Platform governance triangle: The case of the EU Regulation on preventing the dissemination of illegal terrorist content online

• Název práce v češtině: Platform governance triangle: Případ Nařízení Evropské unie o prevenci šíření teroristického obsahu online
• Název v anglickém jazyce: Platform governance triangle: The case of the EU Regulation on preventing the dissemination of illegal terrorist content online
• Klíčová slova: protiteroristická politika, Evropská unie, soukromé subjekty, platform governance triangle, teroristický obsah online
• Klíčová slova anglicky: counter-terrorism policy, European Union, private actors, platform governance triangle, terrorist content online
• Akademický rok vypsání: 2020/2021
• Typ práce: diplomová práce
• Jazyk práce: angličtina
• Ústav: Katedra bezpečnostních studií (23-KBS)
• Vedoucí / školitel: prof. PhDr. Emil Aslan, Ph.D.
• Řešitel: skrytý - zadáno vedoucím/školitelem
• Datum přihlášení: 08.04.2021
• Datum zadání: 08.04.2021
• Datum a čas obhajoby: 22.06.2021 08:00
• Místo konání obhajoby: Pekařská 16, JPEK312, 312, Malá učebna, 3.patro
• Datum odevzdání elektronické podoby: 04.05.2021
• Datum proběhlé obhajoby: 22.06.2021
• Oponenti: Mgr. Ondřej Rosendorf, Ph.D.

Zásady pro vypracování

1. Introduction to the topic
The topic of the thesis to be addressed is the preventive counter-terrorism policy of the European Union (hereinafter as the EU). Specifically, the issue at hand is to explore and analyse how the EU tackles the dissemination of illegal terrorist content on the Internet.
Counter-terrorism efforts have been entrenched in European politics even before the attacks on 11 September 2001. Many of the Member States experienced a variety of terrorism, whether it was left-wing, right-wing, separatist, or domestic. The counter-terrorism policy began making its way into the European integration process in the early 1970s with the establishment of the TREVI group being a the first organised platform for European counter-terrorism cooperation. The EU has since been trying to incorporate common counter-terrorism policies at least from the perspective of mutual information sharing and joint police and judicial operations. However, the dynamics behind the EU counter-terrorism policy can be compared to event-driven efforts (Coolsaet 2010, s. 858) because it has been driven by some of the most prominent attacks starting with the terrorist attack in the United States on September 11, and followed by the those of 2004 in Madrid and 2005 in London. And although the Member States try to maintain the responsibility to provide security to their citizens on a national level, the EU plays an important role, especially concerning the preventive policies. The recent terrorist attacks in Europe has led European decision-makers to focus on the issues of radicalisation and foreign terrorist fighters and it should be noted that the EU takes these issues very seriously. As a matter of fact, the EU adopted a Directive 2017/541 on Combatting Terrorism, which obliges the Member States to criminalise terrorism-related acts, such as recruiting, public incitement to commit terrorist offences or advocating terrorism including in the online environment (Léonard et al. 2020).
The thesis thus focuses on the EU efforts in combatting the dissemination of illegal terrorist content online and attempts to explore and understand the dynamics of the decision-making process of the Regulation on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online introduced by the European Commission in 2018. The Regulation, which proposes a legal framework to tackle the misuse of hosting services for the dissemination of terrorist content online (also referred to as the Regulation on Terrorist Content (De Gregorio 2021)), reached a political agreement between the European Parliament and the Council in 2020. The Regulation essentially initiates legally binding cooperation with the hosting service providers offering services in the EU and imposes duties of care to remove terrorist content from their platforms. To ensure the removal of illegal terrorist content, the Regulation introduces a removal order issued either as an administrative or judicial decision by a competent authority in a Member State or by the EU agencies, such as Europol. In such cases, the hosting service providers are obliged to remove the content or disable access to it within one hour (European Commission 2018).
The proposed measures raised a certain resentment among non-governmental organisations, civil society and business actors. One of the major concerns was the scope of proposed laws that would essentially make private business actors (in this case, the hosting service providers) legally obliged to provide a secure online environment by removing illegal terrorist content from their platforms and take proactive measures. These provisions made non-governmental representatives and human rights advocates worried about the sustainability of the freedom of expression and information in Europe.

