the UACES 45th Annual Conference in Bilbao, Spain (7–9 September 2015) in the panel ‘Officials: Roles, Attitudes and Behaviours’. I am grateful to panel participants for their helpful comments as well as for the feedback provided over time by Uwe Puetter, Ariadna Ripoll Servent, Agnes Batory, Marie-Pierre Granger, Philippe C. Schmitter, and the two anonymous referees.

Notes

1. For case selection, see section ‘Three cases of legislative decision-making’.

2. The two quotes from Cecilia Malmström and Claude Guéant were given after a meeting of the JHA Council in May 2012 (Vandystadt 2012).

3. In this case, party lines did not matter much: for instance, the group of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) voted in favour of the compromise in LIBE but against it in EMPL (Interview N, 21 October 2014).

4. In the US, the implementation of civil asset forfeiture has led to widespread abuse by police forces who confiscated private property of many citizens without proper cause (Williams et al. 2010).