Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-30T21:34:24.970Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scratching the heart of the artichoke? How international institutions and the European Union constrain the state monopoly of force

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2011

Eva Herschinger ,
Markus Jachtenfuchs  and
Christiane Kraft-Kasack
Eva Herschinger
Affiliation:
Institute of Political Science, Universität der Bundeswehr München
Markus Jachtenfuchs*
Affiliation:
Hertie School of Governance, Berlin
Christiane Kraft-Kasack
Affiliation:
Berlin Graduate School of Transnational Studies
*
* E-mail: jachtenfuchs@hertie-school.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent years, a growing literature has argued that European Union (EU) member states have undergone a profound transformation caused by international institutions and by the EU, in particular. However, the state core – the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force, embodied by the police – seemed to remain intact. The literature has argued that in this area, international institutions are weak, and cooperation has remained informal and intergovernmental. We take issue with these claims and evaluate the strength of international institutions in two core areas of policing (terrorism and drugs) over time. We find that in terms of decision-making, precision, and adjudication, international institutions have become considerably stronger over time. Even when international institutions remain intergovernmental they strongly regulate how EU member states exercise their monopoly of force. Member states are even further constrained because adjudication is delegated to the European Court of Justice. Thus, even the state core is undergoing a significant transformation.

Keywords

drugsinternational institutionspolicestate transformationterrorism
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , November 2011 , pp. 445 - 468
Copyright
Copyright © European Consortium for Political Research 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, K.W., Moravcsik, A. Slaughter, A.-M. Snidal, D. (2000), ‘The concept of legalization’, International Organization 54(3): 401–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alter, K.J. (2006), ‘Delegation to international courts and the limits of re-contracting political power’, in D.G. Hawkins, et al. (eds), Delegation and Agency in International Organizations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 312–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, M. (1989), Policing the World. Interpol and the Politics of Police Cooperation, London: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Andreas, P. Nadelmann, E. (2006), Policing the Globe: Criminalization and Crime Control in International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bassiouni, M.C. (2003), ‘Reforming international extradition. Lessons of the past for a radical new approach’, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 25: 389–408.Google Scholar
Benyon, J., Turnbull, L. Willis, A. Woodward, R. Beck, A. (1993), Police Co-operation in Europe: An Investigation, Leicester: University of Leicester, Centre for the Study of Public Order.Google Scholar
Bigo, D. (1996), Polices en réseaux: l'expérience européenne, Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
Boekhout van Solinge, T. (2004), Dealing with Drugs in Europe. An Investigation of European Drug Control Experiences: France, The Netherlands and Sweden, The Hague: BJu Legal Publishers.Google Scholar
Breitmeier, H., Young, O.R. Zürn, M. (2006), Analyzing International Environmental Regimes: from Case Study to Database, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bundeskriminalamt (1974), Ergebnisvermerk, über die 14. Sitzung der Ständigen Arbeitsgruppe – Rauschgift – der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Kripo am 8./9.5.1974, Bundesarchiv, B 106/85199.Google Scholar
Busch, H. (1999), Polizeiliche Drogenbekämpfung. Eine Internationale Verstrickung, Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.Google Scholar
Caporaso, J.A. (2000), ‘Changes in the Westphalian order: territory, public authority, and sovereignty’, International Studies Review 2(2): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassese, A. (ed.) (2009), The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Creswell, J.W., Plano Clark, V.L. Gutmann, M.L. Hanson, W.E. (2003), ‘Advanced mixed methods and research designs’, in A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (eds), Handbook on Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioural Sciences, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, London: Sage, pp. 209–240.Google Scholar
Cusack, J. (1974), ‘Response of the Government of France to the international heroin problem’, in L.R.S. Simmons and A.A. Said (eds), Drugs Politics and Diplomacy: The International Connection, London: Sage, pp. 229–256.Google Scholar
Deflem, M. (2002), Policing World Society: Historical Foundations of International Police Cooperation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elvins, M. (2003), Anti-Drugs Policies of the European Union. Transnational Decision-Making and the Politics of Expertise, Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EU Council (2004), EU drugs strategy (2005–2012), 15074/04, adopted by the European Council on 16–17 December 2004.Google Scholar