2. Research target and research question
The thesis aims to understand and explore the conditions under which the Regulation on Terrorist Content was established (i.e. what are the historical conditions of emergence of certain discourse and its effects on subjects, their interests or norms governing their actions), and under which conditions will the Regulation on Terrorist Content be effective. Essentially, the objective of this research is to understand how security within the EU counter-terrorism domain is produced, and what are the EU government and private business actors’ interests behind the decision-making process.
To describe the historical conditions, interests, and norms of the actors involved, I will be using a security governance perspective that offers a useful framework for understanding and conceptualising the development of Europe’s security relations, and how has European security been coordinated, managed and regulated (Webber et al. 2004, s. 25). The security governance approach permits analysis of security policy-making that includes supranational, state and non-state actors, as it tries to describe and analyse historical and institutional change and its consequences (Krahmann 2005, s. 21).
To address the controversy between European decision-makers and private business actors, I will draw upon Robert Gorwa’s (2019a) “platform governance triangle” concept, which enables us to study the relationship dynamics between different actors in informal regulatory arrangements. Therefore, I will be able to explore how governance stakeholders (in our case the EU) have sought to shape the behaviour of private businesses on illegal terrorist content issues. Applying the platform governance triangle concept, the thesis focuses on analysing three key areas that influence the dynamics in the policy-making context:
• The legitimation politics between informal arrangements and traditional regulation;
• The importance of the varying regulatory competencies that different actors bring to the table;
• The dynamics of power, authority, and coercion between actors in the implementation of informal governance measures.
Concerning the chosen theoretical approach and the established analytical framework, the thesis outlines the following research questions:
RQ1: How have the Regulation on Terrorist Content came to be? In essence, what are the policy-making process and the dynamics of institutional competition behind the adoption of the Regulation, and what are the historical conditions of its emergence?
RQ2: What is the role of the European institutions (the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council) within the decision-making process of adopting the Regulation on Terrorist Content?
RQ3: What is the role of private business actors within the decision-making process of adopting the Regulation on Terrorist Content?
RQ4: When will the Regulation on Terrorist Content be effective?
3. Literature review
The secondary literature review lists the relevant sources that cover the theoretical background of the chosen topic. The literature covers books, book chapters and articles from academic journals related to topics such as the historical development of the EU internal security field with a focus on Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (hereinafter as the AFSJ), the gradual increase of EU institutions¬’ decision-making power over issues of migration, data protection and counter-terrorism, or the overall assessment of the EU measures to combat terrorism and radicalisation. For instance, Jörg Monar¬’s work describes the key development of the AFSJ domain and assesses the EU institutions¬’ role in policy change and the impact on the decision-making and outcomes of the AFSJ policy-making (Monar 2014b; 2016). In his other articles, Monar also focuses in-depth on EU governance in the counter-terrorism field and analyse the EU as an international counter-terrorism actor due to its enhanced institutional capabilities, and broadening of instruments such as intelligence sharing between the EU, its specialised agencies and national law enforcement actors (Monar 2014a; 2015).
Furthermore, there is a list of sources concentrating specifically on the European counter-terrorism policy. To name a few, Christopher Baker-Beall’s article (Baker-Beall 2014) describes a European counter-terrorism discourse and the overall assessment of the EU counter-terrorism policy. Emil Kirchner and James Sperling’s book (Kirchner a Sperling 2007) describes the EU as a security actor and analyses whether the EU counter-terrorism policy instruments are matched to the nature of the security threat. Rik Coolsaet¬’s article (Coolsaet 2010) extensively studies terrorism perception in the EU since the 1970s, its incorporation and reflection in Treaties, institutions and EU agencies, and looks into the establishment of the EU counter-terrorism strategy with an emphasis on preventing radicalisation as the main point in combating terrorism in the EU. Moreover, Oldřich Bureš (2011) analyses the origins of the EU counter-terrorism policy and its major developments before the attacks on September 11 and also explores the measures the EU has taken to combat terrorism after September 11 (e.g. the European Arrest Warrant, intelligence sharing, the power of Europol and Eurojust, the adoption of an EU definition of terrorism, and the identification of terrorist and freezing of their assets).
Besides, I want to mention few sources that focus on the governance aspect of the EU counter-terrorism policy. For instance, Raphael Bossong and Mark Rhinard in the book chapter (Bossong a Rhinard 2016) analyse the notion of security governance as a form of interactions amongst different actors, institutions, ideas, structures, levels and policy goals. They present components of a governance approach and contend that the dispersion of public authority, involvement of private actors are necessary for current security governance. Mark Webber (Webber et al. 2004) then adds that the concept of security governance involves coordinated management and regulation of issues by multiple authorities, the intervention of public and private actors, formal and informal arrangements that are structured by a security discourse and norms, and are overall directed towards a particular policy outcome. The importance of taking into account that contemporary security policy-making is not an exclusive sphere of nation-states, but increasingly extend beyond national borders and that non-state actors such as international organizations, NGOs and private companies play an important role, is also mentioned by Elke Krahmann in his article about theoretical approaches of security governance (Krahmann 2005).
Finally, it is necessary to mention literature concerning the role of EU institutions in the counter-terrorism domain. Adriadna Ripoll Servant (2017) focuses on the role of the European Parliament in Justice and Home Affairs, and the gradual decision-making powers that the European Parliament received over issues of migration, data protection and counter-terrorism. Natasha Zaun (2017) describes the role of the European Commission in the early cooperation on Justice and Home Affairs issues and monitors the Commission’s gradual decision-making power in certain communitarized policy domains. Equally, Christof Roos (2017) explains the role of the European Council and the Council of the EU in Justice and Home Affairs politics.

