12. The institutions of Justice and Home Affairs:

2021 ◽  
pp. 276-298
Author(s):  
Andrew Geddes
Keyword(s):  
Organizational Development ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Internal Security ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
New Ways Of Working ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
Single European Act ◽  
Border Controls

This chapter analyses the institutions of EU member state cooperation on issues such as asylum, refugee protection, migration, border controls, police cooperation, and judicial cooperation. Once seen as the prerogative of member states and as defining features of states’ identities as sovereign, complex incremental institutional change established new ways of working on internal security issues and reconfigured the strategic setting from which these issues are viewed. The recent history of these developments provides insight into the EU’s institutional and organizational development, while also demonstrating how, why, and with what effects these issues have become politicized in EU member states. The politicization of migration and asylum, in particular, complements this chapter’s focus on institutional developments by identifying the source of key pressures and strains to which these institutions have been exposed. The most recent COVID-19 pandemic restricting the free movement of people across Europe, the 2020 fire that broke out at the Moria refugee camp at Lesbos, and the European Commission’s ‘New Pact on Migration and Asylum’ of September 2020 raised serious questions about the content and viability of key components of the EU’s approach to security and human rights. From being a policy arena that was not even mentioned in the Treaty of Rome or Single European Act (SEA), internal security within an ‘area of freedom, security, and justice’ (AFSJ) is now a key EU priority. This chapter pinpoints key developments, specifies institutional roles, and explores the relationships over time between changing conceptualizations of security and institutional developments.

12. Police and judicial cooperation: Integrating security interests

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Geddes
Keyword(s):  
Policy Development ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Internal Security ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
Border Controls ◽  
European Union Member States

This chapter examines the extensive, diverse, and politically contentious range of issues that usually fall within the domain of interior or justice ministries in the European Union member states. EU member states seek to work together on issues such as asylum, refugee protection, migration, border controls, police cooperation, and judicial cooperation. The chapter first explains the meaning of ‘security’ before discussing formal and informal transgovernmentalism as well as partial communitarization, along with the five-year policy plan drafted by the interior ministers of the member states in Tampere, Finland, specifying their objectives in the area of internal security policy and cooperation. It also explores three areas in which there has been policy development in the Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice (AFSJ): anti-terrorism; migration, asylum, and border controls; and the European arrest warrant. The chapter concludes with an assessment of the implications of the Lisbon Treaty for EU’s internal security.

Forced Migration Governance: In Search of Sovereignty

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 923-948 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anuscheh Farahat ◽  
Nora Markard
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Third World ◽  
Forced Migration ◽  
Loss Of Control ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
The Eu

The European Union (EU) Member States have experienced the recent refugee protection crisis in the EU as a de-facto loss of control over their borders. They find themselves unable to subject entry into their territory to a sovereign decision. In response, the Member States have sought to regain full sovereignty over matters of forced migration, both unilaterally and cooperatively, seeking to govern a phenomenon—forced migration—that by definition defies governance. Unilateral measures include forced migration caps and a search for ways to circumvent responsibility under the Dublin system. Cooperative efforts by EU Member States include the search for ways to more effectively govern forced migration at the EU level and beyond. Supranational EU efforts include the introduction of an internal relocation scheme and support for Italy and Greece in processing asylum claims in so-called “hotspots.” Beyond the EU, Member States are seeking to externalize protection responsibility to third world countries under international agreements, in particular, by returning asylum seekers to Turkey. This Article outlines the unilateral and cooperative governance efforts undertaken and shows that states' sovereign decisions over migration are significantly limited in the case of forced migrants, both by EU law and by international law.

Caught Between National and Supranational Values: Limitations to Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters as Part of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice within the European Union

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-72
Author(s):  
Olivia den Hollander
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Third ◽  
The One ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

AbstractCurrently, the European Union is based on both supranational (first pillar) and international (second and third pillar) law. The third pillar signifies police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and although formally based on international law, it has been under increasing "supranational pressure" by the developments in the "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice". This Area is focused on a set of common values and principles closely tied to those of the single market and its four "freedoms". The main argument of this article is that the legal framework of the third pillar is an impediment to judicial cooperation in criminal matters in general, and to the coordination of conflicts of jurisdiction and the principle of ne bis in idem in particular. The legal framework of the third pillar finds itself in the middle of an identity crisis, since it can neither be identified as a traditional intergovernmental, nor as a supranational institutional framework. Criminal law is a politically sensitive matter, which on the one hand explains why the EU member states are reluctant to submit their powers over the issue to the European level and on the other hand, it implies that if the EU member states really want to cooperate on such an intensive level, they will have to submit some of their powers in order to strengthen EU constitutional law. The article suggests a reform of the third pillar through the method of "communitization", which is exactly what will happen in case the EU Reform Treaty will enter into force. This would offer the ingredients for a true international community in which the ambitious agenda of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice can realise its aim of a common set of values and principles which supersedes those of each of the member states individually.

scholarly journals Is the “show-the-flag” strategy relevant for Visegrad countries in securing the EU?

