Abstracts of the Challenge Annual Conference: Illiberal practices of Liberal Regimes

---

See the Programm of the Conference

---

Challenge Annual Conference

Illiberal practices of Liberal Regimes

June 9th 2006

Abstracts

Plenary Session

The roots of the liberal state and its relation to security, sovereignty and justice

R.B.J. Walker (Challenge Partner/WP1, University of Keele, United-Kingdom)

Sovereignty, state law and international law

Much contemporary analysis of the relationship between security and liberty works on the basis of an assumed separation between state law and international law. Part of the task of developing a more critical account of contemporary liberties and securities depends on the recovery of a more dialectical that is, aporetic relationship between state law and international law.

Elspeth Guild (Challenge Partner/WP14, Radboud University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands)

Sovereignty and Justice in whose name ?

The relationship between sovereignty and justice in Europe is under profound transformation. The traditional perspective of justice systems as an expression of national sovereignty which provides an enforcement mechanism for state law within the control of the political actors is subject to increasing strain. The emergence and increasing consolidation of the supranational in two forms - EU law and the European convention on human rights, which have become mutually reinforcing, has diminished the capacity of the EU state to determine the content of law and the rules by which justice is delivered. The interface between the international judge whether at the European Court of justice in Luxembourg or the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the national judge has placed new constraints on EU states. For example, over the last year the national judges in the UK have struck down state legislation on the indefinite detention of foreigners, on control orders preventing an individual from leaving the state, on requiring third country nationals to obtain a permit to marry in the UK etc on the grounds of supra national law - both EU and the ECHR. The French government is currently facing challenges before the European court of human rights regarding the acts of its military in Kosovo regarding the removal of armaments and the detention of an individual. In whose name are these changes occurring? The individual both within and beyond the state, whether citizen of foreigner, is emerging from the generality of the population, the subject of sovereignty to an individual actor rights holder within a system which is beyond state sovereignty.

Vivienne Jabri (Challenge Partner/WP1, Kings College, London, United-Kingdom)

Political agency and human rights in the context of the politics of security

One of the major questions arising from what Agamben refers to as the state of exception relates to the possibility of political agency in the face of practices that are seemingly totalising and framed in terms of necessity. Such practices are now global in reach, spanning domestic jurisdictions as well as locations that are international and transnational. They have come to include anti-terrorist legislative measures, secret detentions, the use of torture, as well as military interventions. The paper explores the location of political agency and its modes of expression through two distinct, but nevertheless related discursive practices, one reliant on the discourses of human rights and the other drawing on the discourses of security. What becomes apparent is that while most attention is focussed on human rights as constituting the limit to the politics of security, it is the juridical and political re-framing of security that is most challenging to the contemporary politics of security, raising fundamental issues relating to the location of sovereignty in the late modern era.

Workshop 1

Media and public opinion. Fear, protection, populism.

Anastassia Tsoukala (Challenge Partner/WP2, University of Paris 11, France)

«Communicating on terrorism. A fear-mongering strategy?»

An analysis of the British political discourses on the terrorist threat (2001-2005) has uncovered that the defining of the terrorist threat frame has been primarily determined by various domestic political stakes. It seems then that, far from limiting themselves to their responsibility to inform the people on an upcoming danger, politicians and security officials had frequently used fear-fuelling strategies to: a) improve their position in the domestic political and security fields; b) obtain substantial electoral gains.

Michalis Lianos (Challenge Partner, University of Porthmouth/WP11, United-Kingdom)

«Perceptual Proximity: The Foundations of Public Demand for Security»

Thierry Balzacq (Challenge Partner/WP5, CEPS, Belgium)

«Audience and the Problem of Legitimacy while securitising an issue»

That audience is central to the process of securitization is something of a misnomer; and yet it remains underspecified. The paper explores the practice by which audience are formed and how they contribute to securitization. After clearing the ground by arguing that the success of securitization is highly contingent upon the securitizing actor’s ability to identify with the audience’s feeling, needs and interests, I begin with the proposition that securitizing actors develop maps of target audiences based on both the stereotypes of the threat they themselves hold and those they believe to prevail among that segment of the public important to them. I therefore develop the distinction between formal and moral supports, which is crucial to understand the difference that the nature of the audience makes in specifying a threat.

