Conference Abstracts

Policing and European Studies panels

 

Panel Title Practical transnational policing issues (Research Session 1)

 

 

  Name and salutation of person  Full Postal Address[not email!] Email address* University / Institution
Panel Chair/Discussant Dr. Aaron Winter Division of Sociology,University of Abertay Dundee,Bell Street,Dundee DD 1 1HG,Scotland A.Winter@abertay.ac.uk University of Abertay Dundee
First Paper-Giver Prof. Dermot Walsh Centre for Criminal Justice,University of LimerickRepublic of Ireland. dermot.walsh@ul.ie University of Limerick
Second Paper-Giver Dr. Robert Smith and Dr. Donna Marie Brown Aberdeen Business School, The Robert Gordon University, Garthdee Road, Aberdeen AB10 7QE r.smith-a@rgu.ac.ukD.M.Y.Brown@dundee.ac.uk The Robert Gordon University & University of Dundee
Third Paper-Giver Mo Egan Division of Law,University of Abertay Dundee,Bell Street,Dundee DD 1 1HG,Scotland m.egan@abertay.ac.uk University of Abertay Dundee
Fourth Paper-Giver Ass. Prof. Saskia Hufnagel National Europe Centre, ANU, 1, Liversidge Street, ACT 0200. saskia.hufnagel@anu.edu.au University of Canberra

 

Authors, Paper Titles and Abstracts

 

Practical transnational policing issues (Research Session 1)

 

Prof. Dermot Walsh: Overcoming the procedural obstacles to police cooperation across the Irish border

 

 

Prior to 1922 Ireland, outside of Dublin, was policed by the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC). The division of the country into the Irish Free State (now the Republic of Ireland) and Northern Ireland in that year fractured this single legal, political and police jurisdiction into two. The land border between the two jurisdictions follows a tortuous route for 360 kilometres along country boundaries separating local communities and families. On the one side, the RIC metamorphosed into the Royal Ulster Constabulary (later to become the Police Service for Northern Ireland). In the other, the RIC was replaced by the Garda Siochana which has been the sole national police force in the Republic of Ireland since 1925.

 

Despite, or perhaps because of, their common legal, political and policing histories, the two jurisdictions have failed to develop the legal structures for police cooperation that are now common between neighbouring jurisdictions in continental Europe. Instead they labour under the formal cooperation procedures that are more characteristic of sovereign States in the late nineteenth century. In practice, the police establishments on either side of the border have developed their own methods for circumventing the obstacles thrown up by these cumbersome procedures. While their political masters have been happy to encourage these developments, even to the extent of publicly adopting agreed policy positions on the subject, they have yet to follow through on these with the legal changes necessary to simplify and rationalise police cooperation in criminal investigations and prosecutions.

 

This paper examines the nature and extent of the legal obstacles to police cooperation in criminal investigations and prosecutions on either side of the border, and the issues posed by dealing with them through informal methods and policy statements instead of through legal reforms.

 

 

 

Dr. Robert Smith and Dr. Donna Marie Brown: Policing Business Enclaves in high crime areas – policy implications for EUY countries.

 

High crime areas are often associated with high density (sink) housing estates with multiple and connected socio-economic problems such as high unemployment, the development of an indigenous under-class and the formation of a dependency culture at variance with a vibrant enterprise culture[1]. In such areas, high levels of crime and anti-social behaviour regularly become the norm.  This phenomenon has been the subject of multi-disciplinary research activity under the rubric of ‘routine activities theory’[2].  Seldom has consideration been given to the role of local business communities in such crime ‘hot spots’, or the interface between these businesses and the local people. It is clear that such relations can become strained as businesses become targets of crime and anti-social behaviour. A siege mentality can develop leading to tensions in the community between the business owners, the youth and police. This depressing scenario is prevalent in many urban communities across the UK and the European Union.

 

This paper draws on a multi-method study, which synthesizes desk research, observation and fieldwork, to examine the interplay between the business community and the urban landscape in six case studies from across Scotland. The research involves a physical audit of the business provision in these areas. Tentative findings indicate that there is a discernable, predatory pattern of entrepreneurial activity whereby the type of businesses located within the communities extracts value from the community, as opposed to adding to it. By identifying this process of value extraction, this study makes an incremental contribution to the emerging literature on situational crime prevention.  It illuminates the role of the business community in (re)producing relationships conducive to the (re)creation of ‘criminogenic environments’ and criminal behavior (is this too far from what you have found?). As a result it has policy implications for EU Member states in relation to how they manage and revitalize such spaces[3] and for the policing of business communities in high risk crime areas. 

