Within the European Union (eu), security issues are increasingly framed as risks and threats that can be controlled by preventive measures. The eu has established several agencies, legal instruments and databases to facilitate the prevention of crime, terrorism and irregular migration. This article takes stock of the way in which the eu seeks to balance the preventive security logic with its own human rights framework. While human rights can jointly be considered an evolving normative framework in the eu, there is a need to identify which human rights are at risk and how (non-) compliance ought to be monitored.
The article states some concerns about equal access to human rights as well as the lack of a strong general oversight mechanism. Continued structural attention should be given to ex ante human-rights impact assessments and there needs to be more emphasis on regular external evaluations of human rights compliance ex post facto. In relation to the external action of the eu, the eu must practice what it preaches and needs to reflect critically on the necessity and proportionality of precautionary security measures.
BoinArjen, EkengrenMagnus, and RhinardMark, Making Sense of Sense-Making: the eu’s Role in Collecting, Analysing and Disseminating Information in Times of Crises, Stockholm, The Swedish National Defence College, 2014.
BorgersM., and SliedregtE. van, “The meaning of the precautionary principle for the assessment of criminal measures in the fight against terrorism”, Erasmus Law Review, 2(2), 2009, pp. 171–195.
BrouwerEvelien, The Other Side of Moon. The Schengen Information System and Human Rights: A Task for National Courts, Brussels, ceps Working Document No. 288/ April 2008; https://www.ceps.eu/publications/other-side-moons-schengen-information-system-and-human-rights-task-national-courts; retrieved 21 May 2016.
CarreraSergio,BlockmansSteven, GrosDaniel, and GuildElspeth, The eu’s Response to the Refugee Crisis. Taking Stock and Setting Policy Priorities. Policy Essay No. 20, 16 December 2015, Centre for European Policy Studies (ceps), Brussels, 2015. https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/EU%20Response%20to%20the%202015%20Refugee%20Crisis_0.pdf; retrieved 13 May 2016.
CastellsManual, The Rise of the Network Society, Chichester, Blackwell Publishing, 2nd edition, 2010.
CrawfordAndrew, “Governing Perceptions of Crime and (In)Security in the Age of Uncertainty”, in: Aspects of Deviance, Crime and Prevention in Europe, Report of the Final Conference, wp 8, Milton Keynes, 2009, pp. 96–119.
Den BoerMonica, “Towards an Accountability Regime for an Emerging European Policing Governance”, in Policing and Society, special issue on police accountability in Europe, Monica den Boer (guest editor), Vol. 12, No 4, 2002, pp. 275–289.
Den BoerMonica, and Van BuurenJelle, “Surveillance Assemblages: Preventing Crime and Terrorism Through Data Monitoring”, in BladJ., HildebrandtM., RozemondK., SchuilenburgM. and Van CalsterP. (eds.), Governing Security under the Rule of Law?, The Hague, Eleven International Publishers, 2010, pp. 215–231.
EckesChristina, eu Counter Terrorist Policies and Fundamental Rights. The Case of Individual Sanctions, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009.
EechaudtVincent, Access to Eurodac by Law Enforcement Authorities. An Assessment, Groningen, University of Groningen / ecre, 2011, http://www.law.ugent.be/ircp/sweetlemon/sites/default/files/pdf/Eurodac___Law_Enforcement_Authorities_-_EU_JHA_-_LL.M._Thesis.pdf; retrieved 12 May 2016.
GrangerMarie-Pierre, and IrionKristina, “The Court of Justice and the Data Retention Directive in Digital Rights Ireland: Telling Off the eu Legislator and Teaching a Lesson in Privacy and Data Protection”, European Law Review, 39 (6), 2014, pp. 835–850.
HarfieldClive, “The Organization of ‘Organized Crime Policing’ and Its International Context”, Research On-Line Paper, University of Wollongong, 2008, http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1184andcontext=lawpapers; retrieved 11 May 2016.
HellerRegina, Notions of Insecurity and Security Policy within the eu: A Historical Perspective, Economics of Security Working Paper No. 4, Berlin: Economics of Security, 2009, http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.94890.de/diw _econsec0004.pdf; retrieved 7 July 2016.
Inglesias SánchezSara, “The Court and the Charter: The Impact of the Entry into Force of the Lisbon Treaty on the ecj’s Approach to Fundamental Rights”, Common Market Law Review, 49, 2012, pp. 1565–1612.
KloppenburgS., “OK to Board? Selective Immobilization and Pre-Emption in an Anti-Drug Smuggling Mobilities Regime”, Chapter 4 in S. Kloppenburg, Tracing Mobilities Regimes: (…), Amsterdam, Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research, 2013; http://dare.uva.nl/document/2/119056; retrieved 7 July 2016.
ScherrerAmandine, JeandesbozJulien, and GuittetEmmanuel-Pierre, Developing an eu Internal Strategy, Fighting Terrorism and Organized Crime, Study for the libe Committee, European Parliament, Brussels, 2011.
StewartEmma J., The European Union and Conflict Prevention. Policy Evaluation and Outcome, Berlin, lit Verlag, 2005.
ZednerL.,“Seeking Security by Eroding Rights: The Side-Stepping of Due Process”. In GooldB.J. and LazarusL. (Eds.), Security and human rights, Oxford and Portland: Oregon, Hart Publishing, 2007, pp. 257–275.
United Nations, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, 2004; nato, Active Engagement, Modern Defence. Strategic Concept for the Defence and Security of the Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 2010. For instance, nato argues that, “The best way to manage conflicts is to prevent them from happening. nato will continually monitor and analyse the international environment to anticipate crises and, where appropriate, take active steps to prevent them from becoming larger conflicts”, on pp. 19/20.