Andrew Neal (Challenge Partner/WP1, Keele University, United-Kingdom)

«War on terror or law on terror»

What is at stake in the politics of exceptionalism that has come to characterise contemporary political discourses? This paper uses the work of Foucault to question whether those states that are engaging in illiberal and exceptional anti-terrorism measures should be understood as states of war or states of law. Does the violence of exceptionalism reveal their true nature, or is it merely a necessary step on the way back to normality? Are these states the manifestation of progress, right, and the rule of law, or are they inherently violent, merely using these political institutions to continue a war of domination by other means? Foucault’s «Society Must Be Defended» suggests that the key tension is whether the modern nation-state is the expression of the progressive unfolding of right in history, or the expression of politics as the continuation of a historically-continuing war by other means. The argument of this paper is that the figures of ‘war on terror’ and ‘law on terror’ are not a dualistic either/or, but a dialectical both/and.

Workshop 2

Policing abroad in the name of freedom

Terrorism, Crime, War or to prevent migration?

Peter Lock (Challenge Partner/WP4, EART, Germany)

«Violence and economic regulation - charting a preliminary typology»

The aim of our research is to identify the factor violence at different levels of economic regulation. Simplifying the complexity of social organisation, we depart from the following schematic premise. Security is indispensable for economies to operate. Under ideal-type conditions security is provided as public good and the rule of law facilitates safe transactions. In reality different forms of violence and even more importantly the credible threat thereof are pervasively employed as a means of economic regulation. Special bonds among diverse identity groups, based on ethnicity, location of origin, religion among others, may alternatively allow trust-based transactions in the absence of the rule of law.

Intimidation through credible threat of violence is a means to rationalise violence, which criminal entrepreneurs are inherently interested in. Embedding the criminal business in the social formation of an identity group offers an additional competitive advantage by combining trust and intimidation as an efficient means of regulation.

The co-variation of the estimated size of the shadow economy and violent death statistics serves as a first approximation, if one uses the figures on a regional basis accounting for major cultural differences as well as affinities. However, only a certain share of violent deaths is directly attributable to entrepreneurial strategies seeking to control markets through violence-based intimidation. Large shadow economies reflect social and economic exclusion affecting disproportionately young people, who in many countries constitute, what demographers have called, the youth bulge. In this process of massive social exclusion social norms, allowing non-violent resolution of (every day) conflicts, lose their power. Crime statistics show a hefty concentration of violent deaths on weekends. We suggest the use of «situational» as opposed to «regulative» violence to account for this statistical concentration of violent deaths.

Any typology of violent regulation must start at the very top of the current global order. De facto the global reach of the superior military power of the United States is selectively employed to regulate the (economic) governance worldwide. Covert interference and pre-emptive intervention form part of the declared military doctrine. Since the United States has demonstrated their willingness to implement the doctrine, the unilateral military superiority serves as a latent intimidation to accept the economic regulation favoured by the US-government. At the bottom we find violent youth gangs terrorising local spaces aiming to gain access to the world of mass consumption.

Transnational criminal networks apply ruthless violence to protect their markets. The high death rates in connection with the trade of illegal drugs highlight the instability of many markets regulated by means of violence and intimidation.

State failure, for whatever reasons, produces a regulatory vacuum that is being filled by other forms of economic regulation. An instable balance of power between informal, often communitarian and criminal violence-based economic regulation constitutes the framework of an emerging social order in its own right, which more and more tends to gravitate around transnational networks.

The economic regulation that drives shadow globalisation is always driven by the need to manage the safe spheres of exchange with the regular economy. It is a rather competitive cosmos. Entrepreneurs who manage to blend intimidation with trust making a specific network impenetrable will win a competitive edge.

Charting these networks according to the predominant form of regulation will result in combinations of special forms of social capital and of intimidation. The mega-cities of the world are the places, where in the absence of the «state» the social geography is defined by mutual intimidation across all social formations and the ensuing reciprocal security strategies. The process takes a form not unlike an arms race. Sometimes this converts into a permanent armed conflict, as is sometimes the case at the very low end of the social hierarchy. Examples are the youth gangs in Central America and Nigeria among others.

At a later stage we hope to extract a substantive categorisation of networks from case studies of mega-cities around the world according to the respective mode of regulation they rely on in response to their environment.