 

 

 

Mo Egan: Anti-money laundering in the UK: postmodernism, inter-agency relationships and the contribution of the intelligence-led policing model.

 

This paper will examine both the domestic and European inter-agency policing relationships involved in the public and private sector as the UK attempts to tackle the problem of money laundering.  It will look in particular to the intelligence-led policing model and how its derivative principles are present in the private sector. It will argue that the policing of money laundering is best understood by embracing a postmodern outlook and supporting the adoption of plural policing in its broadest sense. The paper will demonstrate that the participation of the private sector in the implementation of the anti-money laundering strategy increases the amount of intelligence available to policing agencies and facilitates the public police in making appropriate operational choices. It is hoped that following this analysis the author will be able to comment on how the effective policing of money laundering should be assessed and make recommendations for future evaluation.

 

 

Ass. Prof. Saskia Hufnagel: Harmonising Police Cooperation in Europe and Australia: Discrepancies of Policy and Practice’

 

Despite the fact that Australia and the European Union (EU) have different structures of governance, histories, and cultures, both entities face remarkably similar problems in relation to police cooperation across borders. Australia is divided in nine different criminal jurisdictions, each of them policed by its own police force. Problems of border crossing, information exchange and joint investigations therefore arise similar to those in the EU. These problems have intensified in the 20th century with globalisation and the increased mobility of offenders. Several strategies, both legal and administrative, have necessarily developed to secure inter-state borders. Many of these strategies, like joint investigation teams, common databases and mutual recognition can be compared to solutions developed in the EU.

 

This paper will analyse some of the strategies that have been created in Australia and the EU to out-balance the lack of borders within them. It will be discussed whether these strategies are actually applied and considered efficient by police. As many problems of cross-border policing result from the fact that law enforcement strategies are purely regional, it will further be explored how these cooperation patterns could be harmonised on the EU and the Australian Federal level respectively. A link will then be drawn between the efficiency and actual applicability of cross-border policing practices and the processes that could lead to a further harmonisation of police cooperation.

 

,
Policing and European Studies panels

 

Panel Title EU policing provisions (Research Session 2)

 

 

  Name and salutation of person  Full Postal Address[not email!] Email address* University / Institution
Panel Chair/Discussant Dr. Anne Wilson Division of Sociology,University of Abertay Dundee,Bell Street,Dundee DD 1 1HG,Scotland. a.wilson@abertay.ac.uk University of Abertay Dundee
First Paper-Giver(cancelled) Dr. Christian Kaunert  ESPaCH, University of Salford, Crescent House, Salford, M5 4WT c.kaunert@salford.ac.uk University of Salford
Second Paper-Giver Dr. Maria O’Neill Division of Law, University of Abertay Dundee,Bell Street, Dundee DD 1 1HG, Scotland m.oneill@abertay.ac.uk University of Abertay Dundee
Third Paper-Giver Ludo Block Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamFaculty of Social Sciences(Metropolitan building room N313)De Boelelaan 10811081 HV Amsterdam

The Netherlands

l.block@fsw.vu.nl University of Abertay Dundee
Fourth Paper-Giver (cancelled) Alexandra De Moor Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy – IRCP, Ghent University, Universiteitstraat 4, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. Alexandra.DeMoor@UGent.be Ghent University

 

 

 

EU policing provisions (Research Session 2)

 

(cancelled) Dr. Christian Kaunert: EUROPOL -unusual degrees of international actorness?

