European competences do not exist and develop for the sake of the European Union; the European Union exists and develops in spite of the states, as a solution of their failures, as they are forced to accept that the Union level can offer better solutions in a particular field than the national level. Cooperation in Police and Criminal Law Matters, the 3rd pillar of the Union, is still subject to intergovernmental cooperation among the Member States. The terrorist attacks in the USA and in Spain had undoubtedly a strong impact on this area, leading to a visible intensification of inter-state cooperation. This consequence is only natural, since terrorism is a crime, therefore a matter for police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters; terrorism is a global issue, affecting multiple states and therefore its combating needs the cooperation among states. Unlike on the international stage, in European Union’s case more than intensified cooperation could be possible, by way of transferring 3rd pillar matters to the supranational level of the 1st pillar.
This paper is putting forward an assessment on the likelihood of this process taking place, within the following structure: a brief overview of the way anti-terrorism measures affected the 3rd pillar, followed by an assessment of intergovernmental cooperation and communitisation as likely and recommendable for the cooperation in police and criminal matters. Finally, the “case-study” of the Framework Decision regarding the definition of terrorist offences will serve as exemplification of the arguments brought in the previous chapter.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. The EU Anti-terrorism Strategy in the Third Pillar
a) Evolution of the third pillar
b) The 9/11 effect
III. Cooperation or Communitisation
a) Defining the terms
b) More likely
1. The “Will of the People”
2. The two 11s
c) More recommendable
IV. The definition of terrorism
a) The international level (UN)
b) EU
1. The Framework Decision
2. Argumentation
V. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This paper examines the evolution and future of cooperation in Police and Criminal Law matters (the Third Pillar of the EU) in the context of the terrorist threats faced by Member States. It investigates whether the intergovernmental method is sufficient or if a transition toward the supranational "communitisation" method is a more effective and recommendable path for ensuring internal security.
- The institutional shift from intergovernmental cooperation to the Community method.
- The impact of post-9/11 security requirements on EU integration strategies.
- The theoretical debate between intergovernmentalism, neo-functionalism, and federalism regarding European integration.
- The assessment of the "Framework Decision" on combating terrorism as a case study for supranational competence.
Excerpt from the Book
2. The two 11s
This chapter attempts to interpret the terrorist attacks as determining a reactivation of the integration theories towards more communitisation, by showing its benefit, added-value as compared to the current situation, the will of the people and the European values as pointing to it.
One of the most efficient ways to generally gather states together is the sense of common threat. Terrorism in an EU context allowed however more than that. Terrorism is not a classical enemy/criminal: it is hardly visible, mobile and extremely dangerous. The EU is not a classical international organisation and not a classical state/federation. People are allowed to move freely on its territory, but on the other hand, there are no central law enforcement agencies. Cooperation of states in the fight against terrorism is necessary on the international level, precisely because terrorism is global. The EU has to go a step further because it has no internal borders and, most importantly, because it can. It would make no sense to ignore the structures that allow for increased crime fighting integration whilst it is clear that European nation states on their own not only are less productive on a general basis, but also have a lot more to lose in comparison to non-integrated states.
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: The introduction outlines the shift in EU competencies, highlighting that European cooperation exists to solve national failures and addresses the increasing need for integrated security policies after the 9/11 attacks.
II. The EU Anti-terrorism Strategy in the Third Pillar: This chapter traces the institutional history of Justice and Home Affairs and explores how terrorist threats accelerated structural innovations, such as the European Arrest Warrant.
III. Cooperation or Communitisation: This section provides a theoretical framework comparing the intergovernmental and Community methods, assessing their suitability for European security integration.
IV. The definition of terrorism: This chapter analyzes the difficulties in reaching a universal definition of terrorism and evaluates the EU's Framework Decision as a comprehensive attempt to harmonize the legal understanding of terrorist offenses.
V. Conclusion: The conclusion synthesizes the arguments for communitisation, suggesting that while the transition won't be immediate, common security requirements provide a new dynamic for deeper European integration.
Keywords
Third Pillar, European Union, Communitisation, Intergovernmental Method, Terrorism, Police Cooperation, Judicial Cooperation, Integration Theory, Framework Decision, European Security, Supranationalism, Terrorism Definition, 9/11, European Law, Criminal Justice.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on the institutional evolution of the EU's Third Pillar and the ongoing debate regarding whether police and judicial cooperation should remain intergovernmental or move toward a more integrated, supranational approach.
What are the core thematic areas discussed in the work?
The work covers institutional history, European integration theories, the impact of international terrorism on policy-making, and the specific legal harmonization of terrorist offense definitions.
What is the primary objective of this study?
The primary goal is to assess the likelihood and necessity of 'communitisation' in the realm of internal security, using the Framework Decision on combating terrorism as a practical case study.
Which scientific methodology does the author employ?
The author uses a qualitative analysis approach, synthesizing integration theories (such as neo-functionalism and federalism) with an empirical evaluation of EU legislative documents and political responses to terrorism.
What topics are covered in the main section of the paper?
The main sections treat the historical evolution of the Third Pillar, the theoretical justification for increased integration, and a legal assessment of how the EU defines and combats terrorism.
How would you characterize the primary keywords of this publication?
The study is characterized by concepts of institutional cooperation, security strategies, legal harmonization, and the dynamics of European political integration.
Why is the "9/11 effect" significant in this analysis?
The "9/11 effect" is identified as a critical catalyst that created a sense of urgency, allowing Member States to overcome traditional reticence and adopt anti-terrorism measures that might otherwise have taken years to negotiate.
How does the author evaluate the "Framework Decision"?
The author views the Framework Decision as a significant step beyond simple extradition cooperation, arguing that it serves as an exercise of symbolic "state power" that reflects an emerging supranational competence in protecting common values.
- Arbeit zitieren
- M.A. Daniela Pisoiu (Autor:in), 2005, Reactive Integration, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/123192