Felix Berenskoetter (Challenge Partner/WP2&7, LSE, United-Kingdom)

«The ESDP and the fight against international crime»

This contribution analyzes the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) as a tool in the fight against ‘organized crime’. The primary aim is to sort out the theoretical frame in which this activity can be placed. It will first discuss (i) the problematic nature of the concept ‘organized crime’ as a threat to ‘society’, and (ii) the difficulty of devising appropriate instruments to address it. These conceptual insights are then used to evaluate (iii) how ESDP is involved in ‘fighting organised crime’ and (iv) what this means for our understanding of the EU’s international ‘actorness’.

Andras Pap (Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Institute for Legal Studies, Hungary)

«Contradictions of the regimes of the Security Council, the EU and Hungarian Government on how to stop the financial transactions for terrorist organisations and undemocratic organs»

The policy of «proscription», or «designation», of groups and individuals as «terrorist» has been deployed as a crucial legal weapon in the global war on terrorism. Despite its serious human rights implications, judicial review is excluded from the highly politicised process of designating persons and legal entities as terrorists. Although proscription carries extremely serious consequences, particularly for individuals subject to asset freezing, this policy has been embraced uncritically by the international community and member states’ domestic legal system.

This paper aims to survey certain contradictions within legal regimes imposed by the UN Security Council, the EU and the Hungarian Government, aimed at freezing assets and financial transactions of terrorist organisations and organs associated with anti-democratic political regimes. Even though the examples are brought from Hungary, a new EU-member state that so far has not been directly affected by terrorism, arguably the scrutinized controversies point to general Rule of Law questions that presumably most European states are bound to face.

William Vlcek (Challenge Partner/WP2&7, LSE, United-Kingdom)

«The ECJ and Acts to Combat the Financing of Terrorism by the European Community»

This paper considers a judgement from the Court of First Instance (ECJ) in response to an application to annul EC Regulations implementing ’smart sanctions’ against residents of the EU as directed by UN Security Council Resolutions. The use of financial sanctions against individuals merely accused of supporting terrorism in this situation permits limited recourse for rebuttal and restitution. Furthermore, the use of evidence that must be kept secret from the accused, for security reasons, is problematic for a jurisdiction governed by the rule of law.

Diede-Jan Dieben (University Groningen, The Netherlands)

«When does war become a crime? Aspects of the criminal case against Eric O.»

This paper gives an analysis of the Dutch participation in the war in Irak and of the crucial meaning of the Rules Of Engagement when soldiers are in operation after the end of the combat but still occupying the country and participating to Law and Order activities. The author shows through the case of Eric O., the difficulty to trace the boundary between actions of war and actions of internal security. This paper highlights the tensions in southern Irak, but the situation there can be compared with parts of Irak, with Kosovo, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone. It opens crucial questions about war, crime, security and the democracy and about the role of the soldier. What are the duties and the freedoms of military operating abroad? To what extend are they bound by the rule of law and democratic accountability? Can soldiers perform their task on the basis of the actual disciplinary rules or, should these rules be amended taking into account the will of their political leaders, the situation abroad, and there human rights obligations?

Amandine Scherrer (Sciences Po, France)

«The role of the ‘Groupe de Lyon’ inside the G8»

Among the goals tackled by the G8, since the 1990’s, transnational organized crime has become a salient issue. A G8 experts group, known as the Lyon Group, has been created with the purpose of establishing norms and recommendations for the member states and the international community as a whole.

The designated senior experts in the Lyon Group belong to a wide range of expert practitioners. They include representatives of G8 members’ agencies directly involved in policing, customs and immigration enforcement, law and foreign policy. This presentation aims at highlighting the role of this specific group inside the G8 and worldwide regarding the so-called « global fight » against transnational organized crime.

