European Integration in the Field of Counterterrorism Can Traditional Integration Theories Explain the Measures Taken to Combat the New Threats Facing Europe?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EUROPEAN INTEGRATION IN THE FIELD OF COUNTERTERRORISM CAN TRADITIONAL INTEGRATION THEORIES EXPLAIN THE MEASURES TAKEN TO COMBAT THE NEW THREATS FACING EUROPE? EMMA JOHANNESSON Master’s Thesis Fall 2018 Department of Government Uppsala University Supervisor: Thomas Persson Word count: 19475 Abstract European integration has been a widely discussed topic within political science since the creation of the EU. In recent years, signs of disintegration have been observed due to widespread euroscepticism, major crises and public discontent. Simultaneously, cross-border terrorism has become an acute issue for the EU with terror attacks being executed in several member states. This study examines the development of European integration in counterterrorism from 2014 to 2017 to determine if integration in this field has continued or halted. Two traditional integration theories, neofunctionalism and liberal intergovern- mentalism, are applied to understand the driving factors for the European integration process in this field. The results show that European integration in counterterrorism has persisted, and even accelerated in the aftermath of recent terror attacks. The driving factors for this development can be explained by a combination of the applied theories, but the framework of neofunctionalism is unexpectedly strong. Keywords: EU, European Integration, Terrorism, Counterterrorism, Neofunctionalism, Liberal Intergovernmentalism 2 Table of Contents LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 4 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 5 2. THEORY ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 2.1 INTEGRATION THEORIES ............................................................................................................................................. 8 2.1.1 Neofunctionalism ................................................................................................................................................ 8 2.1.2 Liberal Intergovernmentalism .................................................................................................................... 12 2.1.3 Integration Theories in Crises - the Financial Crisis and the Refugee Crisis ........................... 15 2.2 EU COUNTERTERRORISM ........................................................................................................................................ 22 3. METHOD AND MATERIAL ..................................................................................................................... 26 3.1 METHOD ..................................................................................................................................................................... 26 3.2 MATERIAL .................................................................................................................................................................. 27 3.3 OPERATIONALIZATION OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION ........................................................................................ 30 3.4 OPERATIONALIZATION OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION THEORIES .................................................................... 31 3.4.1 Neofunctionalism .............................................................................................................................................. 32 3.4.1 Liberal intergovernmentalism .................................................................................................................... 34 4. RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 37 4.1 INTEGRATIVE MEASURES IN COUNTERTERRORISM 2014-2017 ..................................................................... 37 4.1.1 Strategic Agenda for the Union in Times of Change .......................................................................... 37 4.1.2 The attack on Charlie Hebdo, January 2015 ......................................................................................... 38 4.1.3 The European Agenda on Security is Launched .................................................................................. 39 4.1.4 Push From the Commission President for more European integration .................................... 40 4.1.5 Coordinated Terror Attacks in Paris, November 2015 ..................................................................... 40 4.1.6 Proposal for a Directive on Combating Terrorism ............................................................................. 43 4.1.7 Limited Possibilities for Stakeholder Engagement ............................................................................ 45 4.1.8 Terror Attacks in Brussels, March 2016 ................................................................................................. 45 4.1.9 European Political Strategy Centre Calls for More Integration ................................................... 46 4.1.10 The European Commission Proposes a European Security Union ............................................ 47 4.1.11 The Commission Portfolio for the Security Union is Introduced ............................................... 49 4.1.12 JHA Council Agrees on a Roadmap for Better Information Exchange .................................... 49 4.1.13 The Directive on Combating Terrorism is Adopted ......................................................................... 50 4.1.14 Differentiated European Integration .................................................................................................... 52 4.1.15 The European Parliament’s Special Committee on Counter Terrorism is Approved ....... 53 4.1.16 Terror Attack in Barcelona, August 2017 ........................................................................................... 53 4.2 ADDITIONAL MEASURES TAKEN BY THE MEMBER STATES .............................................................................. 54 4.3 THE COSTS OF TERRORISM ..................................................................................................................................... 55 4.4 SUMMARY OF RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................ 57 5. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................... 61 5.1 EUROPEAN INTEGRATION IN COUNTERTERRORISM ........................................................................................... 61 5.2 EUROPEAN INTEGRATION THEORIES IN EU COUNTERTERRORISM ................................................................ 62 6. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................. 65 7. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 68 3 List of Abbreviations AFSJ – Area of Freedom, Security and Justice ECB – European Central Bank EBCG – European Border and Coast Guard EEAS – European External Action Service EMU – European Monetary Union EP – European Parliament EPSC – European Political Strategy Centre ESM – European Stability Mechanism EU – European Union JHA – Justice and Home Affairs LI – Liberal Intergovernmentalism NF – Neofunctionalism TEU – Treaty of the European Union 4 1. Introduction In recent years, terror attacks have been executed on European soil several times in the form of bombings, shootings and by using vehicles to run over civilians. These attacks have caused fear among the public and have put counterterrorism at the top of the agenda for the EU institutions. As of November 2017, 7456 European nationals or residents were involved in jihadist networks (CAT, 2017), and according to Europol’s former director Rob Wainwright, “another attempted attack is almost certain” (Walt, 2016). In the latest Eurobarometer on Europeans’ attitudes towards security (2017), 95 percent of the respondents replied that terrorism is an important challenge to EU security. This is an increase of three percentage points since the previous survey that was done in March 2015. As counterterrorism is a concern for many Europeans, it is important to understand how legislation is achieved and who is to be held accountable for decision-making in this field. In the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ), where counterterrorism is included, the EU and the member states have shared competence, meaning that the member states have the possibility to exercise its competence to the extent that the Union has not, or where the Union has ceased to exercise its competence (TFEU, 2012, Article 2 and 4). Terrorism is not a new issue for European states, but it was not until the terror attack on World Trade Center in New York on 11 September 2001 (9/11) that it became prioritized on EU level. Since the attacks on 9/11 up until the summer of 2013, the EU proposed 238 new measures connected to counterterrorism. De Londras and Doody (2015, Ch. 1) give a comprehensive overview of these legislative counterterrorism measures and conclude that