Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T18:33:20.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Common Threat and Common Response? The European Union's Counter-Terrorism Strategy and its Problems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Jörg Monar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

On the basis of an analysis of the European Union's common definition of the post-9/11 terrorist threat, this article provides a critical assessment of the EU's response. The EU has arrived at a reasonably specific definition of the common threat that avoids simplistic reductions and is a response that is sufficiently multidimensional to address the different aspects – internal and external, legislative and operational, repressive and preventive – of this threat. Yet the definition is undermined by differences between national threat perceptions. The preference for instruments of cooperation and coordination rather than integration, and poor implementation are having a negative impact on the effectiveness of the common response, the legitimacy of which is also weakened by limited parliamentary and judicial control.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , 2007 , pp. 292 - 313
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 TREVI stood officially for ‘Terrorisme, radicalisme et violence international’ but its real background seems to have been a play on words linked to the name of the Dutch minister Fonteijn (Dutch ‘fountain’) who chaired the meeting which established TREVI and a dinner the ministers had close to the Trevi Fountain in Rome.Google Scholar

2 Article 29 of the Treaty establishing the European Union (TEU) establishes the objective of providing citizens with a ‘high level of safety’ within the AFSJ and Article 61(e) of the TEC links police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters to the aim of ‘a high level of security by preventing and combating crime within the European Union’.Google Scholar

3 See the Conclusions of the extraordinary European Council meeting of 21 September 2001, which also defined terrorism – rather philosophically – as ‘a challenge to the conscience of every human being’ (EU Council document SN 140/01).Google Scholar

4 Official Journal of the European Communities, L 164/3, 22 June 2002, paragraphs 1 and 2.Google Scholar

5 Ibid., Article 1.Google Scholar

6 Titles V and VI TEU respectively.Google Scholar

7 Council of the European Union, A Secure Europe in a Better World. European Security Strategy, Brussels, Council of the European Union, 12 December 2003.Google Scholar

8 Ibid., paragraphs 4–6 and 8.Google Scholar

9 EU Council document 14469/4/05 REV 4, 30 November 2005.Google Scholar

10 Ibid., paragraphs 6–12.Google Scholar

11 Ibid., paragraph 2.Google Scholar

12 Ibid., paragraph 6 (‘terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda’).Google Scholar

13 Council document 14781/1/05, 24 November 2005, paragraph 3.Google Scholar

14 Europol, Terrorist Activity in the European Union. Situation and Trends Report (TE-SAT) 2004–2005, The Hague, Europol, 2006 (Europol #174172).Google Scholar

15 Ibid.Google Scholar

16 Council document 14781/1/05, 24 November 2005, paragraphs 10–11.Google Scholar

17 The Spanish police have estimated the total cost of the Madrid terrorist attacks at between €41,000 and €55,000. See Jordan, Javier and Wesley, Robert, ‘The Madrid Attacks: Results of Investigations Two Years Later’, Terrorism Monitor, 4: 4 (2006) pp. 1–4.Google Scholar

18 The flight of Osman Hussain, one of the suspected July 2005 London terrorists, from London to Rome might otherwise have been more difficult.Google Scholar

19 Standard Eurobarometer 65, First Results (field work: March–April 2006), July 2006, p. 5960.Google Scholar

20 National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, Oklahoma City, USA, at http://www.tkb.org/Category.jsp?catID=10097.Google Scholar

21 Data from the MIPT database, at http://www.tkb.org/Category.jsp?catID=10086, accessed 20 August 2006. For the definitions used see http://www.tkb.org/RandSummary.jsp?page=method. It is important to note that the RAND/MIPT counting methodology does not include failed or foiled terrorist attacks.Google Scholar

22 Ibid. and Standard Eurobarometer 65, First Results (field work: March–April 2006), July 2006, pp. 59–60.Google Scholar

23 See Marianne van Leeuwen (ed.), Confronting Terrorism: European Experiences, Threat Perceptions, and Policies, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2003.Google Scholar

24 In 2005 the author conducted a number of interviews with officials of the interior ministries of new EU member states (who wished to remain anonymous) that generally asserted that anti-terrorism measures were regarded as a much lower priority than, for instance, the fight against organized crime, money-laundering and corruption, with some even conceding that there was more rhetoric than concrete action in national anti-terrorism plans.Google Scholar

25 Europol produces the already mentioned annual Situation and Trends Report (TE-SAT) on terrorist activity in the EU and additional analytical file-based reports on specific networks and issues.Google Scholar

26 HM Government, Countering International Terrorism: The United Kingdom's Strategy: July 2006, London, HMSO, 2006, paragraphs 3–4 and 25–40.Google Scholar

