Does the Stockholm Programme Matter? The Struggles Over Ownership of AFSJ Multiannual Programming
Does the 2009 Stockholm Programme matter? This paper addresses the controversies experienced at EU institutional levels as to ‘who’ should have ownership of the contours of the EU’s policy and legislative multiannual programming in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) in a post-Lisbon Treaty landscape. It examines the struggles around the third multiannual programme on the AFSJ, i.e. the Stockholm Programme, and the dilemmas affecting its implementation. The latest affair to emerge relates to the lack of fulfilment by the European Commission of the commitment to provide a mid-term evaluation of the Stockholm Programme’s implementation by mid-2012, as requested by both the Council and the European Parliament. This paper shifts the focus to a broader perspective and raises the following questions: Is the Stockholm Programme actually relevant? What do the discussions behind its implementation tell us about the new institutional dynamics affecting European integration on the AFSJ? Does the EU actually need a new (post-Stockholm) multiannual programme for the period 2015-20? And last, what role should the EP play in legislative and policy programming in order to further strengthen the democratic accountability and legitimacy of the EU’s AFSJ?
Towards an internal (in)security strategy for the EU? CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe, 12 January 2011
The European Commission published in November 2010 a Communication aiming at putting the EU Internal Security Strategy (ISS) into action. The Communication envisages five key strategic objectives for the EU’s internal security: disrupt organised crime, prevent terrorism, raise levels of security in cyberspace, strengthen external borders management and increase the EU’s resilience to natural disasters. This paper starts by critically examining the extent to which these objectives actually constitute shared common concerns in all EU27 member states and whether they are based on independent and objective evidence. After demonstrating the contrary, we then argue that the ISS should be rather considered as an ‘Internal (In)security Strategy’ because of the lack of an accompanying solid rule of law and liberty strategy (model) focused on ensuring the delivery to everyone living in the EU (and who will be subject to increasing EU internal security policies focused on more surveillance, preventive measures and an intelligence-based approach) the twin rights of rule of law and fundamental rights.
Commentary: Scholarship as a Way of Life—Character and Virtue in the Age of Big Humanities
From the Renaissance to the nineteenth century, most European scholars considered moral cultivation as the primary purpose of the humanities. The humanities were human not just because they concerned the products of the human mind but also because they transformed scholars and students into better human beings. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the rise of Big Humanities questioned this moral purpose. However, Big Humanities also reemphasized the importance of epistemic virtues for scholarship. The language of epistemic virtues helped scholars create new communities of learning and scholarship. Within these communities, the language of virtues established common standards of collaboration and granted scholars a sense of purpose. Many of these scholars also continued to associate epistemic virtues with moral virtues.