 

Europol is a European Law Enforcement Organisation that aims to support cooperation amongst EU Member States with regard to terrorism, drug trafficking and other serious forms of international organised crime. It was set up on the basis of an international Convention that came into effect in 1999, and has attracted some academic attention. However, significant parts of the literature have focused on its creation, its design, and its limited operational powers. In contrast, not so much academic work as focused on the nature of this organisation, and in particular, the meaning of its agreements at the international level. This paper aims to investigate the international actorness of Europol at the international level, more precisely what kind of an actor the organisation is, and what its potential for action is. How can we conceptualise the international actorness of Europol? The paper will outline the different options for conceptualisation. Firstly, individualist approaches could lead scholars to concentrate on the impact of Europol on the international level. Secondly, structuralist approaches provide explanations for member states’ behaviour as actors within the structures of EU institutions, such as Europol. Current empirical trends have strengthened these developments; Europol has increasingly signed international agreements. The most significant international relationship of the organisation is with the United States. In conclusion, this paper will conceptualise the international actorness of Europol by drawing upon the theoretical literature on EU foreign policy, and by investigating its international agreements in empirical terms.

 

 

Dr. Maria O’Neill: The issue of data protection and data security in the third pillar.

 

With the key functional operability in the PJCCM pillar of the EU being the exchange of intelligence and information amongst the law enforcement bodies of the EU the twin issues of data protection and data security within the third pillar legal framework come to the fore. The EC’s provisions on data protection, as enshrined by Directive 95/46/EC, do not apply to the legal frameworks covering developments within the third pillar of the EU. Even Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, which is supposed to cover data protection provisions within PJCCM expressly states that its provisions do not apply to “Europol, Eurojust, the Schengen Information System (SIS),” or to the Customs Information System (CIS). In addition the post Treaty of Prüm provisions covering the sharing of DNA profiles, dactyloscopic data and vehicle registration data pursuant form Council Decision 2008/615/JHA, are not to be covered by the provisions of the 2008 Framework Decision. In addition data security issues are key to the sharing of data in organised crime or counter terrorism situations. This paper will critically analyse the current legal framework for data protection and data security within the third pillar of the EU.

 

 

 

Ludo Block:  Police Liaison Officers

 

Since the 1970s a widely used strategy for police cooperation by almost all European Union (EU) member state sis the deployment of bilateral liaison officers in other countries. Police in general have a professional preference for horizontal, direct and informal co-operation and the use of liaison officers fits very much in this preference and is regarded as a very effective tool in police cooperation.

 

This strategy meanwhile has been subject of European policy efforts to regulate the deployment and formalize the work of liaison officers. This started in 1986 with policy instruments by the TREVI Council of Ministers and continued after 193 with several instruments adopted by the EU Council. However, these formalizing efforts might contradict the very nature of the liaison work, which is largely informal and very much dependent on perusal competencies of the officers.

 

The central questions this paper seeks to answer is what impact EU Council instruments in this field had on the practices of liaison officers and how this might be explained. The paper is based on a literature study, an examination of the relevant TREVI and EU Council policy documents and results of field research including a questionnaire and interviews held with liaison officers.

 

Alexandra De Moor: The objective of Europol. Blurring boundaries between law enforcement, public order and state security?

 

This paper serves as a building block in the process of writing a doctoral thesis in law (working title: Europol, quo vadis? Critical analysis and evaluation of the development of the European Police Office. ) Europol is thematically dissected into six clusters: legal basis; objective; competence; tasks; governance and control. On each of the six clusters, the choices made are analysed and evaluated using two sets of criteria, corresponding to two types of evaluation: product evaluation (necessity, consistency and balance) and process-evaluation (transparency, professionalism). This paper is devoted to the second cluster “objective”.

 

Europol was established to give the investigation of crime a European dimension. Europol’s objective is to prevent and combat crime, not to maintain public order or state security. These are distinct functions. A blurring of boundaries is not without risk. The principle of specialty, according to which powers are assigned for a particular purpose, is at state. This paper examines whether the development of Europol is characterized by a blurring of boundaries and identifies possible problem areas. For example, under the Europol Council Decision of 6 April 2009 Europol is tasked to provide intelligence and analytical support to Member States in connection with major international events. The question is whether this seemingly informative task would in fact not amount to a task of public order, which would then no longer be compatible with Europol’s objective. The interoperability of a police databases within the European Union is another possible problem area. For example, under the Europol Council Decision of 6 April 2009 Europol is tasked to provide intelligence and analytical support to Member States in connection with major international events. The question is whether this seemingly informative task would in fact not amount to a task of public order, which would then no longer be compatible with Europol’s objective. The interoperability of police databases within the European Union is another possible problem area.

