Search

Item does not contain fulltext

Contains fulltext : 149794.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) 108 p.

Item does not contain fulltext

Upon request by the LIBE Committee, this study analyses how the public-private dialogue has been framed and shaped and examines the priorities set up in calls and projects that have received funding from the European Commission under the security theme of the 7th Research Framework Programme (FP7 20072013). In particular, this study addresses two main questions: to what extent is security research placed at the service of citizens? To what extent does it contribute to the development of a single area of fundamental rights and freedoms? The study finds that security research has only partly addressed the concerns of EU citizens and that security research has been mainly put at the service of industry rather than society.

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext

This study examines the technical feasibility and financial soundness of the Commission legislative proposals to establish a EU Entry/Exit System (EES) and EU Registered Traveller Programme (RTP) for the external borders of the Union. It puts the impact assessment documents accompanying the proposals in comparative perspectives with likeminded initiatives in third countries (USVIST), at the national level in the EU (UK border checks and e-Borders), and with past European initiatives (SIS II, VIS). It finds that it is not reasonable to consider that the measures envisaged in the smart borders package are technically feasible and financially sounds, and formulates recommendations to the LIBE Committee and the European Parliament in this regard.

In the wake of the disclosures surrounding PRISM and other US surveillance programmes, this study makes an assessment of the large-scale surveillance practices by a selection of EU member states: the UK, Sweden, France, Germany and the Netherlands. Given the large-scale nature of surveillance practices at stake, which represent a reconfiguration of traditional intelligence gathering, the study contends that an analysis of European surveillance programmes cannot be reduced to a question of balance between data protection versus national security, but has to be framed in terms of collective freedoms and democracy. It finds that four of the five EU member states selected for in-depth examination are engaging in some form of large-scale interception and surveillance of communication data, and identifies parallels and discrepancies between these programmes and the NSA-run operations. The study argues that these surveillance programmes do not stand outside the realm of EU intervention but can be engaged from an EU law perspective via (i) an understanding of national security in a democratic rule of law framework where fundamental human rights standards and judicial oversight constitute key standards; (ii) the risks presented to the internal security of the Union as a whole as well as the privacy of EU citizens as data owners, and (iii) the potential spillover into the activities and responsibilities of EU agencies. The study then presents a set of policy recommendations to the European Parliament.

In the wake of the disclosures surrounding PRISM and other US surveillance programmes, this paper assesses the large-scale surveillance practices by a selection of EU member states: the UK, Sweden, France, Germany and the Netherlands. Given the large-scale nature of these practices, which represent a reconfiguration of traditional intelligence gathering, the paper contends that an analysis of European surveillance programmes cannot be reduced to a question of the balance between data protection versus national security, but has to be framed in terms of collective freedoms and democracy. It finds that four of the five EU member states selected for in-depth examination are engaging in some form of large-scale interception and surveillance of communication data, and identifies parallels and discrepancies between these programmes and the NSA-run operations. The paper argues that these programmes do not stand outside the realm of EU intervention but can be analysed from an EU law perspective via i) an understanding of national security in a democratic rule of law framework where fundamental human rights and judicial oversight constitute key norms; ii) the risks posed to the internal security of the Union as a whole as well as the privacy of EU citizens as data owners and iii) the potential spillover into the activities and responsibilities of EU agencies. The paper then presents a set of policy recommendations to the European Parliament.

Item does not contain fulltext 352 p.

Item does not contain fulltext 29 p.

Item does not contain fulltext

EU AFSJ law is one of the EU’s most controversial and expansive policy fields and currently the subject of a booming agenda. EU External migration law has been labelled to be the most unjust and inhuman in the contemporary global legal order. These issues operate at a curious nexus of analysis from a practical, conceptual and methodological perspective. This chapter explores how to understand the intersection thereof from the juncture of critical studies. How should we map the subjects and objects of EU external migration law going forward? How can we critically map analytical methods for EU external migration law?