The EU as a Coherent (Cyber)Security Actor?

Abstract

The last three decades have seen the development of the European Union (EU) as a security actor. The transnational character of the security threats and the challenges identified by the EU have led to progressive integration between internal and external security concerns. These concerns have often led to calls for greater coherence within EU security policies. The literature, however, indicates that this need for coherence has, so far, not been systematically operationalized, leading to a fragmented security field. This article has two main aims: To devise a framework for the analysis of the EU's coherence as a security actor, and to apply it to the cybersecurity field. By focusing on EU cybersecurity policy, this article will explore whether the EU can be considered a coherent actor in this field or whether this policy is being implemented according to different and unco-ordinated rationales.

An Acid Test for Europeanization: Public Cyber Security Procurement in the European Union

“…This broad strategy applies also to cyber security. Although a thorough discussion about recent cyber security developments in the EU is beyond the scope of the present work, a concise but reasonable summary from the literature is that there has been a certain degree of convergence on one hand, and a continuing lack of coherence on the other (Carrapico and Barrinha 2017;Christou 2016;Pawlak 2019;Ruohonen et al 2016). This summary generalizes to the post-war history of European security in general (Eriksson and Rhinard 2009;Howorth 2019).…”

Who Should Be in Charge of Cyberspace? The European Union, Member States and the Constitution of Structural Power

“…Given this essentially contested nature, formalized power struggles, such as legislating cybersecurity instruments, are not the only matters of relevance (Carrapico and Barrinha, 2017;Christou, 2019), one also needs to explore the so-called invisible hand of power (Moe, 2019). The premise is that the historically constituted political context shapes structural positions that privilege some actors' exercise of authority (Guzzini, 1993), while designating other actors to obey and follow the set rules.…”

“…In this sense, it is covert and may exist without observable conflict, whereas these structural positions, in fact, shape unequal political privileges (see also, Weiss, 2009). Against the backdrop of the vivid debate on overt power struggles (Carrapico and Barrinha, 2017;Newlove-Eriksson et al, 2018), this paper seeks, by contrast, to explore the historically contingent constitution of structural power in order to draw inferences about Europe's main actors' positions within the contemporary contests over ruling cyberspace.…”

European Union cyber security as an emerging research and policy field

“…At the heart of this new policy area is the striving for institutional and policy coherence, which is considered to be the key to an effective response to the cyber-challenges Europe currently faces (Carrapico & Barrinha, 2017). Coherence has become particularly crucial in the EU's cyber security policy because, for a long time, its governance was highly scattered, with relevant actors working independently from each other in areas as distinct as law enforcement, critical information infrastructure protection, and defence.…”

“…Building on this policy background, the aim of this special section is to draw the readers' attention to what is an emerging policy field, to call for further research to be conducted on its multiple dimensions, and to encourage the expansion of the existing body of literature. Although cyber security has now become part of our daily lives and concerns, European Studies as a discipline is yet to fully embrace the area as a subject of in-depth research (for recent exceptions please see Carrapico & Barrinha, 2017;Christou, 2016). In this sense, it is lagging behind other disciplines such as Criminology, which has been exploring the issue of cyber crime for the last 20 years (Wall, 2001).…”