A University of Sussex DPhil thesis Available online via Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/ This thesis is protected by copyright which belongs to the author. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Please visit Sussex Research Online for more information and further details Shifting Sands and Changing Minds: The Role of the European Parliament in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice Ariadna Ripoll Servent Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Contemporary European Studies University of Sussex August 2011 ii Statement I hereby declare that this thesis has not been and will not be, submitted in whole or in part to another University for the award of any other degree. Signature:<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< iii Acknowledgements Writing a DPhil dissertation is never a straightforward journey. It requires the support and encouragement of all those surrounding you to arrive safely. It is therefore a pleasure to thank all the people that helped me through this journey. First and foremost, I would like to thank my two supervisors, Prof. Jörg Monar and Prof. Paul Taggart, for taking a chance on me and sharing their advice; they were the compass to this journey and the most reliable point of reference. I would also like to thank the Sussex European Institute in all its shapes and forms for the many chances to learn how to be a good academic and an even better colleague. A special thanks to Amanda Sims, who with her hard work and wise words kept my journey going. Throughout the time I spent doing research, I had the luck of receiving numerous and often invaluable comments. I would like to thank Dr. Charlotte Burns for her early advice and Dr. Kai Oppermann for his comments on later work. I am also grateful to the discussants and participants that asked questions and provided suggestions in various workshops and conferences. Parts of this DPhil dissertation have been previously published in peer-reviewed publications. In 2009, the article "Setting Priorities: Functional and Substantive Dimensions of Irregular Immigration and Data Protection under Co- decision" was published in the Journal of Contemporary European Research (5(2), pp. 225-242). In 2010, I published "Point of No Return? The European Parliament after Lisbon and Stockholm" in European Security (19(2), pp. 191-207) and ‚The European Parliament and the «Returns» Directive: The End of Radical Contestation; the Start of Consensual Constraints‛, as an SEI working paper (nº117). In 2011, I published ‚Co-decision in the European Parliament: Comparing Rationalist and Constructivist Explanations of the Returns Directive. Journal of Contemporary European Research‛ in the Journal of Contemporary European Research (7(1), pp. 3-22) and ‚Playing the Co-Decision Game? Rules’ Changes and Institutional Adaptation at the LIBE Committee‛ as an online article for the Journal of European Integration. Many thanks to the anonymous reviewers and to the various editors of the special issues (Prof. Juliet Lodge, Dr. Christian Kaunert and Dr. Sarah Léonard) for offering essential feedback and the necessary guidance to make my work advance. There has also been a more material support to this journey. In this sense, research would not have been possible without the support of the scholarship granted by the Lady Monica Cockfield Memorial Trust and the François Duchêne travel bursary offered by the iv Sussex Branch of the European Movement; my most sincere gratitude for making this journey easier and more comfortable. On the other hand, my research would not have even existed without all the people that agreed to share their knowledge and opinions with me. I am indebted to all the interviewees and I hope to have reflected their views and words in the most accurate way. A special thanks to all the friends and colleagues that have travelled with me or offered me shelter during my visits. Enormous thanks to Míriam Mir (and Karsten Herzmann), who always opened her home and offered me not only a bed but also company and all kinds of support when I most needed it. Many thanks also to all my other friends in Brussels (especially Skander Nasra, Luis Bouza, Thomas Kostera, Mauro Gagliardi, Andrea Maier and Kevin O’Connell). A big hug to my EP girls, Amy Busby and Maja Kluger Rasmussen, for sharing nerdy facts and many conference days and another to Alex MacKenzie for sharing SWIFT and volunteering to read my work. Dr. Dan Keith has also read this dissertation and for this, and the many hours we’ve spent together all over Sussex, I’m extremely grateful. Thanks chief! A general thanks to all those that shared the various offices in Arts C and Friston (Stijn van Kessel, Lefteris Zenerian, John FitzGibbon, Ruth Johnson, Emma Sanderson-Nash, Marko Stojic and Martine Huberty); to Suchi Pande and Machiko Tsubura for sharing meals, talks and walks with me; and a most special thanks to Monika Bil, Ezel Tabur and Satoko Horii, who had the trouble of not only sharing an office but also a house. Finally, this journey would not have even started without the support, help and love of all my family. My father has been the steadiest pillar during these last years. My grandparents, aunt, uncle, and cousins have always remained convinced that I could make it. I am grateful for their trust in me. My gratitude goes also to the Büttner family, who has always welcomed me and helped me through my most stressful periods. But if anyone deserves a thank you, it is my own Dr. Thomas Büttner for always being there and never doubting me. There was one person that could not share this journey. My mother left moments before I set off for this adventure. She was nevertheless always by my side and gave me the strength and confidence that made it all possible. This dissertation is dedicated to her. v UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN CONTEMPORARY EUROPEAN STUDIES SHIFTING SANDS AND CHANGING MINDS: THE ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IN THE AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE SUMMARY After the extension of the European Parliament’s (EP) decision-making powers introduced by the Treaties of Amsterdam and Lisbon, it was assumed that the EP would increase the democratic credentials of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) and, given the EP’s traditional promotion of civil liberties and human rights, that it would also tip the balance towards a more rights-based approach. Six years on, these expectations have not been fulfilled. The objective of this study is to evaluate why the EP, now a co- legislator, has been unable (or unwilling) to maintain its past policy preferences. In order to understand this gap between expectations and actions, the study looks at three case studies (the ‘Data retention’ directive, the ‘Returns’ directive and the SWIFT Agreement) and compares the impact that the introduction of more powers for the EP has had on these different episodes. In order to maximise the number of possible explanations, the study uses rational-choice and constructivist institutionalist approaches to identify the reasons behind the change in the policy preferences of the EP. In this sense, it aims to uncover the levels and direction of change as well as the main conditions and drivers that led to the abandonment of its previous policy positions. vi Table of Contents: Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Theoretical and Methodological Framework ........................................................ 10 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1. Meta-theoretical issues in ‘new institutionalism’ ................................................................... 11 2.1.1. ‘New institutionalism’ .................................................................................................. 11 2.1.2. Ontology and epistemology ........................................................................................ 13 2.1.3. Structure and agency .................................................................................................... 15 2.1.4. Stability and change...................................................................................................... 17 2.2. Research design ....................................................................................................................... 19 2.2.1. Operationalisation ........................................................................................................ 19 2.2.2. Research methods ......................................................................................................... 20 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 27 Chapter 3: Setting the Context ..................................................................................................... 31 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 31 3.1. The Area