Legal framing and the EU’s external relations: how NGOs shaped the negotiations for an Israel-Europol cooperation agreement

ABSTRACT

The role of law has received only scarce attention in the emerging debate on framing EU policy. Addressing this research gap, we develop a concept of legal framing that identifies different strategies through which frame entrepreneurs can shape the policy debate by activating the structural power of the law. We demonstrate the relevance of these strategies for the case of the negotiations for an Israel-Europol agreement in which the NGO MATTIN Group has emerged as an influential frame entrepreneur. The NGO conclusively established that the initial draft of the Israel-Europol agreement deviated in important respects from the EU’s own legal position. Over time, the EU increasingly felt compelled to maintain the unity and consistency of EU law, asking a number of additional conditions from Israel. The EU’s new stance had important implications for the deadlocked Israel-Europol negotiations as well as for EU-Israeli contractual relations more broadly.

KEYWORDS:

• EU external relations
• framing
• legal framing
• Europol
• Israel
• interest groups

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to the helpful comments from three anonymous referees as well as for the helpful feedback received at the panel ‘legal experts, judges and litigation’ at the 2018 ECPR Standing Group European Union conference at Science Po in Paris, particularly we would like to thank our discussant Daniel Kelemen.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Patrick Müller is Ikerbasque Research Fellow at the Department for International Relations at the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU). His research interests include the EU’s external relations, the EU’s role in global governance, EU-Mediterranean relations, and EU conflict resolution. He has published widely on these subjects, including articles in the Journal of Common Market Studies, the Journal of European Public Policy, the Journal of European Integration as well as books with major international presses.

Peter Slominski is an Assistant Professor at the Institute for European Integration Research at the University of Vienna, Austria. His research focuses on EU governance and the relation of law and politics. His work has been published in many journals including the Journal of European Public Policy, the Journal of Common Market Studies, West European Politics, the Journal of European Integration and the European Law Journal.

ORCID

Patrick Müller http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5967-4235

Peter Slominski http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6403-5833

Notes

1 Under Europol’s new regulation international cooperation permitting the exchange of personal data requires an international agreement between the EU and the third country.

2 While this article focuses on legal framing outside of court proceedings, it is conceivable that the result of these framing strategies may be evaluated by a court in the future.

3 Draft Israel-Europol Cooperation Agreement, Version of 10 March 2010, seen by the authors.

4 See Article 21 para. 3 TEU: ‘The Union shall ensure consistency between the different areas of its external action and between these and its other policies’; Article 7 TFEU: ‘The Union shall ensure consistency between its policies and activities, taking all of its objectives into account […].’

5 Discussion Note of the MATTIN Group, Version of 17 May 2010, seen by the authors.

6 See Discussion Note of the MATTIN Group of February 2010, seen by the authors.

7 Discussion Note of the MATTIN Group of 17 May 2010 and 26 July 2010, seen by the authors.

8 Discussion Note of the MATTIN Group of February 2010, seen by the authors.

9 The changes agreed in October 2010 were described in the draft version of the Cooperation agreement of 13 September 2013 (EDOC #687022v1).

10 During 2012 and 2013 several meetings took place between Europol, member states, the EEAS, the European Commission and Israel, in which different formulations where discussed but no agreement could be reached.

11 Discussion Note of the MATTIN Group of 17 May 2010, seen by the authors.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.