Workshop 3

EU governance and regulation of market and people:

Border control, and Visas policies

Nikos Scandamis(Challenge Partner/WP12, University of Athens)

«Market and Democracy in the EU governance system»

The speaker explores an issue, usually taken for granted, that of the compatibility of the claim for (representative) democracy within the system of the European Governance. The need for democracy may only be met at the national level, as it is now, legally speaking, the case; in other terms, a structural element of transnational governance and not simply a temporary deficiency. The question of democracy in types of governance beyond the national borders is imperceptibly dissipated into freedoms and rights which render the Market a place of Justice which only experts are mandated to manage through the techniques of a minimal governing. Such liberal governance produces liberties as functional necessities with the view to attain legitimizing degrees of welfare; at the same time, it essentially develops a culture of danger which empowers interventions in terms of security. This contradiction between the production of liberties as a functional necessity of liberalism and the management of dangers which legitimize political intervention resume the essence of liberalism, as a form of governance. Although liberties appear inherent to persons, they prove to be inherent to a governance system and are likely, for this reason to be reshaped and eventually restricted. A hierarchy even seems to exist as to which type of liberty must step back in cases of tensions between them: Fundamental economic freedoms precede individual freedoms, especially in isolated cases; equally, economic rights precede political rights when in competition or collision.

Angelina Tchorbadjiyska (Challenge Partner, European Instiute Sofia, Bulgaria)

»On visas and the freedom of movement - the price of visa free travel»

The paper analyses certain measures introduced by Bulgaria and Romania in their quest for obtaining visa-free travel with the EU. The focus is on a provision creating the possibility for confiscation of the passports of Bulgarian and Romanian citizens who have infringed the entry and residence rules of other countries. The compatibility of such provision with the human rights guaranteed by both countries’ constitutions and the European Convention of Human Rights is then evaluated.

Agnieszka Weinar (Challenge Partner/WP7, Batory Foundation, Poland)

»Under the Old Europe’s frowning eyes - the New Member States and the European Borders»

Anita Szymborska (Challenge Partner/WP9, Batory Foundation, Poland)

»Managing the visa policy - the Schengen dilemma»

Andras Kovats (Challenge Partner/WP7, University of Szeged/CIMRES, Hungary)

«The possible role of the visa policy in fomulating the Hungarian immigration strategy»

Workshop 4

Islamophobia

Jocelyne Cesari (Challenge Partner/WP10, Harvard University and CNRS, France)

«Presentation of the research. Synthesis of the results»

José Maria Ortuño Aix (Challenge Partner/WP9, University of Barcelona, Spain)

«Anti-terrorism and Security Laws»

The terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 in New York, March 11th 2004 in Madrid, and July 7th 2005 in London have led to the implementation of several anti-terrorist laws and measures in several European countries which, first, undermine the system of guarantees of the social and democratic state of law, and, second, put under suspicion and criminalize Muslim immigrants, who become victimes of such policies. After the attacks, the image of Islam as a threat to Western democratic values and prone to radicalize, has gained grounds in official and in popular views. That image allowed that exceptional laws based in the withdrawal of the legal principle of innocence and in the punishment in advance were introduced as lawful despite that they obviously go against the state of law.

Alexandre Caeiro (EHESS-Paris France and Institute for the Study of Islam in the Muslim World, Leiden, The Netherlands)

«Relations between the State and Muslims»

The project on «The Consequences of Islamophobia after 9/11», carried out by a team of Europe-based scholars for Challenge, has sought to analyse the development of Islamophobia in a number of key European Union countries. Focussing on the impact across European Muslim communities of a tragic event which took place in North America (9/11), the research suggests a number of convergences and common constraints working their way through local and national contexts.

One of the initial hypothesis of our study was that Islamophobia nevertheless takes on different forms according to the political and cultural specifics of each nation, and its’ history of Muslim immigration and integration. We thus assumed that among the primary influential factors in manifestations of Islamophobia were the status of religion in public spaces and the existence of multicultural policies.

This presentation will seek to evaluate more specifically these claims by looking briefly at the varieties of secularisms in Europe and contrasting the various historical Church-State arrangements with the efforts to institutionalise Islam and represent Muslims. In a second moment, it will consider the applicability and effectiveness on the ground of models of separating religion and State when dealing with, perpetuating, or correcting anti-Muslim discrimination.

Marcel Maussen (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

«Legal status of Islamic Religious Practices in Europe after 9/11»

Chris Allen (University of Birmingham, United-Kingdom); Riem Spielhaus (Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany)

«Anti-Islamic Discourses in Europe: Agents and Contents»

When considering the anti-Islamic discourses present across Europe - and indeed beyond - since 9/11, it is important to recognise and consider the roles and responsibilities of those primary sources from where such originate and also what such discourses constitute. In other words, it is important to recognise and consider the agents of such discourses and their contents. From the research that has been undertaken, both the media and political spaces are of special importance.

