ABSTRACT
In the context of the European Union’s (EU) expanding role as internal security actor, all member states have been required to generate similar integreated national risk assessments by 2014. At first sight, this could be welcomed as a departure from the ad hoc or crisis-driven policy-making dynamics that have long been criticized by critical commentators of EU internal security policy. In particular, the evolution of risk assessments relates to wider efforts to forge an evidence-based approach to internal security and to advance broader concepts of risk prevention and resilience as guiding principles for its future role in internal security. However, there is also a need for critical reflection on this growing trend and its implications for the EU. Frameworks for risk assessment need to be contrasted with the varied or lacking risk management practices on the ground and deeper contestations of seemingly technical methods of risk assessment, going beyond the question of legal implementation that dominates the ‘post-Stockholm’ debate. This article elucidates the functional and political limits for the implementation of standardized risk assessments, but also shows how the adoption of common guidelines still serves as a political tool for the legitimation of further policy initiatives in EU internal security.