 

 

Panel Title Problems at the border (Research Session 3)

 

 

  Name and salutation of person  Full Postal Address[not email!] Email address* University / Institution
Panel Chair/Discussant Prof. Cathy Di Domenico Division of Sociology,University of Abertay Dundee,Bell Street,Dundee DD 1 1HG,Scotland. C.Domenico@abertay.ac.uk University of Abertay Dundee
First Paper-Giver Olga A. Kantokoski Department of Political Science, University of Helsinki, PL 54, 00014. olga.kantokoski@helsinki.fi University of Helsinki
Second Paper-Giver  Tonie Spapens Department of Criminal Law, Tilburg University, Postbus 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg,  The Netherlands. A.C.Spapens@uvt.nl Tilburg University
Third Paper-Giver (cancelled) Dr. Sarah Leonard  University of SalfordSchool of ESPaCHCrescent HouseSalfordM5 4WT

Phone: 0161 295 6699

s.leonard@salford.ac.uk University of Salford.
Fourth Paper-Giver Alexander Mackenzie ESPaCH, University of Salford, Crescent House, Salford, M5 4WT. A.MacKenzie@pgr.salford.ac.uk University of Salford

 

 

 

Problems at the border (Research Session 3)

 

Olga A. Kantokoski: EU-Russian cooperation: macro – and meso policing trends

 

Police cooperation between the European Union and the Russian Federation is one of the least explored topics in the contemporary EU-Russian scholarship. Nevertheless, the current state-of-affairs of policing dialogue between the EU and its large Eastern neighbour has becoming progressively of a concern among both high-ranking European and Russian functionaries and ordinary law enforcement officials.

 

This paper forms part of my doctoral research ‘Externalizing European Policing Regime: the Case of Cooperation with Russia’ conducted at the Department of Political Science, University of Helsinki. The paper aims at critically analyzing and exposing both enabling and constraining factors of cooperation between the EU and Russian law enforcement agencies. Empirically, the report focuses on a macro-political context framing the strategic direction of European-Russian law enforcement (governmental level), extending further to the particular strand of meso-policing interaction between Europol and the Russian Ministry of Interior. The question is raised as to in which way collaboration on the level of these top EU and Russian police agencies can contribute to the traditional policing ventures between Russia and individual member-states of the European Union. 

 

 

Toine Spapens[4]; Joint Investigation Teams in the European Union

 Joint Investigation Teams may present an important benefit in cross-border criminal investigation. This was already expressed in the 1970s during a meeting of the Cross Channel Intelligence Conference, one of the longest standing forums for police cooperation within the European border regions. In 1976, Commissioner Jan Blaauw of the Rotterdam City Police felt that “We have to find ways whereby operational police officers get together and exchange intelligence, as recent experience in several murder cases has proved again and again… [Rogatory] letters couldn’t be helpful to anyone who wants to get an overall picture of the crime committed” (Cross Channel Intelligence Conference, Bruges, 11/12 May 1976, cited by Gallagher, 1998).

 A provision for Joint Investigation Teams (JITs) was officially created by Article 13 of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union, which was signed in May 2000 (Official Journal, 2000). It still took a number of years, however, before a sufficient number of Member States had ratified the Convention, and JITs could actually be mounted. Until December 2007, 35 teams had been set up in the entire EU (COE, 2008). In June 2008, the High Level Advisory Group reported in preparation of the Stockholm programme, which will be the next multi-annual programme in the field of Justice and Home affairs Joint investigation teams for the EU, and strongly promoted further deployment of JITs (HLAG, 2008). Yet, there has been little systematic evaluation of the JITs in the different Member States.

 Empirical research in the Dutch-German-Belgian border area (Spapens, 2008, Van Daele et al., 2008) reveals that JITs may indeed provide added value in cross-border investigation. It also shows that, depending on the characteristics of the case, other types of law enforcement cooperation may be equally efficient or easier to organize, in particular parallel investigation teams and joint investigation teams based on bilateral framework contracts.

 In my presentation, I will address the question in what cases joint investigation teams are particularly useful, and in what cases alternatives would be more or equally appropriate.                   

References

 Council of the European Union (COE), 2008, Conclusions of the third meeting of National Experts on Joint Investigation Teams, 5526/08, 22 January 2008, Brussels.