This paper will take a thematic approach with Riem Spielhaus discussing stereotypes of anti-Islamic discourses before Chris Allen concludes with a discussion on agents and links between different actors and discourse strands. In both parts of the paper, each of the countries will be comparatively considered taking into account the European process to establish an essentializing approach to the identities of ’Others’ and in particular Muslims and Islam both through the problematization of Muslim immigration and Muslim immigrants and even where Muslims are no longer seen to be immigrants, as in the UK. The comparison of the discourse in 5 European countries shows, how the same stereotypes - sometimes shrouded in different language and terminologies - are prevalent and readily translated at a pan-European level. These stereotypes are that: 1. Islam is a dangerous religion that encourages violence, terrorism and the suppression of women and is antagonistic to European life style and values; 2. the claim of Islamophobia is a strategy to hinder legitimate criticism on Islam; 3. Europe is in great danger to be conquered by the Islamic threat through such processes as immigration, naturalization, birth rates and Islamification; and 4. Muslims are generalized through simplistic representations where they form part of either a single unidimensional and homogeneous group or can be placed in one part of dualistic ’good’ or ’bad’ Islam, each of these as well as other stereotypes being elaborated upon by examples from the research.

This will provide a solid grounding from which to assess the major toppics and arguments that are present, the similarities that are present in relation to other discriminatory and hateful phenomena (e.g. racism and antisemitism) before concluding with an explanation of the reasons underpinning Islamophobic discourse and the apparent causes for such.

Workshop 5

Mapping the field of the professionals of security in the EU:

recent transformations and adaptations

Willy Bruggeman (Former Senior Deputy Director of Europol)

«The Future of Europol»

Didier Bigo (Challenge Scientific Coordinator/WP2, CERI/Sciences Po, France)

«A Bourdieusian approach to the professionals of (in)security»

The mapping of the field of the professionals of (in)security management in the European Union is inspired by the analysis of Pierre Bourdieu concept of field. Up to date, the work of Pierre Bourdieu has been ill understood in International Relations theory. This paper will discuss some fundamental concepts and illustrate their use in international research with the example of a recent research project on security management in Europe, focussing on the restructuring of the European police and domestic security agendas. The paper will notably elaborate the use of the concept of «fields» and the problems of its operationalisation in transnational empirical research.

Christian Olsson (Challenge Partner/WP2, CERI/Sciences Po, France); Julien Jeandesboz (Challenge Partner/WP2, CERI/Sciences Po, France), Stephan Davidshofer (Challenge Partner/WP2, Sciences Po, France),

«Mapping a transnational field of European (in)security institutions»

The aim of this presentation is to offer a perspective on a research project: the mapping of the European field of security agencies. It features indications on its methodological implications, and offers insights on some of the preliminary results obtained through this collective endeavour, thus stressing the interest of a Bourdieu inspired sociological approach.

Emmanuel-Pierre Guittet (Challenge Partner/WP2, C&C, France)

«Looking at the involvement of the military inside, an example»

Under what condition(s) can Armed forces be involved, and with what degree of autonomy, within the national boundaries? What is the most responsible position for military officials, looking at means and objectives, when politicians ask them to intervene, through various missions, in the fight against terrorism within the national boundaries? Should the Armed forces remain deaf when professionals of politics are tempted to confuse the existential survival of the nation and their own political survival. This paper aimed at discussing the practices of French Armed Forces concerning their involvement in internal security and counter terrorism, and the justification of this involvement by procedures of derogation to the rule of law either inside the Constitution or outside this framework.

Workshop 6

Controlling Social cohesion? Citizen and rights of foreigners

Sergio Carrera (Challenge Partner/WP5, CEPS, Belgium)

«Integration of Immigrants versus Social Inclusion: A Typology of Integration Programmes in the EU»

This paper examines the philosophies hiding behind the notion of ‘integration of immigrants’. What does integration of immigrants mean in liberal democracies? The vulnerabilities and uncertainties inherent to the nature of this concept will be critically addressed. It then provides an overview of integration programmes for immigrants in a selected group of EU Member States: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The main tendencies and common elements are widely assessed and broadly compared. As we will show, in the national arena there appears to be a distinct trend towards a ‘restrictive integration policy for immigrants’. Mandatory participation in integration programmes is now a regular part of immigration and citizenship legislation, and a precondition for having access to a ‘secure juridical status’.