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (54) ◽  
pp. 223-246
Author(s):  
Hana N. Hlaváčková ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Security Policy ◽  
Organised Crime ◽  
European Security ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
Security Environment ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Visegrád Countries ◽  
The Eu

The European security environment has changed and the EU has become more independent in its security policy. New threats faced by the EU in 2014 (the migration crises) and other remaining threats (such as terrorism, organised crime, piracy) need solving by its greater involvement in the region. One problem that the EU tries to solve is the inconsistency of member states in security issues. In this article, we focus on the V4 group and their opinions towards EU security. This article examines strategies adopted by small/new EU member states to protect European borders and European territories and regions outside the EU that affect their security. For a long time, the V4 countries only participated sporadically in EU missions. The article shows what changes took place and what were the reasons for the decision to participate or not in the EU activities. The article raises the question of whether the show-the-flag strategy adopted by the V4 countries and their participation in EU missions is relevant for ensuring European security nowadays.

Sheer numbers in Greece will defeat EU migrant policy

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Northern Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Temporary Suspension ◽  
Border Controls ◽  
Balkan States ◽  
Migrant Flow

Significance Yesterday, the Macedonian authorities began demanding additional documentation from migrants. An interior ministry spokeswoman said they were temporarily denying entry to Afghans. The aim is to avoid migrants backing up in Macedonia, frustrated in their aim of moving on to wealthier northern Europe by border controls imposed by Austria, Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia. However, that is pushing the problem onto Greece, where more migrants are arriving every day from Turkey. Athens has protested to Vienna that it was not invited to tomorrow's meeting of Balkan states on the crisis. Impacts Temporary suspension from Schengen's visa-free regime would weigh heavily on Greece's economy, damping tourism and slowing trade. Greek students and entrepreneurs seeking to study and do business abroad would also face bureaucratic hurdles. Resentment will build in Greece that fellow EU member states are failing to help it manage the migrant flow -- even hindering it.

scholarly journals Inkorporacja acquis Schengen do prawa Unii Europejskiej i prawa krajowego państw członkowskich

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 69-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Artur Gruszczak
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Internal Security ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Political Analysis ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Eu

This article takes up in the form of an interdisciplinary legal and political analysis the issue of the incorporation of the Schengen acquis into European Union law and the national legal systems of the EU member states in the light of the concept of a hybrid system of territorial governance. Accordingly, the Schengen acquis stimulated the process of intersecting the interests of internal security and the protection of Member States’ borders with the supranational ideological imperative with regard to the principle of free movement of persons. The argument developed in this article is that the incorporation of the Schengen acquis into EU law consolidated hybridity of the legal and institutional construction of the EU after the Amsterdam Treaty as a result of the contradiction between the logic of political bargain at the intergovernmental level and the vertical spillover generated at the supranational level in the institutional and decision-making dimensions. The conclusions point to the emergence, as a result of “schengenisation”, of the area of freedom, security and justice in the EU, in which the principle of free movement of people brought about diversification of the states’ adaptation mechanisms in relation to the ideologically determined project of transformation of the system of management of the territory and borders within the European Union.

scholarly journals Strengthening Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters Between the EU and Neighboring Countries: The Example of Ukraine and the Baltic States

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-133
Author(s):  
Iryna Izarova
Keyword(s):  
Geographical Location ◽  
Baltic States ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Association Agreement ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
The Baltic ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Judicial cooperation between EU Member-States and Ukraine is still at a basic level. The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement does not prove an appropriate approach, and their relations are regulated mostly with the bilateral agreements. The Baltic states and Ukraine, which are the focus of this research, are deeply engaged by their close geographical location, common historical issues and friendly relations, and seek further development of their relations. This should be accompanied by mutual judiciary trust and therefore by the corresponding evolution of bilateral relations proper to this trust. The following types of judicial cooperation in civil matters were chosen as objects of this research: recognition of Baltic States’ courts’ judgments in Ukraine, as well as service of documents and taking of evidence in Ukraine. The conclusions consist of several proposals related to deeper judicial cooperation between Member-States and third countries, illustrated by the example of the Baltic States and Ukraine, in light of the right to fair trial and mutual trust in the judiciary.

Counter-Terrorism and the EU Strategy for Border Security: Framing Suspects with Biometric Documents and Databases

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anneliese Baldaccini
Keyword(s):  
Border Security ◽  
Biometric Data ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
The Us ◽  
Biometric Systems ◽  
New Policies ◽  
And Storage ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis article examines the way in which the EU amd its Member States have approached border security issues since the terrorist attacks in the US on 11 September 2001. A key aspect of this approach has been to tighten control of borders and the safety of documents by the use of biometric systems. The new policies on border security and document security are resulting in the mass collection and storage of biometric data in relation to third-country nationals seeking entry into the territory of EU Member States, and in relation to EU nationals within the context of travel and identity documents. These developments are significant as the Union is considering the potential offered by biometrics not only for the effective management of borders but also for the prevention and combating of crime.

scholarly journals Order of the International Ban and Albania's Agreements with Other Countries

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 93
Author(s):  
Nikolin Hasani
Keyword(s):  
International Order ◽  
Decision Framework ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Legal Force

Higher stage of cooperation in criminal matters between European states is undisputed the adoption of the International Order of Prohibition (UEN) which was materialized by means of Decision Framework Constitution Nr.584 , dated June 13, 2002. This decision was endorsed by the EU Council and published in its official bulletin on June 18, 2002. Among the EU member states this order replaces classical Extradition procedure, except when some member states have declared that they will continue to implement the conventions of Extradition. From this moment the extradition procedures applied within the EU, are without legal force. The aim of this paper is to present a brief analyse of Albania’s agreements with other countries, pointing out specific aims of them, specific conditions of implementations according the specifical need for judicial cooperation between Albania and each of these countries

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document