ABSTRACT
The EU’s role in countering terrorism has been vigorously debated over the last 10 years. Amongst the scholars analysing EU counter-terrorism, there have been diverging assessments as to the significance of the EU’s role in the fight against the global terrorist threat. Whilst the EU has sometimes been characterized as a ‘paper tiger’1 and thereby a rather inefficient counterterrorism actor, some scholars, in contrast, have emphasized how the EU has
ARTICLE
The EU’s role in c untering terr rism h s been vigor sly debated over th last 10 years. Among t the scholars analysi g EU coun er-terrorism, ther have been diverging assessments as to he significance of the EU’s rol in the fight against the glob l terrorist threat. Whilst the EU has sometimes be n characterized as a ‘paper tiger’1 and thereby a rat er inefficient counterterrorism actor, some scholars, in contrast, have emphasized how the EU has
managed to increase counter-terrorism cooperation amongst its Member States to a considerable extent since 9/11.2 Edwards and Meyer have even gone as far as arguing that the entire ‘governance of the European Union has been changed through its responses to international terrorism’.3 However, Zimmermann has rightly observed that ‘the Union does not have a “normal” government at the supranational level with all the requisite powers, competences, and hence, capabilities of regular government’.4 As a consequence, at first sight, one would not expect EU institutions to play a significant role in the development of a policy that is so sensitive and touches upon the sovereignty of EUMember States to a large extent. Writing about one of these institutions in 2006, namely the European Parliament, Zimmermann argued that it ‘is weak [ . . . ] and its endorsement for, or denial of, support for counterterrorismmeasures discussed at the level of the Union’s decision-making bodies is political only, and thus (usually) non-binding’.5 However, since then, the Lisbon Treaty has entered into force, which has led to a significant strengthening of the formal powers of the European Parliament in several respects.6 In particular, co-decision – now known as the ‘ordinary legislative procedure’ – which makes the European Parliament a co-legislator with the Council, has been extended to various policy areas, including the former third pillar of Justice and Home Affairs. This means that the European Parliament can now co-legislate on various policy matters that are related to the fight against terrorism, such as law enforcement cooperation, judicial cooperation, criminal justice cooperation, and data protection. This extension of internal competences is particularly important because it also has an external impact. As foreseen by Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the consent of the European Parliament is required for the conclusion of international agreements by the EU that cover fields to which the ordinary legislative procedure applies. In other words, the EU, which now has a legal personality following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, can only conclude
international agreements concerning counter-terrorism after having obtained the consent of the European Parliament. It is therefore necessary to examine the evolution of the role of the
European Parliament in EU counter-terrorism, as well as the impact of this potentially changing role on the content of the policy. This article does so by focusing on the external dimension of the EU counter-terrorism policy. This can be defined as the EU’s cooperation with third countries and international organizations in the field of counter-terrorism. There are several reasons for which focusing on the external dimension of EU counter-terrorism is a particularly adequate strategy. First of all, in recent years, the external dimension of the EU counter-terrorism policy has grown in scope and importance.7 In addition, various policy developments in the external dimension of EU counter-terrorism have proved particularly controversial and have raised important questions for the development of this policy. Finally, as there have already been important policy developments in the external dimension of EU counter-terrorism since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009, focusing on the external dimension allows for a comparison of the role of the European Parliament before and after the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty. In addition, as the literature on EU counter-terrorism has tended to focus on its internal dimension, that is, the cooperation on counter-terrorism matters amongst EU Member States, the literature on the external dimension of EU counter-terrorism is still limited, although it has recently begun to grow.8 In particular, there has not been any study of the changing role of the European Parliament in the external dimension of EU counter-terrorism yet, which means that this article makes a significant contribution to the existing literature in that respect. This article is structured into three parts. The first section develops an
‘international actorness’ analytical framework in order to more precisely assess the changing role of the European Parliament in the external dimension
of EU counter-terrorism. The second section applies this framework to two cases of crucial importance in the development of the external dimension of EU counter-terrorism. The two cases examined here concern international agreements on intelligence exchange for counter-terrorism purposes signed by the EU with the US – the most important partner for the EU in the international cooperation against terrorism. The first is the case of the EU-US Passenger Name Record (PNR) Agreements, whilst the second is that of the EU-US SWIFT9 Agreements. Analysing the findings of the two case studies, the third section examines the impact of the changing role of the European Parliament on the external dimension of EU counter-terrorism. The article then concludes that the role of the European Parliament in EU counterterrorism has been considerably reinforced as a result of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. As a result, the European Parliament is now a fullyfledged actor in the external dimension of counter-terrorism. This has enabled this institution to defend its policy preferences more strongly, which has led to an increase in accountability and oversight in the external dimension of EU counter-terrorism.