27 Ibid.Google Scholar

28 Latest version is the Revised Action Plan on Terrorism: Update June 2006 (Commission document SEC(2006) 686, EU Council document 10043/06, 31 May 2006.Google Scholar

29 Agreement of 6 December 2001, at http://www.europol.eu.int/legal/agreements/Agreements/16268-2.pdf, allowing for the exchange of strategic data, and agreement of 20 December 2002, at http://www.europol.eu.int/legal/agreements/Agreements/16268-1.pdf, allowing for the exchange of personal data.Google Scholar

30 EU Council document 9153/03, 3 June 2003.Google Scholar

31 On the various aspects of EU cooperation with the USA in the internal security field after the 9/11 attacks see Wyn Rees, Transatlantic Counter-Terrorism Cooperation. The New Imperative, Abingdon and New York, Routledge, 2006, pp. 79–104.Google Scholar

32 For these other examples see Council document 10043/06, 31 May 2006, pp. 28–32.Google Scholar

33 See Oli Brown, EU Trade Policy and Conflict, Winnipeg, International Institute for Sustainable Development Publications, 2005, p. 7.Google Scholar

34 Official Journal of the European Communities, L 164/3, 22 June 2002, paragraphs 1 and 2.Google Scholar

35 See Dumitriu, Eugenia, ‘The E.U.'s Definition of Terrorism: The Council Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism’, German Law Journal, 5: 1 (2004), pp. 585–602.Google Scholar

36 Official Journal of the European Union, L 196, 2 August 2003.Google Scholar

37 Official Journal of the European Union, L 309, 25 November 2005.Google Scholar

38 Official Journal of the European Communities, L 190, 18 July 2002.Google Scholar

39 Its provisions are now part of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters that has entered into force on 23 August 2005 (Official Journal of the European Communites, C 197, 12 July 2000.Google Scholar

40 Official Journal of the European Communities, L 16, 22 January 2003.Google Scholar

41 Official Journal of the European Union, L 253, 29 September 2005.Google Scholar

42 Official Journal of the European Union, L 322, 9 December 2005.Google Scholar

43 Official Journal of the European Union, L 105, 13 April 2006. (although this is a more general instruments it has been partially motivated by anti-terrorism objectives, see paragraphs 8 and 9 of the preamble).Google Scholar

44 Council document 14781/1/05, 24 November 2005.Google Scholar

45 Ibid., in particular paragraphs 11, 13 and 15.Google Scholar

46 ‘Commission Activities in the Fight Against Terrorism’, European Commission Memo 06/269, 6 July 2006.Google Scholar

47 A typical example is the inclusion of terrorism in the risk analysis function of FRONTEX as regards the EU's external borders (EU Council document 10043/06, 31 May 2006, point 2.5.8).Google Scholar

48 Reformed unit D/1 in the Directorate General Justice Freedom and Security.Google Scholar

49 See European Commission press release IP/05/1031, 2 August 2005. Much more substantial funding allocations to the fight against terrorism are currently under discussion in the Council for the financial perspective 2007–13.Google Scholar

50 On Europol's information problems see the summary of the Chairman of the Council's Article 36 Committee of the High-Level Conference on the Future of Europol of 23/24 February 2006 (Council document 7868/06, 29 March 2006).Google Scholar

51 Council document 9589/06, 19 May 2006, paragraphs 26 and 31.Google Scholar

52 On these and other missed implementation deadlines see Council document 9589/06 ADD 1, 19 May 2006.Google Scholar

53 With the possible exception of the potential infringement of data-protection rights by its agencies, in particular Europol and Eurojust, and of the inclusion of persons and entities in the Council's ‘terrorist list’ for the purpose of freezing their assets. On 12 December 2006 the Court of First Instance ruled for the first time in favour of an appeal against an inclusion in this list on grounds of insufficient reasons given by the Council (Case T-228/02).Google Scholar

54 Some examples are given – from a very critical perspective – in the ‘Statewatch Scoreboard on post-Madrid Counter-Terrorism Plans’ of March 2004, at http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/mar/swscoreboard.pdf#search=%22Statewatch%20EU%20action%20plan%20terrorism%22.Google Scholar

55 The Parliament needs only to be consulted on such legislation – which gives it no power of amendment or rejection – and the Court of Justice's jurisdiction is limited by several member states not accepting preliminary rulings in this domain and by a more extensive public security exemption (Article 35 TEU). See on this issue European Parliament Policy Unit: Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs, ‘The Fight Against Terrorism: How to Improve Effectiveness with Due Regard for Fundamental Rights’, note prepared for the Joint Parliamentary Meeting between the European Parliament and the National Parliaments on 2/3 October 2006 in Brussels (EP document NT\630666EN.doc).Google Scholar