Home > All journals > European Foreign Affairs Review > 17(SI) >
$15.00 - Rental (PDF) *
$29.00 - Article (PDF) *
Javier Argomaniz
European Foreign Affairs Review
Volume 17, Special Issue (2012) pp. 35 – 52
https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2012013
Abstract
The European Union (EU) counterterrorism policies have often been viewed through the prism of the EU's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). Yet although macro-strategic decision-making is mainly located within the Council's Secretariat and Council of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Ministers, its external dimension reserves a role for the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).This rhetorical 'spill-over' of an internal security concern onto the CSDP is an interesting yet under-researched development. This is partially due to the fact that CSDP is far from being one of the most developed aspects of the European counterterror response.Yet this occurs in a context where the need for an active use of CSDP as a counterterrorist tool is emphasized in high-level political proclamations. This article will, therefore, aim to explain this disparity between EU discourse and reality. In addition, and building on recent debates in the field of terrorism studies, it provides a critical assessment of the conceptual foundations that link CSDP and Counter-terrorism (C-T) in the EU's discourse while evaluating the short- and medium-term potential for a more vigorous evolution of these policies.
Extract
This contribution traces the interaction between EU law and national norms that express a certain moral, ethical or cultural value. Such values, which might range from drugs policy to the patentability of human cells, and from the consumption of seal meat to abortion, have something important in common: they ascribe a normative quality to a particular type of life, and typically reflect a communal, political understanding of what is "good". Such norms sit uneasily with the ethos of EU law, in so far that the individual rights guaranteed at the European level serve exactly to limit the externalities of this contractarian conception of political self-determination. This contribution traces these different arguments, their interaction, and the three possible scenarios for their resolution or mediation through the Court's case law: (i) direct normative intervention and Europeanization of the contentious moral or ethical choice; (ii) the insulation of national autonomy; or (iii)balancing through either a substantive or procedural version of the principle of proportionality.
Common Market Law Review