The EU Counter-terrorism policy from an European integration perspective

• Název práce v češtině: Politika EU v boji proti terorismu z hlediska evropské integrace
• Název v anglickém jazyce: The EU Counter-terrorism policy from an European integration perspective
• Akademický rok vypsání: 2015/2016
• Typ práce: diplomová práce
• Jazyk práce: angličtina
• Ústav: Katedra bezpečnostních studií (23-KBS)
• Vedoucí / školitel: prof. Mgr. Oldřich Bureš, Ph.D., M.A.
• Řešitel: skrytý - zadáno vedoucím/školitelem
• Datum přihlášení: 11.03.2016
• Datum zadání: 11.03.2016
• Datum a čas obhajoby: 15.09.2016 08:00
• Místo konání obhajoby: Jinonice - U Kříže 8, J3093, Jinonice - místn. č. 3093
• Datum odevzdání elektronické podoby: 27.07.2016
• Datum proběhlé obhajoby: 15.09.2016
• Oponenti: doc. PhDr. Vít Střítecký, M.Phil., Ph.D.

Zásady pro vypracování

Research question: What are the key explanations for a lack of horizontal and vertical integration in the EU’s counter-terrorism policy?

Thesis: The mechanism proposed by differentiated integration theory is valid for EU’s CT policy. The concept of high interdependence can explain why the EU is seeking a common policy approach, a high politicization can explain the differentiated integration in this policy field.
Classical integration theories cannot explain the development of EU’s counter-terrorism policy sufficiently. Neofunctionalism, for instance, expects a functional spill-over created by integration in related policy fields. The free movement of people within the European Union established in the Schengen agreement, integrated into the treaty of Amsterdam in 1999, creates functional pressure for more integration. This pressure is increased by terrorist attacks in the European Union. To illustrate, the chief planner of the November 2015 attacks in Paris traveled undetected within and to the EU even though he was listed as terrorist suspect (The Guardian, 2015). However, despite this functional pressure, the EU counter-terrorism policy follows a flexible approach, that can be explained by differentiated integration theory.

Choice of topic: The European Union still presents an innovative approach of governance, a system “sui generis”. To explain this topic, a lot of theories have emerged to reveal the drivers and blockades of integration in various policy fields. The policy field of counter-terrorism receives high public attention in the light of terrorist attacks, but is not examined adequately by European Integration scholars. Argomaniz describes this problem as an “absence of theorization” and an “under-theorized” field (Argomaniz, 2012, 8). This thesis uses the theoretical approach of differentiated integration to gain new insights into this topic from a theoretical standpoint.

Seznam odborné literatury

Literature:
Argomaniz, J. (2012). The EU and counter-terrorism: politics, polity and policies after 9/11. Routledge.

Balzacq, T., & Hadfield, A. (2012). Differentiation and trust: Prüm and the institutional design of EU internal security. Cooperation and Conflict, 47(4), 539-561.

Bickerton, C. J., Hodson, D., & Puetter, U. (2015). The new intergovernmentalism: European integration in the post‐maastricht era. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(4), 703-722.

Boer, M. D., Hillebrand, C., & Nölke, A. (2008). Legitimacy under Pressure: The European Web of Counter‐Terrorism Networks*. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 46(1), 101-124.

Bossong, R. (2008). The EU’s Mature Counterterrorism Policy–A Critical Historical and Functional Assessment. LSE Challenge Working Paper.

Bossong, R. (2012). The evolution of EU counter-terrorism: European security policy after 9/11. Routledge.

Bossong, R. (2013). Public good theory and the ‘added value’of the EU's anti-terrorism policy. European security, 22(2), 165-184.

Bureš, O. (2008). Perceptions of the terrorist threat among EU member states. Conference Paper.

Bureš, O. (2012). Informal counterterrorism arrangements in Europe: Beauty by variety or duplicity by abundance?. Cooperation and Conflict, 47(4), 495-518.

Bureš, O. (2013). EU counterterrorism policy: a paper tiger?. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd..

Dyson, K., & Sepos, A. (2010). Differentiation as design principle and as tool in the political management of European integration. Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Ehrhart, H. G., Hegemann, H., & Kahl, M. (2014). Putting security governance to the test: conceptual, empirical, and normative challenges. European Security, 23(2), 119-125.

Hegemann, H. (2012). “Between Great Transformation and Politics as Usual. Formal and Informal Security Governance in EU Counterterrorism Policy”. Economics of Security Working Paper 61, Berlin: Economics of Security.

Kaunert, C., Léonard, S., & MacKenzie, A. (2012). The social construction of an EU interest in counter-terrorism: US influence and internal struggles in the cases of PNR and SWIFT. European security, 21(4), 474-496.