Daele, D. van, Spapens, T., and Fijnaut, C., 2008, De strafrechtelijke rechtshulpverlening van België, Duitsland en Frankrijk aan Nederland.   Antwerp/Oxford, Intersentia.

Gallagher, D., 1998, European Police Co-operation: Its Development and Impact   between 1967-1997 in an Anglo/French Trans-Frontier Setting, unpublished PhD thesis, Southampton University.

High Level Advisory Group on the Future of European Home Affairs Policy (HLAG), 2008, Freedom, Security, Privacy: European Home Affairs in an Open World, Brussels.

Official Journal of the European Union, Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union, 2000/C 197/01

Spapens, T., 2008b, Georganiseerde misdaad en strafrechtelijke samenwerking in de             Nederlandse grensgebieden. Antwerp/Oxford, Intersentia.

 

(cancelled) Dr Sarah Leonard,

‘Policing Borders with the Neighbours: The EU’s Cooperation on Border Controls with Third Countries

Since it began its work in May 2005 in a context of intense politicization of migration issues, the new European Union (EU) External Borders Agency (FRONTEX) – which coordinates the operational cooperation between EU Member States in the field of border security – has attracted considerable attention. Some of its activities have been criticised by scholars and non-governmental organisations on humanitarian grounds. This paper focuses on an important trend that underpins these activities, which is the significant development of EU’s cooperation on border controls with third states. It examines the various modalities of such external cooperation and the key-role played by FRONTEX in its development from a legal and political point of view. Finally, it analyses the impact that such external cooperation has had on the EU’s asylum and migration policy. In particular, it questions the extent to which the EU’s cooperation with third states on border controls has had an impact on the fundamental rights of those asylum-seekers and migrants aiming to enter the EU’s territory.   

  

Alexander Mackenzie:  The EU’s External Counterterrorism Policy: The Missing Dimension?

 The purpose of this paper is to discuss the external dimension of EU counter-terrorism. Current literature is primarily concerned with internal developments. This is strange because Europe is geographically close to regions threatened by terrorism, such as the Maghreb and the Middle East. Thus, much of the terrorist threat to Europe emanates from nearby. With this in mind, the paper will suggest the need for a greater emphasis on the external dimension of EU counterterrorism. The current literature over-emphasises the lack of CFSP development at the expense of acknowledging the pillar one (EC) and three (JHA) successes in the area, which leads to the conclusion that the EU is an insignificant counter-terrorism actor. Yet, the EU’s foreign policy is not only located in the CFSP pillar; this ignores developments in the external dimension of the European Community (EC) pillar and the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) pillar. Important examples are countering terrorist financing (1st pillar), implementing United Nations Security Council (UNSC) decisions (2nd pillar) and police and judicial co-operation (3rd pillar). If duly acknowledged, the EU can be analysed as a more significant counter-terrorism actor.

  

 

Panel Title Policing and Policy (Research Session 4)

 

 

  Name and salutation of person  Full Postal Address[not email!] Email address* University / Institution
Panel Chair/Discussant Dr. Maria O’Neill Division of Law,University of Abertay Dundee,Bell Street,Dundee DD 1 1HG,Scotland m.oneill@abertay.ac.uk University of Abertay Dundee
First Paper-Giver Sarah WolffResearch Fellow   swolff@clingendael.nl  
Second Paper-Giver Samuli Miettinen Lady Hale Building, Salford Law SchoolUniversity of Salford, SalfordGreater Manchester,M5 4WT S.Miettinen@salford.ac.uk University of Salford
Third Paper-Giver Claudia Hillebrand     King’s College London
Fourth Paper-Giver Katerina Gachevska History and Governance Research Institute, University of Wolverhampton,Millenium City Building,Room MC227,Wulfruna Street, Wolverhamption,WV1 1SB Gachevska@wlv.ac.uk University of Wolverhampton

 

 

 

Policing and Policy (Research Session 4)

 Sarah Wolff and Gregory Mounier: From the Hague to Stockholm: The Future of the EU’s Internal security Architecture and Police Cooperation.

 Following the 10th anniversary of Europol and the change from a Convention to a Council Decision, the paper proposes a look at recent developments in the field of police cooperation in the light of the Stockholm programme and makes some policy recommendations.

