The governance of European security

Abstract

Abstract. This article seeks to develop a concept of 'security governance' in the context of post-Cold War Europe. The validity of a governance approach lies in its ability to locate some of the distinctive ways in which European security has been coordinated, managed and regulated. Based on an examination of the way governance is utilised in other political fields of political analysis, the article identifies the concept of security governance as involving the coordinated management and regulation of issues by multiple and separate authorities, the interventions of both public and private actors (depending upon the issue), formal and informal arrangements, in turn structured by discourse and norms, and purposefully directed toward particular policy outcomes. Three issues are examined to demonstrate the utility of the concept of security governance for understanding security in post-Cold War Europe: the transformation of NATO, the Europeanisation of security accomplished through EU-led initiatives and, finally, the resultant dynamic relationship between forms of exclusion and inclusion in governance. IntroductionThinking about European security has been shaped by a series of different ideas and concepts over the past quarter of a century: an architecture, regime, community. However, it has not been subjected to an account through the lens of governance. Given the application of the concept to a range of other thematic areas, this is rather surprising. This article seeks to explore 'security governance' in the context of post-Cold War Europe. The validity of a governance approach lies in its ability to locate some of the distinctive ways in which European security has been coordinated, managed and regulated. Three issues are chosen to illustrate this: the transformation of NATO, the Europeanisation of security accomplished through EU-led initiatives and, finally, the resultant dynamic relationship between forms of exclusion and inclusion in governance.The timing of research into security governance in Europe might be seen to be rather challenging. From a series of arguments about the nature and balance of institutional responsibilities, to debates over the role of institutions in the global 'war on terror', to the seeming marginalisation of those institutions in the war in Iraq, it has been difference that has seemingly been the hallmark of European security interaction. Indeed, this might raise a question about why think in terms of governance now; why at all? Other frameworks are viable, networks perhaps most obviously. Governance is, however, an obvious choice, not least because in a sense, it is the concept that policymakers have sought to develop. Governance also encompasses many of the central themes of European security: the importance of ideas, of institutions and both formal and informal structures, of multiple actors purposefully motivated. Security governance might also be able to emphasise key strengths of other approaches: being based on both shared epistemologies (as with epistemic communities) and ...

Private security beyond private military and security companies: exploring diversity within private-public collaborations and its consequences for security governance

“…In contrast, various non-hierarchical governance arrangements are viewed positively as presenting numerous opportunities for productive cooperation of multiple actors, including private companies, in the provision of security and other traditionally state-provided goods and services (see [3] for a literature review). Similarly, in line with the aforementioned claims by public officials, security governance experts have also pointed out that in response to the emergence of recent security threats, there has been a turn towards new modes of security governance that include a hybrid mix of public and private actors, which rest upon non-hierarchical networks, and rely on soft compliance based on instruments such as peer evaluations or best practices [5,10,58]. Because of their flexibility, relative independence from national governments, as well as their ability to include a broad range of participants on equal footing, it is generally assumed that these informal policy structures Bare more suitable for tackling governance problems or achieving common goals than more hierarchical and formal strategies^( [59], 118).…”

“…Introduction to the activities of the non-security related private companies Experts in several academic disciplines have already investigated the growing role of private companies in the provision of security [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. Empirically, this topic can be found in the recent literature in International Relations, Security Studies, Criminology, and Sociology.…”

Epistemic policy networks in the European Union’s CBRN risk mitigation policy

“…The paper now turns to security governance (Krahmann, 2003a;Webber et al 2004;Kirchner, 2006;Kirchner and Sperling, 2007;Schroeder, 2011).…”

Putting security governance to the test: conceptual, empirical, and normative challenges

“…A decade after the publication of the founding articles (Krahmann 2003, Webber et al 2004, we argue that there is a need to take stock and review the actual empirical, conceptual, and normative limits and opportunities of security governance in order to scrutinize its academic and political value. This special issue therefore puts security governance to the test.…”

“…Initially, the emphasis was on the functional and institutional mapping of systemic transformation and fragmentation in the post-cold war Euro-Atlantic security order (Krahmann 2003, Webber et al 2004. Later, scholars paid particular attention to the EU as a special case due to its multi-level arrangements, its diversifying agenda and its rooting in a 'post-Westphalian' security community (Kirchner and Sperling 2007a, Wagnsson et al 2009, Schröder 2011.…”