ABSTRACT
Introduction This chapter examines the Danish and Norwegian positions in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) in the EU. The two countries have chosen selective approaches to safeguarding national autonomy in this policy area but have adopted different strategies to do so. As an EU member state, Denmark has formally opted out of all supranational legislation, whereas non-member Norway has opted in to large parts of the cooperation. While the two countries started from two different positions, they have come to share many of the same commitments and challenges with respect to securing their respective interests and exercising influence in Brussels. Comparing the historical processes and path dependencies, institutional arrangements, legislative adaptation and dilemmas facing the two countries in AFSJ, this chapter demonstrates the range of possibilities when it comes to engaging selectively with the EU in this important but controversial policy area. The chapter demonstrates how, in some instances, non-EU member Norway is more integrated than member state Denmark. This is largely due to decades-old decisions and events that continue to shape the political and institutional room for manoeuvre of the two Nordic states. The chapter begins by presenting the Danish and Norwegian approaches to AFSJ, including how their commitments have come to operate in practical terms. The subsequent section examines the cornerstone of Norwegian and Danish association to the EU in this area: membership in the Schengen area. The fourth section examines the additional bilateral agreements regarding asylum, migration, civil law and police and justice matters that the two countries have negotiated with the EU. The fifth section examines Europeanisation in the form of the indirect influence of EU legislation in the two countries. The sixth section analyses the trade-off between influence and autonomy that Denmark and Norway experience in AFSJ. Building on this, future scenarios for Danish and Norwegian (non-)participation in AFSJ are sketched out, including the policy dilemmas that Denmark and Norway are likely to face in the years to come. Two caveats are necessary: the chapter will not examine the approaches adopted by Sweden
or Finland, as both countries participate fully in AFSJ, and it will not examine Iceland, which – as an EEA and Schengen member – is largely comparable to Norway. Moreover, it will not examine details of the AFSJ legislation, as the aim is to provide a general comparative analysis.