4. Conceptual and theoretical framework, research hypotheses
As outlined previously, the thesis is divided into two parts, descriptive and analytical. The former draws attention to the historical conditions that led the European government to introduce the Regulation on Terrorist Content, and on the norms of governing the counter-terrorism domain within the EU. The latter is expected to outline the conceptual framework of the platform governance triangle of online content to analyse the dynamics of the power relationship between the EU and private business actors.
The term platform has been used by academics, researchers and certain companies to describe platforms that facilitate access to user-generated content, but do not create it by themselves (Gillespie 2010). In the article “What is platform governance”, Gorwa presents the argument that “platforms are fundamentally political actors that make important political decisions while engineering what has become the global infrastructure of free expression; but it also acknowledges the other half of the equation: that these private ‘governors’ are themselves subject to governance on all fronts, and that their conduct of governance is directly informed by local, national, and supranational mechanisms of governance” (Gorwa 2019b, s. 857). Thus, the platform governance triangle concept is understood as the set of legal, political, and economic relationships that structure interactions between users, technology companies, governments, and other stakeholders in the platform ecosystem (Gorwa 2019a, s. 2). With this research, I hope to elaborate more on the debate about key dynamics in the platform governance space that shape the success of governance arrangements: the legitimation politics, actors’ competencies and inter-actor relationships of power and coercion.
‘Legitimation politics’ discuss how different organisations compete and potentially try to undercut each other within the forms of informal governance that result in politically salient rules or standards (Gorwa 2019a, s. 12). Gorwa also stresses that the specific design of informal governance arrangements plays a significant role in its success or failures, and contends that future research should examine how established dynamics hold (or do not hold) when it comes to online content hosted on platform companies. I argue that the EU is a legitimate actor that has significant experience with the counter-terrorism policies, and that the normative discourse within the EU policymakers and the security research community has been established, which suggest that terrorism is considered an existing threat that needs to be addressed (European Commission 2018).
‘Actor competencies’ looks into different governance stakeholders’ levels of regulatory capacity that they bring to the table. Each type of actor has different competencies that are required at different phases of the regulatory process, from the initial agenda-setting and negotiations to the implementation, monitoring and enforcement. Kenneth W. Abbott and Duncan Snidal argue that each actor who shall act effectively throughout the regulatory process should possess four essential competencies: independence, representativeness, expertise and operational capacity (Abbott a Snidal 2009). Unfortunately, neither private business actors nor governments possess all the competencies needed for effective regulation in transnational settings, hence require collaboration. For instance, private business actors tend to seek profit and do not truly act in the public interest, hence lack independence and representativeness, despite their high expertise and capacity to change their behaviour. States, on the other hand, can deploy resources, expertise, administrative capacity, enforcement mechanisms, but still must rely on the management of private business actors to implement the regulations (Gorwa 2019a, s. 13). Here, I draw on the report that studied Islamic State¬’s and other jihadists’ activity on social media (particularly on Twitter) (Conway et al. 2017), and I argue that both the EU and private business actors possess the necessary competencies for the Regulation on Terrorist Content to be effective. EU acts within its legislative and legal framework and concerning the capacity of private business actors, we can argue that Twitter, for instance, was successful in disseminating ISIS propaganda on its platform.