EU Council (2005), ‘EU drugs action plan (2005–2008), adopted by the council’, Official Journal C 168: 1–18.Google Scholar
EU Council (2008), ‘EU drugs action plan for 2009–2012’, Official Journal C 326: 7–25.Google Scholar
Franchino, F. (2007), The Powers of the Union: Delegation in the EU, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedrichs, J. (2006), ‘Defining the international public enemy: the political struggle behind the legal debate on international terrorism’, Leiden Journal of International Law 19: 69–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedrichs, J. (2007), Fighting Terrorism and Drugs: Europe and International Police Cooperation, London, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genschel, P. Jachtenfuchs, M. (forthcoming), ‘How the European Union constrains the state: multilevel governance of taxation’, European Journal of Political Research 50.Google Scholar
Genschel, P., Zangl, B. (2008), ‘Transformations of the State: From Monopolist to Manager of Political Authority’. TranState Working Paper No. 76. Bremen: Collaborative Research Center 597.Google Scholar
Geyer, F. (2008), ‘Taking Stock: Databases and Systems of Information Exchange in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’. Brussels: CEPS Challenge Programme: Liberty and Security. Research Paper No. 9.Google Scholar
Goldmann, K. (2001), Transforming the European Nation-State, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Grant, R.W. Keohane, R.O. (2005), ‘Accountability and abuses of power in world politics’, American Political Science Review 99(1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyomarch, A. (1997), ‘Cooperation in the fields of policing and judicial affairs’, in S. Stavridis, E. Mossialos, R. Morgan and H. Machin (eds), New Challenges to the European Union: Policies and Policy-making, Aldershot: Dartmouth, pp. 123–149.Google Scholar
Hawkins, D.G. et al. (2006), ‘Delegation under anarchy: states, international organization, and principal-agent theory’, D.G. Hawkins, D.A. Lake, D.L. Nielson and M.J. Tierney (eds), Delgation and Agency in International Organizations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–38.Google Scholar
Held, D., McGrew, A. Goldblatt, D. Perraton, J. (1999), Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture, Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, S. (1966), ‘Obstinate or obsolete? The fate of the nation-state and the case of Western Europe’, Daedalus 95(3): 862–915.Google Scholar
Katz, E. (2007), ‘Implementation of the third money laundering directive – an overview’, Law and Financial Markets Review 1(3): 207–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keijzer, N. van Sliedregt, E. (eds) (2009), The European Arrest Warrant in Practice, Den Haag: T.M.C. Asser Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, R.O., Moravcsik, A. Slaughter, A.-M. (2000), ‘Legalized dispute resolution: interstate and transnational’, International Organization 54(3): 457–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladenburger, C. (2008), ‘Police and criminal law in the treaty of Lisbon’, European Constitutional Law Review 4(1): 20–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, D.A. (2008), ‘The state and international relations’, in C. Reus-Smit and D. Snidal (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 41–61.Google Scholar
Lavenex, S. Wallace, W. (2005), ‘Justice and home affairs: towards a ‘European Public Order’?’, in W. Wallace, H. Wallace and M.A. Pollack (eds), Policy-Making in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 457–480.Google Scholar
Leibfried, S. Zürn, M. (eds) (2005), Transformations of the State?, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, M. (2003), ‘The state of the study of the state’, in I. Katznelson and H.V. Milner (eds), Political Science: The State of the Discipline, New York: Norton, pp. 33–55.Google Scholar
Levi, M. Reuter, P. (2009), ‘Money laundering’, in M. Tonry (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Crime and Public Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 356–380.Google Scholar
Majone, G. (1996), Regulating Europe, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Majone, G. (2005), Dilemmas of European Integration. The Ambiguities and Pitfalls of Integration by Stealth, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, M. (1987), ‘The autonomous power of the state: its origins, mechanisms and results’, in J.A. Hall (ed.), States in History, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 109–136.Google Scholar
McAllister, W.B. (2000), Drug Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century. An International History London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Miles, E.L., Underdal, A. Andresen, S. Wettestad, J. Skaerseth, J.B. (eds) (2002), Environmental Regime Effectiveness: Confronting Theory with Evidence, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ministère de l'Intérieur (1969), PN/GAB/N/222/8, Lettre de M. Raymond Marcellin, Versement no. 19920026, Article 1–6, Fontainebleau: Centre des Archives Contemporaines.Google Scholar
