Thursday, February 25, 2010

To Serve and Protect: The Lisbon Treaty

The EU has been an ever expanding organism since its birth. What started as a loose trade alliance between a handful of countries based on the key industrial materials of the mid-twentieth century, coal and steal, eventually grew into an economic behemoth. A breadth of treaties and legislation apply uniformly across the continent bringing national economic players and institutions into closer alliance and partnership. Despite many successes, the external security the union is one area where the EU has failed to properly integrate and the 27 member states retain control over their own foreign relations and security matters. While the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) exists, it has to date been largely disorganised, ineffectual, and superficial in clout.

Internal security is another matter. Europol is the intelligence agency of the EU and began operating over a decade ago, in 1994. However, the idea for an integrated cross-border policing organisation was first promulgated in Europe as far back as before World War I.[1] The Europol office in The Hague, The Netherlands is a hub of information pooled by all twenty seven of the EU’s member states. The added benefit of the organisation is that it can conduct meta-analysis of data and information, identifying trends and understanding patterns, by looking at a wider picture than national police forces.

The so-called Europol Council Decision, which came at the same time as the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, is much more direct than the reforms in the treaty proper. It made Europol and EU agency, rather than a body funded by member states. Our examination reveals steep increases in Europol’s implemented budget in recent years: €52 (2005), €52m (2006), €55m (2007), €65 (2008), €68m (2009), €80 (2010). [2] [3] [4] This is a significant change in the funding and organisational structure of the body. At the time of the decision a spokesman for Commission Vice-President Jacques Barrot said,

This is a veritable transformation, not merely a cosmetic one. Europol will become a full EU body, with the tools to support law enforcement agencies in the Member States even more effectively. As a result, European police forces will cooperate more closely.[5]

The Lisbon Treaty influenced the direction and advancement of Europol indirectly through the EU’s second internal security organisation Eurojust. A department of public prosecution, the agency fills a similar role to that of the district attorneys office in the US, and was established in 2002. The Lisbon Treaty expanded the list of crimes subject to judicial cooperation, by proxy expanding the mandate of Europol.[6]

The Telegraph journalist Philip Johnston points out that this is the vital step in expanding a system that “was designed in the first instance to deal with offences against the EU's financial interest.” Johnston stands opposed to the developments heralded by the Lisbon Treaty arguing that the fundamental difference in judicial system of the UK and Ireland (common law) to most of the rest of Europe (civil law) means that these advances are incompatible in principal and, secondly, are detrimental to sovereignty. [7]

However, some critics decry that the Lisbon treaty did not go far enough to coordinate policing and justice in the union. Hugo Brady, a research fellow at the Centre for European Reform, argues that having two organisations complicates operations and duplicates duties, causing confusion and distrust of the current system. These problems have not been properly addressed by the Lisbon treaty and Brady argues that it is essential that further moves should be made to merge the two organisations.[8]

The development of the law enforcement and judicial capabilities are sure to be a contentious issue in Europe going forward. For some the EU is going to far, and other’s it is not going far enough. The intricacies of the issue lie in the fact that the sprawling and interconnected nature of European legislation means that a development in a seemingly loosely related field may have unintended consequences that may expand or contract the capabilities of the justice and law enforcement bodies of the Union.

No comments:

Post a Comment