Leuffen, D., Rittberger, B., & Schimmelfennig, F. (2012). Differentiated Integration: Explaining Variation in the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan.

Leruth, B. (2015). Operationalizing national preferences on Europe and differentiated integration. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(6), 816-835.

Monar, J. (2007). Common Threat and Common Response? The European Union's Counter‐Terrorism Strategy and its Problems. Government and opposition, 42(3), 292-313.

Schimmelfennig, F., Leuffen, D., & Rittberger, B. (2015). The European Union as a system of differentiated integration: interdependence, politicization and differentiation. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(6), 764-782.

Tekin, F. (2012). Differentiated integration at Work. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

The Guardian (2015). Movements of Isis extremist prior to Paris attack raise EU security questions. Available online at: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/19/movements-of-isis-extremist-prior-to-paris-attack-raises-eu-security-questions [10.03.2016].

The Telegraph (2012). EU extradition on demand undermines justice. Available online at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3562149/EU-extradition-on-demand-undermines-justice.html [10.03.2016].

Předběžná náplň práce v anglickém jazyce

Outline with comments:
1. Introduction
“Osama bin Laden has done more for European integration than anyone since Jacques Delors” MdEP Graham Watson cited as in The Telegraph, 2008.
The first chapter of this thesis will introduce the topic of EU counter-terrorism policy and will show the relevance of the policy field with the example of the November 2015 Paris attacks and will also show the relevance of the topic with regard to the theoretical framework. A potential research desideratum will be identified at this point. The view that research in this field suffers from a lack of theorization is presented and the benefits of taking such a perspective are shown. Following this, the research interest will be specified and the research question is pointed out. The choice for the theory used will be shortly addressed. Then, the case selection and method used will be presented. The introduction also points out the limits of this thesis, for instance that the question of effectiveness will not be the focus of this analysis. After presenting the structure of the thesis in the introduction, the results of the empirical testing will be presented.

2. Literature Review
Numerous studies looking at the EU integration of counter-terrorism exist. In this chapter, these different strands of research will be presented, compared and weighed. Gaps of the previously existing research will be identified. Among the perspectives compared are the explanations related to social constructivism that use mistrust and threat perceptions as explanatory variables (Balzacq/Hadfied, 2012; Bures, 2008; Monar, 2007, Kaunert et al., 2012). Further approaches are public good explanations (Bossong, 2013), security governance advances (Hegemann, 2012, 2014) and historic institutionalist views (Argomaniz, 2012). Ideally, this chapter will already show gaps of research or consensus of research with regard to the theory of differentiated integration (such as that previously mentioned studies acknowledge high levels of interdependence or politicization).

3. Theoretical framework
The theory to be used in this thesis is differentiated integration. The advantage of this theory compared to other European Integration theories is the acceptance of a lack of integration not just as a divergent phenomenon but as a constant characteristic of the EU’s political system. Differentiated integration conceptualizes the EU as a system of differentiated integration with vertical variation across policy fields (levels of centralization) and horizontal variation (variation in territorial extension). In this chapter the theory will be presented, using not only the main drafters of the theory (Leuffen, Rittberger, Schimmelfennig, 2012) but also different scholars to present a comprehensive picture of the theory (Tekin, 2012; Dyson 2010, Leruth 2015). In the chapter the hypothesis will be presented and operationalized. The choice for the theory will be extensively justified.

4. History
Despite this thesis is not conceptualized as a historical description but as an analysis guided by theory, presenting the evolution of arrangements and treaty changes is necessary in understanding this field of policy. The mapping of EU CT efforts over time will show that the preference for differentiated, horizontal integration was already present before 9/11 (Den Boer, 2008; Bures, 2012, 1). Hence, the argument of path dependency will be introduced. Other papers used to explain the historical evolution are Bossong, 2008; 2012.

5. Empirical analysis
In at least three case studies of EU counter-terrorism policies it will be analyzed what the influence of the variables presented by the theory were/are in making or executing these policies. The specific case selection will be dependent upon the data available. A possible selection could include the EU Counterterrorism coordinator or Europol as examples for a lack of vertical integration, the G6, Club of Berne or Schengen Information System as an example of horizontal differentiation. Interviews can be included if a significant number of them is possible. When possible, the claims will be supported also by data such as Eurobarometer data (for example in the case of politicization). Aim of this chapter is a thorough test of the theory.

6. Evaluation of Theory
After the empirical analysis, most likely, several shortcomings of the theory will be visible as no theory can explain it all. Thus, in this chapter, the theory will be evaluated with regard to the analysis. It will be pointed out what the theory can explain well and what not. Possible improvements to the theory can be presented at this point.
7. Conclusion
The conclusion will summarize the results of the analysis and present perspectives for further research.