‘Inter-actor relationships of power and coercion’ (i.e. power relations) talks about contestation and bargaining occurring in regulatory arenas. The EU possess certain leverages and can impose certain threats to private business actors. For instance, even if some EU regulations may be technically non-binding and established as non-voluntary, in reality, they are often underpinned by the threat of future legislation, which may lead to more rigorous regulatory outcomes (Gorwa 2019a, s. 14). In fact, the Regulation on Terrorist Content introduced rather strict measures to make the online environment safer. Namely, Article 4 of the Regulation (European Commission 2018) proposes a one-hour deadline that online platform must oblige to and delete the illegal content off their platform. Similarly, Article 15 of the Regulation (European Commission 2018) establishes the Member States jurisdiction for the purposes of overseeing proactive measures and sets penalties and monitoring efforts. This suggests that the EU possess certain leverages on how to achieve its goal.
5. Empirical data and analytical technique
First, the thesis will seek to answer how has the Regulation on Terrorist Content came to be. To capture the policy-making process and the historical background that preceded the establishment of the Regulation, the thesis will make use of the contextual framework analysis, looking into the regulatory framework of the EU counter-terrorism policy. The aim is to point out how terrorism made its way into the EU legislation. The focus here will be on key EU documents: European Counter Terrorism Strategy adopted in November 2005 (Council of the European Union 2005), European Agenda on Security adopted in April 2015 (European Commission 2015), Directive (EU) 2017/541 on combatting terrorism adopted in March 2017 (European Parliament a The Council of the European Union 2017), E-Commerce Directive adopted in June 2000 (European Parliament a The Council of the European Union 2000) which established the general legal framework for illegal content removal at the EU level, and Audio Visual Media Services Directive adopted in November 2018 (European Parliament a Council of the European Union 2018) which compels the Member States to prevent audio-visual services, including online video-sharing platforms, from disseminating harmful material, including terrorist content (Tech Against Terrorism 2020).
Furthermore, this research is structured as a qualitative single case study using a conceptual model of the platform governance triangle that is applied on the empirical data. The research method was chosen to provide a level of detail and understanding of the nature of a particular phenomenon, namely the adoption of the Regulation on Terrorist Content. The thesis will draw mainly on text-based data that consists of open public consultations among the European decision-makers and relevant stakeholders (i.e. hosting service providers) that took place between 2017 and 2018 and dealt with the measures to improve the effectiveness of tackling illegal content. Those data are provided by the Directorate-General for Communications Network, Content and Technology (hereinafter as DG CONNECT). Moreover, the Impact assessment reports published by the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs (hereinafter as DF HOME) from April 2018, and the so-called Common Positions adopted by the Council of the European Union will be used as well. Opinions and positions of the European Parliament will be taken into account, especially reports and amendments to the Regulation on Terrorist Content produced by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (hereinafter as the LIBE Committee), the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (hereinafter as the IMCO Committee) and the Committee on Culture and Education (hereinafter as the CULT Committee) throughout 2019. Furthermore, the thesis will use text-based data, such as official statements, reports and interview transcripts released by platforms hosting user ranging from big corporations like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, to small-sized companies to present their positions regarding the adoption of the Regulation on Terrorist Content.

