Conference Agenda

Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).

Session Overview
Panel 103: The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: Policing and Security
Monday, 02/Sep/2019:
10:50am - 12:20pm

Session Chair: Sarah Leonard, University of the West of England
Location: Room 12.08


The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: Policing and Security

Chair(s): Sarah Leonard (University of the West of England, Bristol)

Discussant(s): Hartmut Aden (Berlin School of Economics and Law)

The AFSJ has its roots in the EU’s old “third pillar,” which was founded in 1993 and covered “justice and home affairs.” Later, with the Amsterdam Treaty, the EU established the goal of creating an AFSJ through its policymaking. Today, this policy domain entails border management, asylum and migration, the fight against cross-border crime and terrorism, the protection of fundamental rights, and cooperation on civil law. Over the past decade or so, developments in the AFSJ have been paralleled by increased scholarly activity on this wide-ranging policy area. The small group of researchers who have been following the AFSJ since the 1990s have now been joined a new generation of scholars who have published a many fine PhD theses, books, articles, and chapters – especially over the past five years. Nevertheless, projects on the AFSJ remain underrepresented at professional conferences and in EU studies in general. The focus of this panel is specifically on police cooperation and criminal justice.


Presentations of the Symposium


Looking from the Outside In: Assessing the Use of Internal Security Logics in External Security Engagements around Europe

Raphael Bossong1, Mark Rhinard2
1SWP Berlin, 2Stockholm University

In an age of transboundary security risks, it is common to hear calls for joined-up responses to terrorism, migration, and cyber threats. Scholarly studies tend to focus on the externalization of internal security, predominantly using case studies on migration control. Comparatively neglected is the opposite side; namely, the consideration of internal security concerns in the practices of traditional external security providers. In the past, internal security concerns appeared to serve only as discursive window-dressing for legitimating existing modes of operation. However, considering renewed, high-level EU claims about the need to join up internal and external security over the last three years – and the unprecedented level of political salience of a “Europe that protects” - this paper critically examines whether there are now more significant shifts in the engagement of the EU’s CSDP/CSFP as well as of NATO in Europe’s near abroad. While an outright “militarization” of border security, as occasionally claimed by critical scholars, appears questionable, areas of potential overlap as well as competition vis-à-vis internal security agencies in areas of counterterrorism, cybersecurity and migration management are increasing. This calls not only for more detailed empirical research, but also theoretical reflection beyond standard institutionalist arguments about coordination and coherence.


Europol and EU Counter-Terrorism: Evaluating the CT Role of the Agency

Sarah Leonard1, Christian Kaunert2
1University of the West of England Bristol, 2University of South Wales

The European Police Office (Europol) is an international policing entity that was established in 1999 to promote cooperation among law-enforcement agencies in the EU. The Article 2.1 of the Europol Convention established that coping with terrorism as well as preventing terrorism would be one of Europol’s primary objectives within two years after the entering into force of the convention. However, it is pertinent to assert here that Europol’s emergence as a counter-terrorist entity has two periods – pre and post-9/11. To be precise, if in the former period Europol’s mandate was limited and it (Europol) was largely considered as a law-enforcement tool, then in the aftermath of 9/11 Europol’s counter-terrorism mandate was expanded due to its quick response to the 9/11 attacks and it started behaving more like a counter-terrorist actor. This paper aims to evaluate the current role of Europol in coping with terrorism, both traditional and non-traditional forms. Moreover, the paper shows which measures, strategies and means are required to further enhance Europol’s counter-terrorist role. Although Europol managed to evolve as a complex counter-terrorist entity, its role in coping with terrorism is confined to information sharing, and, is far from being seen as a truly operational counter-terrorism centre in 2018.


Police Cooperation in the EU for Protest and Summit Policing

Hartmut Aden
Berlin School of Economics and Law

Over the past decades, cooperation among police agencies has become the standard in the European Union and beyond in the preparation of large sports events such as European and World football championships. Police agencies exchange information about supporters who plan to travel to such events and especially about those suspected to have been involved in violence before. They exchange experts who know the travelling fans in order to give advice to the police agency in the country where the event takes place. This kind of cooperation has been openly promoted by the police since the early 2000s, and it has also been triggered and supported by European law.

In the paper that I propose for the conference, I ask to what extent such cooperation exists for large scale trans-border political protest events, often related to political summits, and how much it differs from the cooperation established for sports events. The fact that agencies cooperate (at least within the EU) for the policing of political protest events is largely known. However, the practices, the strategies applied, and the difficulties that may occur in this context are much less overtly promoted by the agencies. One explanation is related to the divergent police services and security agencies involved in the two types of events. For political protest policing, intelligence services and police services specialised in politically motivated crimes play an important role, which makes this kind of police cooperation much less transparent and less accountable, compared to the transnational policing of sports events.