Ministère de l'Intérieur (1970), Compte Rendu de la réunion concernant l’étude de la répression du trafic de cannabis aux frontières. Reg. 12 N.139, Versement no. 19920026, Article 1–6, Fontainebleau: Centre des Archives Contemporaines.Google Scholar
Ministère de l'Intérieur (1971), Accord entre la Direction Générale de la Police nationale française (Direction Centrale de la Police judiciaire) et The United States Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs signé par le Ministre de l'Intérieur du Gouvernement de la République Française, Raymond Marcellin, et The Attorney General of the United States of America, John Mitchell, CAC Versement, no. 19920026, Article 1–6, Fontainebleau: Centre des Archives Contemporaines.Google Scholar
Mitsilegas, V. (2003), Money Laundering Counter-Measures in the European Union. A New Paradigm of Security Governance Versus Fundamental Legal Principles, Den Haag: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Montebourg, A. (2002), La Lutte Contre le Blanchiment des Capitaux en France: un Combat à Poursuivre (Rapport d'Information 2311, tome II), Paris: Assemblée Nationale.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (1998), The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Nadelmann, E.A. (1993), Cops Across Borders. The Internationalization of US Criminal Law Enforcement, University Park, PA: Pensylvannia University Press.Google Scholar
Occhipinti, J.D. (2003), The Politics of EU Police Cooperation: Toward a European FBI?, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panke, D. (2010), The Effectiveness of the European Court of Justice: Why Reluctant States Comply, Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Peers, S. (2007), EU Justice and Home Affairs Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poggi, G. (1990), The State: Its Nature, Development, and Prospects, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Rebscher, E. (1981), ‘Rechtliche und organisatorische Grundlagen der internationalen Zusammenarbeit bei der Drogenbekämpfung’, in Bundeskriminalamt Wiesbaden (ed.), Polizeiliche Drogenbekämpfung, Wiesbaden: Bundeskriminalamt, pp. 155–176.Google Scholar
Riegel, R. (2008), ‘Gemeinsame Ermittlungsgruppen – der neue Königsweg der Internationalen Rechtshilfe?’, Die Kriminalpolizei 3: 80–84.Google Scholar
Rijken, C. (2006), Joint Investigation Teams: principles, practice, and problems. Lessons learnt from the first efforts to establish a JIT, Utrecht Law Review 2(2): 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharpf, F.W. (1997), Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research, Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Seale, C. (1999), The Quality of Qualitative Research, London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheptycki, J.W.E. (2002), In Search of the Transnational Policing: Towards a Sociology of Global Policing, Aldershot: Ashgate.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, G. (2004), The Transformation of the State: Beyond the Myth of Retreat, Houndsmills: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strange, S. (1996), The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tallberg, J. (2002), ‘Paths to compliance: enforcement, management, and the European Union’, International Organization 56(3): 609–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, J.E. (1995), ‘State sovereignty in international relations: bridging the gap between theory and empirical research’, International Studies Quarterly 39(2): 213–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, G. Garrett, G. (2001), ‘The institutional foundations of intergovernmentalism and supranationalism in the European Union’, International Organization 55(2): 357–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underdal, A. (2004), ‘Methodological challenges in the study of regime effectiveness’, in A. Underdal and O.R. Young (eds), Regime Consequences: Methodological Challenges and Research Strategies, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations (1973), Commentary on the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961. Prepared by the Secretary-General in Accordance with Paragraph 1 of Economic and Social Council Resolution 914 D (XXXIV) (3 August 1962), New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1978 [1922]), Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wiesel, G. (1985), ‘Die EDV-unterstützte internationale Zusammenarbeit: Stand und Perspektiven’, in Bundeskriminalamt Wiesbaden (ed.), Internationale Verbrechensbekämpfung: Europäische Perspektiven. Arbeitstagung des Bundeskriminalamtes Wiesbaden vom 5.–8. November 1984, Wiesbaden: Bundeskriminalamt, pp. 211–229.Google Scholar
Young, O.R. (2004), ‘The consequences of international regimes: a framework for analysis’, in A. Underdal and O.R. Young (eds), Regime Consequences: Methodological Challenges and Research Strategies, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zangl, B. (2006), Die Internationalisierung der Rechtsstaatlichkeit: Streitbeilegung in GATT und WTO, Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Herschinger supplementary data file

Raw data.mx4

Download Herschinger supplementary data file(File)
File 1.5 MB
Supplementary material: PDF

Herschinger supplementary material

Information on coding procedure

Download Herschinger supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 337.8 KB