 Since The Hague programme, progresses have been rather inconsistent. Groundbreaking concepts such as the availability principle have been heralded but their implementation has proved difficult. In practice, many obstacles remain: exchange of information between Member States is still low and operational cooperation between police forces is also weak.

 After assessing The Hague Programme’s achievements in the filed of police cooperation, the paper analyses the latest Europol Council decision and possible future changes with the Lisbon Treaty in the field of accountability and judicial scrutiny. Then, the paper addresses the issue of the external dimension of JHA, and the leading role taken by Europol in that field; questioning whether the activism that Europol shows in this external relations is not turning it into a hostage of the JHA external dimension, rather than a proactive actor. The paper concludes by making some policy recommendations that could be taken on board by the Action Plan that will implement the Stockholm Programme.

 

Samuli Miettinen: Third pillar instruments and national implementation: a ‘virtual criminal law?’

 The legal instruments of the Union that have criminal law implications are of limited value in the absence of transposing measures by the Member States.  The European Court of Justice has consistently declared that nothing in directives can ‘aggravate or determine’ the criminal liability of individuals.  Procedural rules also require implementation because third pillar instruments do not have direct effect, and those bodies of the Member States that would most benefit from the rules will, on a domestic level, be prevented from relying on a Framework Decision alone.  This paper examines the implementation of third pillar PJCC instruments at the national level.  It considers data collected by the Commission in the course of its recent evaluation reports of individual third pillar instruments, the mutual recognition principle, and the 2009 Hague Programme implementation report.  Finally, the paper examines whether the Commission’s view of Union criminal and procedural rules as a ‘virtual framework’ should encourage legal research on this subject to focus less on the substance of the rules and more on their implementation at national level.

  

Claudia Hillebrand: EU counter-terrorism policing and its challenges for parliamentary and judicial oversight.

 This paper explores the challenges that the EU’s emergence as a regional policing actor in the filed of counter-terrorism pose to mechanisms of parliamentary and judicial scrutiny in the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) sector. Several key challenges for mechanisms of scrutiny can be identified, such as the intergovernmental character of EU police co-operation, the increasing co-operation between police and intelligence authorities and the “cross-pillar” nature of counter-terrorism activities. Using the example of the European Police Office (Europol), the paper aims to illustrate some of those challenges in more depth. Europol is of particular interest for at least three reasons. Firstly, the body remains struggling to find its role in the filed of counter-terrorism policing. Secondly, despite its focus on information sharing and analysis, it has recently gained more operational powers in several areas of crime. And finally, its changing legal footing – from the Europol Convention to a Council Decision on 1 January 2010 – provides for changes with respect to parliamentary and judicial scrutiny and shall be explored in the final section of this paper.

 Katerina Gachevska: Policing and EU enlargement: An inquiry into the implications of using criminal justice conditionality for EU membership

 Since the end of the Cold War the international agenda prioritised security issues of non-military character which were traditionally dealt by domestic institutions such as crime and terror. This led to an unprecedented number of initiatives in international policing within and through the EU which often faced the limitations of state sovereignty in the area of criminal justice but nevertheless begun constructing a high-security European Union and started to be used in the process of EU enlargement. The aim of this paper is to engage with the use of criminal justice conditionality in the process and policy of enlargement which in itself resembled a form of policing the Union through imposing strict conditions of membership. The paper analyses this intersection of policy areas which, on a more basic level provided opportunities for strengthening the political consensus on the need of international policing; and, on a more ideological level became a symbol of the European Union’s capacity to police its ‘point of entry’ and thus claim a role as a security agent. However a closer look into this intersection of policing and enlargement exposes a much more problematic situation whereby the EU agenda clashes and often undermines local structures by prioritising the international versus the domestic agenda and has led in some cases, to a diminishing capacity of local institutions to deal with problems through a democratic consensus.

