Introduction: Charting a Contested Transformation*

Abstract

The governance of the European Union has been changed through its responses to international terrorism. The analysis of those changes is grounded in an examination of the different perceptions of the phenomenon in academic and political debate. This introductory article traces the most relevant changes across competences, policies and governing modes and highlights dynamics applicable to other areas of EU activity: cross-pillarization, the growth of horizontal governing networks, co-operation outside the treaty framework and the impact of third countries on EU policy-making. The article puts forward a three-pronged constructivist framework to understand better the main dynamics and factors underpinning the various forms of change, in particular why the emphasis has been on co-ordination and information-sharing rather than on supranational integration. Performance issues are then critically assessed, both in terms of whether the new measures, competences, instruments and resources are likely to be effective as well as with regard to the intended and unintended harmful effects for the civil and democratic rights of EU and third-country citizens. * The authors would like to thank the contributors to this volume for comments on several drafts of this paper and for the opportunity to learn from their expertise and research across a diverse range of policy areas, actors and issues. We are particularly grateful to an anonymous reviewer for his perceptive and detailed comments. The usual disclaimer applies.

Stepping inside? CSDP missions and EU counter-terrorism

“…The results of this analytical exercise will allow us to advance three plausible causal explanations for the prevalence of the identified paradox, while reengaging with the literature alluded to in Section 2. Edwards and Meyer (2008) argue that certain areas of EU policy action have been transformed from within as a consequence of EU's response to post-2001 terrorism. According to them, the analysis of these transformations should be made by screening a given policy area across three dimensions.…”

“…Therefore, the present study is based on the three dimensions of change on EU governance systematized by Edwards and Meyer to assess plausible causal explanations for the puzzle already identified, that is the absence of concrete counter-terrorism objectives in CSDP mission's mandates, despite all the rhetoric of official documents and policy/strategy papers. Edwards and Meyer (2008) argue that the governance of the EU has changed through its responses to international terrorism. This 'contested transformation' is the departing point of an article and an edited volume of Journal of Common Market Studies aiming at showing how: [.…”

The External Dimension of Justice and Home Affairs: A Different Security Agenda for the EU?

“…The Mediterranean case developed in this volume shows the significant influence that Spain and France still exert upon their ex-colonies, and how those two countries use the EU level to project their national interests (Wolff, this issue). From a bureaucratic politics perspective, certain actors, like the ministries of interior or the European Commission, compete in their attempts to act as norms entrepreneurs in the agenda-setting process (Edwards and Meyer 2008). Thus, national and European actors might 'frame' the threat differently, depending upon their capacity to mobilise specific resources and expertise to advocate a specific answer.…”

Rethinking Crises and the Accretion of Executive Power: The “War on Terror” and Conditionality Evidence From Seven Political Systems

“…Even so, the nature of executives' responses to terrorism in different political systems will also depend on prevailing attitudes toward and perceptions of certain types of threat “rooted in collective experiences of what to fear and how to engage with security issues” (Edwards & Meyer, , p. 14). These are likely to include different countries' experiences with and lessons learned from previous home‐grown terrorist attacks as well as earlier formative experiences of authoritarian or intrusive government, and identification with the United States.…”