Seznam odborné literatury

7. References
ABBOTT, Kenneth W. a Duncan SNIDAL, 2009. The governance triangle: Regulatory standards institutions and the shadow of the state. In: The Politics of Global Regulation. B.m.: Princeton University Press, s. 44–88. ISBN 9780691139609.
BAKER-BEALL, Christopher, 2014. The evolution of the European Union’s „fight against terrorism" discourse: Constructing the terrorist „other". Cooperation and Conflict [online]. 42(2), 212–238. ISSN 14603691. Dostupné z: doi:10.1177/0010836713483411
BOSSONG, Raphael a Mark RHINARD, 2016. Next Steps in Theorizing Internal Security Cooperation in the EU. In: Raphael BOSSONG a Mark RHINARD, ed. Theorizing Internal Security in the European Union. Ocford: Exford University Press, s. 179–199. ISBN 987-0-19-873948-7.
BUREŠ, Oldřich, 2011. EU counterterrorism policy: A paper tiger? Farnham: Ashgate. ISBN 978-1-4094-1123-9.
CONWAY, Maura, Moign KHAWAJA, Suraj LAKHANI, Jeremy REFFIN, Andrew ROBERTSON a David WEIR, 2017. Disrupting Daesh: Measuring Takedown of Online Terrorist Material and Its Impacts [online]. Dostupné z: https://www.voxpol.eu/download/report/DCUJ5528-Disrupting-DAESH-1706-WEB-v2.pdf
COOLSAET, Rik, 2010. EU counterterrorism strategy: Value added or chimera? International Affairs [online]. 86(4), 857–873. ISSN 00205850. Dostupné z: doi:10.1111/j.1468-2346.2010.00916.x
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 2005. The European Counter-Terrorism Strategy [online]. Dostupné z: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST 14469 2005 REV 4/EN/pdf
DE GREGORIO, Giovanni, 2021. Fighting Terrorism Online: Censorship, Platforms and Freedom of Expression across the Atlantic. In: Giovana MINICO a Oreste POLLICINO, ed. Virtual Freedoms, Terrorism and the Law. Abingdon: Routledge, s. 252. ISBN 9780367486709.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2015. The European Agenga on Security [online]. Dostupné z: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2015:0185:FIN
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2018. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online: A contribution from the European Commission to the Leaders´ meeting in Salzburg on 19-20 September 2018 [online]. [vid. 2019-06-05]. Dostupné z: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2018/0640/COM_COM(2018)0640_EN.pdf
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT a COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 2018. Directive (EU) 2018/ 1808 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of autio visual media services in view of changing market rea. Official Journal of the European Union [online]. Dostupné z: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018L1808&qid=1550491395985&from=en
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT a THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 2000. Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market ('Directive on electronic commerce’) [online]. Dostupné z: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32000L0031
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT a THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 2017. Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending Council Decision 2005/671/JHA [online]. Dostupné z: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32017L0541
GILLESPIE, Tarleton, 2010. The politics of“platforms”. New Media & Society [online]. 12(3), 347–364. Dostupné z: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1461444809342738
GORWA, Robert, 2019a. The platform governance triangle: Conceptualising the informal regulation of online content. Internet Policy Review [online]. 8(2), 1–22. ISSN 21976775. Dostupné z: doi:10.14763/2019.2.1407
GORWA, Robert, 2019b. What is platform governance? Information Communication and Society [online]. B.m.: Routledge, 22(6), 854–871. ISSN 14684462. Dostupné z: doi:10.1080/1369118X.2019.1573914
KIRCHNER, Emil a James SPERLING, 2007. EU Security Governance. Manchester: Manchester University Press. ISBN 978 0 7190 7469 1.