  

Panel Title Policing and Internal Security (Research Session 5)

 

 

  Name and salutation of person  Full Postal Address[not email!] Email address* University / Institution
Panel Chair/Discussant Dr. Pat Cronin Division of Psychology,University of Abertay Dundee,Bell Street,Dundee DD 1 1HG,Scotland P.Cronin@abertay.ac.uk University of Abertay Dundee
First Paper-Giver Tomas Weiss Department of West European Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague,Rytirska 31 CZ-11000,Prague 1 weiss@fsv.cuni.cz Charles University, Prague
Second Paper-Giver Dr. Alexandra Schwell Institut für Europäische Ethnologie der Universität Wien Hanuschgasse 3 | A – 1010 Wien alexandra.schwell@univie.ac.at   Universität Wein
Third Paper-Giver  Jessica Lichy Sciences de Gestion,IDRAC,47 rue Sergent Michel Berthet,CP 60769258 LYON Cedex 09. jessica.lichy1@idraclyon.com IDRAC Lyon

 

 

 

Policing and Internal Security (Research Session 5)

 Tomas Weiss: Blurring border between the police and the military in the EU: The new research agenda

 The police and the military belong to the most important tools that states use to maintain their security. The majority of academic literature accepts that there has been an important shift in security environment after the end of the Cold War with the “new security threats” blurring border between internal and external security. This process can be clearly seen in the European Union where the integration process has confused the concepts of inside and outside. Therefore, it seems necessary to ask how the new conditions affect the traditional division of work between the police and the military. First, the paper will define the relevant changes of the current security environment. Secondly, it will explore the main characteristics of the internal and external security tools – the police and the military. On this basis, it will propose a framework how to evaluate what impacts the new conditions have had on these two institutions and whether we can talk about a blurring border between them.

 

Dr. Alexandra Schwell: Iron Curtain revisited: The “Austrian way” of policing the internal Schengen borders.

 

Since 1990, draftees of the Austrian army, the Bundesheer, have been stationed at the border to Hungary, and later to Slovakia, as a reaction to the system change in Eastern Europe and the expected increase in cross-border crime. This so-called “support deployment” was initially planned to last no longer than ten weeks, but soon it appeared that the military’s border security deployment could also serve other, political ends than mere security factors and since then been prolonged over and over again.

 

Since a country’s relationship to its neighbours is particularly expressed by its border regime, the signalling function of a military deployment at a Schengen internal border with former communist countries is hard to deny. Moreover, the deployment does not comply at all with either EU or Austrian regulations.

 

This paper argues that he support deployment does not relate to an actual threat, but that the construction of an (imagined) Eastern threat is instrumentalised by different political actors who prefer electoral success over inter/ national law and good neighbourly relations. In scrutinizing the strategies o the various actors involved it shows that the support deployment can be considered an act of securitization and is as such entirely decoupled form the actual policing of the Schengen internal border.

 

 

 

Jessica Lichy: Policing the Internet – a comparative study in France and Britain

 

The Internet is an empowering, interactive technology that has the potential to enable social change. As such it raises the question of governance. The Internet is largely governed by consensus among Internet users (Hume, 1999). Regulatory structures tend to evolve rather than be developed in any controlled manner. Some believe that cyberspace should remain unregulated (Dewar, 1998) but as the use of the Internet continues to grow, privacy and security are becoming a major concern and the need to develop Internet policy is apparent.

 

The problem is how to develop a coordinated approach to protecting Internet users with regard to content and personal information when there is no central governing body. For the moment, a range of different organisations deal with various aspects of Internet governance. In Britain, the IWF (Internet Watch Foundation) regulates potentially illegal content though the ISPs. In France, organisations such as the CNIL (Centre National de l’Informatique et des Libertés; National Commission on Computers and Civil Liberties) are concerned with protecting an individual’s liberties. This article looks at the extent to which different cultures and linguistic communities perceive and interpret the problem of policing the Internet. 

 

 

 


[1] See Walklate, S., Evans, K., (1999) ‘Zero Tolerance or community Tolerance? Managing Crime in High Crime Areas’, Ashgate Publishing; Reiss, A. J., Jr (1986) Why are communities important in understanding crime? Crime and Justice and Garland, D., (2000) ‘The culture of High Crime Societies’, The British Journal of Criminology, 40:347-375.

[2] See the work of Marcus Felson – Felson, N., (2006) Crime and Nature”, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[3] Newman, O., (1995) ‘Defensible Space: A New Physical Planning Tool for Urban Revitalization’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 1939-0130, Volume 61, Issue 2, 1995, Pages 149–155.

[4] Toine Spapens is a senior research fellow at the Departement of Criminal Law, Tilburg University, The Netherlands.