ABSTRACT
This attention to possibly harmonising processes is important, though how potent some of the processes Sim, Ruggiero and Ryan identify will prove to be, remains to be seen. The strength of local cultural traditions should not be underestimated. Moreover, it is far from clear to what extent policies being pursued domestically in common can be attributed to the emerging supra-national structures. Socio-economic and ideological currents are exercising a powerful influence on domestic policy in spite of any assistance from the, as yet, relatively weak institutions being erected in Europe. Moreover, as I wish to emphasise in this paper, any analysis of the institutions that might promote harmonisation of criminal justice policy within Europe must also include scrutiny of those mechanisms that, contrary to Sim, Ruggiero and Ryan’s emphasis, may promote human rights and greater accountability-both aspects of criminal justice policy which have in many respects been conspicuous by their absence from the domestic policies of many European states. It would be a mistake to view the processes of European harmonisation from a standpoint which, implicitly if not explicitly, assumes some past Golden Age of national sovereignty during which the rule of
law prevailed, human rights were assured and accountability was guaranteed. It was never so in many European states.
