Constructivism, constitutionalism and the EU's area of freedom security and justice post-Lisbon

This essay addresses the fundamental conceptual challenges which face the development of the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ) in the post-Lisbon Treaty era. It argues that Onuf style constructivism is a valid lens with which to examine the development of the AFSJ to date, involving as it does the development of a shared understanding by practitioners, predominantly law enforcement and prosecution professionals, within the structures provided for them, in order to develop a completely new area of law and practice. While this approach will continue to need to be deployed in the development of further new operational areas, such as cybercrime, a new approach is now required, that of constitutionalism. A variety of forms of constitutionalism are then examined in order to establish their suitability as a mode of analysis for these developments.

EU-North Africa relations in cross-border law enforcement: new legal challenges for the EU in the post-Lisbon and post-Stockholm era

The Stockholm Programme, allied to the Lisbon Treaty, heralds a new era of development of the EU provisions on cross-border law enforcement. The focus is shifting from the ongoing internal EU developments to the external relations of the EU. Many North African countries have had long legal relationships with the EU through the Euro-Mediterranean Partnerships. A number of these partnership agreements make express references, at the political level, to the development of cross-border law enforcement provision, as is the case of Morocco and Algeria with regard to drug trafficking and manufacture, or the lengthy references by Egypt to many of the crimes of interest to the EU’s own law enforcement legal framework. Algeria is currently focusing on modernising their own police forces, with both Algeria and Tunisia, reforming their criminal judicial frameworks. Another key player, Libya, currently has no legal agreements with the EU, and at least until the recent conflict, maintained an observer status in the Euro-Mediterranean process. At a practitioner level, the European Police College (CEPOL) is currently involved in the Euromed Police II programme. Clearly momentum is developing, both within the EU and from a number of Euro-Med North African countries to develop closer law enforcement co-operation. This may well develop further with the recent changes in governments of a number of North African countries. The EU approach in the Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (PJCCM) policy area is to develop a legal framework upon which EU cross-border law enforcement will be based. The current EU cross-border law enforcement framework is the product of many years of multi-level negotiations. Challenges will arise as new countries from different legal and policing traditions will attempt to engage with already highly detailed legal and practice frameworks. The shared European legal traditions will not necessarily be reflected in the North African countries. This chapter critically analyses, from an EU legal perspective the problems and issues that will be encountered as the EU’s North African partner countries attempt to articulate into the existing, and still developing EU cross-border law enforcement framework.

The issue of data protection and data security in the (pre-Lisbon) EU third pillar

The key functional operability in the pre-Lisbon PJCCM pillar of the EU is the exchange of intelligence and information amongst the law enforcement bodies of the EU. The twin issues of data protection and data security within what was the EU’s third pillar legal framework therefore come to the fore. With the Lisbon Treaty reform of the EU, and the increased role of the Commission in PJCCM policy areas, and the integration of the PJCCM provisions with what have traditionally been the pillar I activities of Frontex, the opportunity for streamlining the data protection and data security provisions of the law enforcement bodies of the post-Lisbon EU arises. This is recognised by the Commission in their drafting of an amending regulation for Frontex , when they say that they would prefer “to return to the question of personal data in the context of the overall strategy for information exchange to be presented later this year and also taking into account the reflection to be carried out on how to further develop cooperation between agencies in the justice and home affairs field as requested by the Stockholm programme.” The focus of the literature published on this topic, has for the most part, been on the data protection provisions in Pillar I, EC. While the focus of research has recently sifted to the previously Pillar III PJCCM provisions on data protection, a more focused analysis of the interlocking issues of data protection and data security needs to be made in the context of the law enforcement bodies, particularly with regard to those which were based in the pre-Lisbon third pillar. This paper will make a contribution to that debate, arguing that a review of both the data protection and security provision post-Lisbon is required, not only in order to reinforce individual rights, but also inter-agency operability in combating cross-border EU crime. 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 to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA, are not to be covered by the provisions of the 2008 Framework Decision. As stated by Hijmans and Scirocco, the regime is “best defined as a patchwork of data protection regimes”, with “no legal framework which is stable and unequivocal, like Directive 95/46/EC in the First pillar”. Data security issues are also key to the sharing of data in organised crime or counterterrorism situations. This article will critically analyse the current legal framework for data protection and security within the third pillar of the EU.

New challenges for the EU internal security strategy

In recent years, the EU and its member states have experienced a number of changes, as well as challenges, in the areas of politics, economics, security and law. As these areas are interconnected, changes and challenges to any of them have implications for the others, as well as implications for the populations and institutions of the EU or those coming into contact with its international power and influence. This edited collection focuses primarily on security and law, particularly the EU’s internal security strategy. The EU’s Internal Security Strategy, adopted by the Spanish presidency early in 2010, followed the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, building on previous developments within the EU in the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ) policy. The focus of the EU Internal Security Strategy is to prevent and combat “serious and organised crime, terrorism and cybercrime, in strengthening the management of our external borders and in building resilience to natural and man-made disasters”. The Internal Security strategy intersects and overlaps with the European Union’s Counter-terrorism strategy, the Strategy for the External Dimension of JHA, and the EU’s Security Strategy. The role of and interaction between these strategies, their supplementing documents, and their implications for crime, victims, the law, political relations, democracy and human rights, form the backdrop against which the chapters in this collection are written. Building on original research by its contributors, this collection comprises work by authors from a wide variety of academic and professional areas and perspectives, as well as different countries, on a variety of areas and issues related to or raised by the EU’s Internal Security Strategy, from intelligence-led policing to human trafficking and port security. This book examines, from a wide variety of disciplinary perspectives including law, geography, politics and practice, both this further refinement of existing internal provisions on cross-border crime, and the increasing external relations of the EU in the AFSJ.