ABSTRACT
In short, CIP arguably constitutes a paradigmatic case for security governance as originally defined by Webber et al. (2004, p. 4), namely as a ‘an intentional system of rules that involves the co-ordination, management and regulation of issues by multiple and separate authorities, interventions by both public and private actors, formal and informal arrangements and purposefully directed towards particular policy outcomes.’ In practice, however, such complex or comprehensive forms of security governance ‘towards particular policy outcomes’ are difficult to achieve. The conflicting interests of public and private actors as well as the transboundary nature of CIP may explain why even the USA, which pioneered the concept and invested most human and financial resources, has struggled to form a coherent and effective approach (May and Koski 2011).
