Civil security in the EU: national persistence versus EU ambitions?

Kirchner, Emil; Fanoulis, Evangelos; Dorussen, Han

doi:10.1080/09662839.2014.968133

Cited by 23 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Kleine, 2014) in the European integration literature. The current study thus confirms the previous empirical observations in such fields, inter alia, as the environment, regional development, research and technological development (Pollack, 1994), critical infrastructure protection (Pursiainen, 2009), energy (Maltby, 2013), civil security (Kirchner et al, 2015), Common Foreign and Security Policy (Bergmann, 2019; Riddervold, 2016; Riddervold & Rosén, 2016), and health policy (Greer & Löblová, 2017).…”

Section: What Explains the Unfinished Europeanization Of Nras?supporting

confidence: 91%

“…In our case, one could argue that member states are just working in a win‐win setting with the EU but are still well aware of their sovereignty. This logic has, however, often been seen as incapable of capturing the real dynamics in European policies in such “hybrid” areas as ours (e.g., Kirchner et al, 2015).…”

Section: What Explains the Unfinished Europeanization Of Nras?mentioning

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

National disaster risk assessments in Europe. How comparable are they and why?

Pursiainen

Rød

2021

Risk Hazard & Crisis Pub Pol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the late 2000s, a process started that was designed to approximate the national disaster risk assessments in the European Union. Member states are currently obliged to prepare their assessments every three years. The European Commission will summarize the results, which should not only lead to a better overview of common risks but also direct future joint activities and investments. To date, two rounds of this new practice have been implemented and summarised. The present study investigates how and why this largely informal integrative practice was born, how it is facilitated, and how successful it has been vis‐à‐vis the expectations, especially achieving a relative comparability of the national risk assessments.

show abstract

Section: What Explains the Unfinished Europeanization Of Nras?supporting

confidence: 91%

Section: What Explains the Unfinished Europeanization Of Nras?mentioning

confidence: 91%

National disaster risk assessments in Europe. How comparable are they and why?

Pursiainen

Rød

2021

Risk Hazard & Crisis Pub Pol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Civil security is thought of as a public good ensured by the state (COM 2012), distinct from the military security on the one hand; and from the fi eld of law and order on the other hand (Shalamanov 2006). As a specifi c policy domain (Miller and Douglass 2016), civil security is coupled with the issue of governance (see Kuipers et al 2015;Hoijtink 2014) and its use as an analytical framework (Kirchner et al 2015). Civil security governance then refers especially to the "public governance structures for crisis, risk and disaster management" (Bossong and Hegemann 2015, 7) which are in place to protect the country and its people against new and urgent threats to their security and to the functioning of the critical infrastructure (Boin et al 2014, 5).…”

Section: Security Governance As a Framework For Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder Involvement in the Civil Security Systems: How (Dis)Similar are the CEE Countries Compared to the Rest of Europe ?

Brazova

2021

NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Civil security is one of the crucial public goods provided by the state to protect its society from devastating disasters. The increasing complexity of disasters and the expanding scope of non-military challenges call for an increased heterogeneity of core actors and for more participatory governance. Yet little is known about the patterns of stakeholder involvement in civil security across countries. Based on a comprehensive dataset covering 22 European countries, the article presents systematic evidence on the official involvement of different types of stakeholders in the national civil security governance systems. The goal is to explore whether the European countries with similar characteristics fall into geographically and culturally similar categories and whether similar patterns can be observed across the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region. The research questions addressed are: Do the European countries with similar characteristics fall into geographically and culturally similar categories ? Is the CEE region distinct from others ? To answer the questions, a hierarchical cluster analysis is conducted using security governance as a framework for analysis. The association is further tested between the different clusters of countries and broader cultural variables. The results suggest that despite sharing cultural similarities and geographical proximity, the CEE countries form mixed clusters with other non-CEE European countries. While the involvement of civil society organizations is quite universal, especially the involvement of private for-profit actors and multilateral engagement seem to discriminate among different types of civil security governance setup.

show abstract

“…Still some EU-Japan security cooperation existed even prior to the Lisbon Treaty, involving, for example, non-proliferation, climate and energy security, all sponsored by UN treaties or protocols. In addition, the need to respond to natural disasters facilitated some cooperation in the sector of civil protection, an area where the EU had begun to develop its own mechanisms (Kirchner et al 2014). The EU also had sufficient authority to establish some cooperation in economic security prior to the Lisbon Treaty.…”

Section: Council 2003) a Further Consolidation Of Csdp Efforts Took mentioning

confidence: 99%

New horizons in EU–Japan security cooperation

Kirchner

Dorussen

2020

Asia Eur J

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alongside the EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), a Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) between the EU and Japan entered into force in 2019. Whereas the EPA enshrines the existing interconnectedness between the Japanese and European economies, the SPA remains more aspirational. With an emphasis on shared norms and values and recognising an increasingly hostile external environment, the EU and Japan are seeking to deepen and broaden their security cooperation. For the period 1990-2017, EU-Japan security cooperation is mapped for a broad range of security domains. During this period, cooperation has increased notably in domains such as economic security, cyber-security and civil protection. In other areas, such as military, regional, energy and human security as well as terrorism, the scope of cooperation lags behind. Looking forward, the SPA not only reflects a renewed interest and level of ambition in the EU and Japan but also provides them with a platform to extend security cooperation to address their global and regional challenges.

show abstract

Civil security in the EU: national persistence versus EU ambitions?

Cited by 23 publications

References 17 publications

National disaster risk assessments in Europe. How comparable are they and why?

National disaster risk assessments in Europe. How comparable are they and why?

Stakeholder Involvement in the Civil Security Systems: How (Dis)Similar are the CEE Countries Compared to the Rest of Europe ?

New horizons in EU–Japan security cooperation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About