KRAHMANN, Elke, 2005. Security governance and networks: New theoretical perspectives in transatlantic security. Cambridge Review of International Affairs [online]. 18(1), 15–30. ISSN 1474449X. Dostupné z: doi:10.1080/09557570500059514
LÉONARD, Sarah, Christian KAUNERT a Ikrom YAKUBOV, 2020. Preventing radicalisation and enhancing disengagement in the European Union. In: Stig Jarle HANSEN a Stian LID, ed. Routledge Handbook of Deradicalisation and Disengagement [online]. Abingdon: Routledge, s. 374. ISBN 9781315387420. Dostupné z: doi:10.4324/9781315387420
MONAR, Jörg, 2014a. EU internal security governance: the case of counter-terrorism. European Security [online]. 23(2), 195–209. ISSN 0966-2839. Dostupné z: doi:10.1080/09662839.2013.856308
MONAR, Jörg, 2014b. Setting the context: Why EU institutions matter in justice and home affairs. In: Policy Change in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: How EU Institutions Matter [online]. ISBN 9781317660453. Dostupné z: doi:10.4324/9781315766447
MONAR, Jörg, 2015. The EU as an international counter-terrorism actor: Progress and constraints. Intelligence and National Security [online]. ISSN 17439019. Dostupné z: doi:10.1080/02684527.2014.988448
MONAR, Jörg, 2016. EU Internal Security Cooperation after Four Decades. In: Raphael BOSSONG a Mark RHINARD, ed. Theorizing Internal Security in the European Union [online]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dostupné z: doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198739487.003.0002
ROOS, Christof, 2017. The Council and European Council in EU Justice and Home Affairs Politics. In: Ripoll SERVENT a Florian TRAUNER, ed. The Routledge Handbook of Justice and Home Affairs Research. 1st editio. London: Routledge, s. 421–433.
SERVENT, Ripoll, 2017. The European Parliament in justice and home affairs: Becoming more realistic at the expense of human rights? In: Ripoll SERVENT a Florian TRAUNER, ed. The Routledge Handbook of Justice and Home Affairs Research. 1st editio. London: Routledge, s. 383–395.
TECH AGAINST TERRORISM, 2020. The Online Regulation Series: The European Union [online]. Dostupné z: https://www.techagainstterrorism.org/2020/10/19/the-online-regulation-series-the-european-union/
WEBBER, Mark, Stuart CROFT, Jolyon HOWORTH, Terry TERRIFF a Elke KRAHMANN, 2004. The governance of European security. Review of International Studies [online]. 30, 3–26. ISSN 02602105. Dostupné z: doi:10.1017/S0260210504005807
ZAUN, Natascha, 2017. The European Commission in justice and home affairs: Pushing hard to be a motor of integration. In: Ripoll SERVENT a Florian TRAUNER, ed. The Routledge Handbook of Justice and Home Affairs Research. 1st editio. London: Routledge, s. 409–420.

Předběžná náplň práce

6. Planned thesis outline
Abstract
Acronyms
Introduction
1. Historical conditions and norms of governing European counter-terrorism policy
1.1. Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
1.2. Counter-terrorism policy
1.3. Actors
1.3.1. EU institutions
1.3.2. Private actors
1.3.3. Non-governmental organizations
1.4. Policy-making process in AFSJ
2. Conceptual and theoretical framework: Platform governance triangle
2.1. Legitimation politics
2.2. Actors’ competencies
2.3. Inter-actor relationships of power and coercion
3. Empirical analysis
Conclusion
References

Předběžná náplň práce v anglickém jazyce

6. Planned thesis outline
Abstract
Acronyms
Introduction
1. Historical conditions and norms of governing European counter-terrorism policy
1.1. Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
1.2. Counter-terrorism policy
1.3. Actors
1.3.1. EU institutions
1.3.2. Private actors
1.3.3. Non-governmental organizations
1.4. Policy-making process in AFSJ
2. Conceptual and theoretical framework: Platform governance triangle
2.1. Legitimation politics
2.2. Actors’ competencies
2.3. Inter-actor relationships of power and coercion
3. Empirical analysis
Conclusion
References