A nexus between immigration, integration and citizenshipis becoming ‘the norm’ in a majority of the national legal systems. The artificial link between ‘the social inclusion of immigrants’ and ‘the juridical framework on immigration, integration and citizenship’ may at times raise human rights considerations, and endanger the inter-culturalism and diversity that are inherent to the nature of the EU.The last section will look at the evolving EU framework on integration of immigrants where a struggle is taking place in two parallel arenas regarding: First, the competence over this field - national versus European; and second, the overall approach which diverges substantially between the one presented under the EU framework on integration and the so-called common basic principles (soft policy approach), and the actual legal acts product of a common immigration policy (hard policy approach).

Cristina Fernandez (Challenge Partner/WP9, University of Barcelona, Spain)

«Symbolic dimension and real consequences of border policies»

The treatment given to the immigrants who attempt to cross external border is just the one which is reserved for all those who already did (and indirectly to everybody else). In the EU a number of policies on immigration have focused on external border management. Border controls are everyday more externalized and more militarized in order to show that the states try to prevent irregular migrants. But in the other hand, as the entrance of immigrants in the EU states is mainly through regular gates, there are also border policies inside the countries (which are invisible for the society but are very present for migrant people everyday life). Restrictive immigration laws, antiterrorism laws and also regulations against incivilities (as the one enforced in Barcelona since last January) shape this internal borders. In this sense, detention camps for foreigners, but also checkpoints in suburban trains or in post offices could suppose the same consequences as external border policies.

Federico Rahola (Challenge Partner/WP8, University of Genoa, Italy)

«The logic of human excedent and the definitive transit zone»

Rutvica Andrijasevic (Challenge Partner/WP5, CEPS, Belgium)

«How to balance rights and responsibilities on asylum at the EU’s southern border of Italy and Libya»

During the past year the temporary holding centre for irregular migrants in Lampedusa, Italy’s southernmost island, has been repeatedly denounced for instances of procedural irregularities and alleged human rights violations. The degrading treatment of third-country nationals, the difficulty in gaining access to the asylum determination process and the large scale expulsions to Libya, brought Lampedusa to the attention of European and international institutions. The European Parliament, the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations’ Human Rights Committee all called on Italy to refrain from collective expulsions of asylum seekers and irregular migrants to Libya and to respect asylum seekers’ right to international protection. Using the material provided by the Italian authorities, European institutions and the NGOs, this study presents an overview of events and policies implemented by the Italian and Libyan Governments, the European Union and the International Organization for Migration and outlines the contentions surrounding these policies. The paper argues that the implementation of the detention and return schemes, commonly discussed in terms of the externalization of asylum, does not actually relocate the asylum procedures outside the EU’s external borders but rather deprives asylum seekers of the possibility of accessing asylum determination procedure. My analysis of migratory patterns in Libya further suggests that these policies, implemented to deter irregular migratory flows into Europe and combat smuggling in migrants, might paradoxically result in ‘illegalizing’ the movement of migrants between Libya and the neighbouring African states and in increasing the involvement of smuggling networks. The study ends by raising the issue of the political responsibility of all actors involved, whether they are Governments, supranational bodies or agencies, and putting forward policy recommendations for an effective EU framework for the protection of asylum seekers.

Judith Töth (Challenge Partner/WP7, University of Szeged/CIMRES, Hungary)

«Borders, neighbourhood policy and enlargement»

Workshop 7

Surveillance and control in the name of protection and survival (biometrics and data bases)

Ola Tunander (Challenge Partner/WP3, PRIO, Norway)

«The War on Terror and Pax Americana»

Juliet Lodge (Challenge Partner/WP6, University of Leeds, United-Kingdom)

«The Challenge of biometric function creep - beyond the human bar code»

Biometrics and the digitisation of citizens raises important question for transparency, openness and democratic accountability. How this is reconfigured and what the implications are of applying Hague Programme principles (proportionality, inter-operability and availability) highlight a contradiction between the ideals of democratic government as traditionally understood in western, liberal democratic representative systems of government and the reality of egovernance that transcends territorial space, is functionally driven (but captured in functionally specific digital ’bubbles’) and lacks definable boundaries.

Bruno Fransen (Challenge Partner/WP6, University of Leeds, United-Kingdom)

«Obstacles on the road to openness»

Striking an adequate balance between guaranteeing an adequate level of openness on the one hand and protecting vital interests on the other has always been a difficult undertaking. This is especially true at the European level which is imbedded in complexity and surrendered to diplomacy. As a result European citizens are increasingly unaware of what the EU is doing which at its turn gives rise to declining levels of interest, support and trust in the European integration process. This contribution aims at analysing these obstacles on the Union’s road to openness and at providing some recommendations that could help to overcome them.

Philippe Bonditti (Challenge Partner/WP2, CERI/Sciences Po, France)

«Governing Modern societies. What about Biometrics?»

William Keller (ISI Partner, Director, Ridway Center; University of Pittsburgh, USA)

«Characteristics of Internal Security in the 21st Century»

In the absence of a collective international regime to combat terrorism, many bilateral arrangements of political convenience have been and will continue to be struck with a variety of states and leaders whose methods and internal security conduct is unsavory. And when the United States, France, the United Kingdom-or any other modern liberal polity-engages with these states, there will be a tendency for the standards of decency to fall to a lower common denominator. The secrecy that typically accompanies internal security will ensure, for the most part, that very little of what transpires ever sees the light of day, or can be subjected to principles that are consistent with basic Enlightenment values advanced by liberalism over the past 250 years. This paper will provide a theoretical construct through which to understand cooperative internal security measures among states aimed at identifying and aborting terrorist activities and organizations while preserving human rights.

Workshop 8

Foreign Policy: from enemy to neighbours?

Alessandro Dal Lago (Challenge Partner/WP8, University of Genoa, Italy)

«The transformation of the concept of war and its impact on US and European foreign policy both externally and internally»

Esther Barbé and Elisabeth Johansson-Nogués (Challenge Partner/WP2, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain)

»Defusing conflict in the near neighbourhood? The EU and the ENP»

The European Neighborhood Policy has called rather forcefully for a greater EU involvement in the open and latent conflicts in neighboring countries in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and the Mediterranean. This constitutes a rather significant departure from the timidity which the Union has approached these conflicts in the past. Combining all the instruments contemplated in the ENP it would thus seem that the Union is intent on increasingly taking on the role of a regional pacifier for neighboring countries. This paper will consider the latest development of EU action vis-à-vis these conflicts, surveying the means and instruments used to help bring about a peaceful settlement in the neighborhood. Moreover, the paper will ponder whether the EU is really ready to take on such an ambitious role as envisioned by the ENP.

Karen Smith (Challenge Partner/WP2&7, LSE, United-Kingdom) «Balancing between inclusion and exclusion: The EU’s fight against irregular migration and human trafficking from Ukraine, Moldova, and Russia»

Victor Bojkov (Challenge Partner/WP2&7, LSE, United-Kingdom)

«Bulgarian security sector reform in the context of EU and NATO accession»

The paper problematises the process of reform in the Bulgarian security sector following the departure of communism in 1989. The process is analysed with reference to both its international (the Euro-Atlantic integration of the country) and domestic (pre and post-1989 politics) determinants and consequences. The security sector is understood as comprising the police, particularly the security services within it, and the military. The observation is that, while the latter has largely been successful in reform and international integration, the police is still struggling to produce tangible outcomes. The paper analyses the reasons for this discrepancy.

Gilles Favarel-Garrigues (CERI/Sciences Po, France), Anne Le Huérou (EHESS, France)

«Antiterrorist policies in Russia»

This paper will deal with the relationship between EU and Russia in the particular field of antiterrorist policies. It considers that antiterrorist policies are a set of measures which lead to various degrees of cooperation or conflict. The presentation will emphasise two main aspects of these policies: the attitude toward the war (so-called counterterrorist operation) in Chechnya on the one hand, and toward counterterrorist financing on the other. Regarding the last aspect, Russia, after having been blacklisted on FATF list and banned from international community, is now considered as a model, spreading counterterrorist financing policies in Central Asia and in China.

Download at PDF format

Abstracts of the Challenge Annual Conference : Illiberal practices of Liberal Regimes