Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From Window-dressing to Windows of Opportunity: Civil Society Actors in the EU Security Regime—The Case of DG HOME

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Partnerships in International Policy-Making

Part of the book series: International Series on Public Policy ((ISPP))

  • 497 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter explores enabling and constraining conditions for CSO engagement in the EU Security Research Programme (ESRP). Security policy and, by default, research are contentious public policy fields, not easily accessible to CSOs, despite controversies regarding the effectiveness, accountability, and compliance with fundamental rights of counter-terrorism and crisis management practices in Europe. CSOs have the potential to better ground ESRP in societal realities, making it more responsive and responsible. First, the chapter documents the goal ambiguity of the institutional background; second, it lays out dominant and alternative framings of technology and innovation; third, it examines the weak position of CSOs within the stakeholder ecology of the ESRP. The chapter identifies a series of developments which are currently conducive to opening a window of opportunity for CSOs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ackrill, R., Kay, A. & Zahariadis, N. (2013). Ambiguity, multiple streams and EU policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(6), 871–887.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodersen, S., Dorland, J., & Jørgensen, M. S. (Eds.). (2014). An innovative civil society: Impact through co-creation and participation. Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of European Policy Advisers/European Commission (BEPA). (2011). Empowering people, driving change: Social innovation in the European Union. Luxembourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe. (2016). Freedom vs control: For a democratic response. World Forum for Democracy 2015 Final Report. Retrieved February 10, 2016, from http://www.coe.int/en/web/world-forum-democracy/reports-of-the-forums

  • Daviter, F. (2011). Policy framing in the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Edler, J., & James, A. D. (2015). Understanding the emergence of new science and technology policies: Policy entrepreneurship, agenda setting and the development of the European framework programme. Research Policy, 44(6), 1252–1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, E. O. (2011). Governance between expertise and democracy: The case of European security. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(8), 1169–1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (EC). (1999). Opinion of the economic and social committee on the role and contribution of civil society organisations in the building of Europe. Brussels. CES 851/99 D/GW.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (EC). (2004). On the implementation of the preparatory action on the enhancement of the European industrial potential in the field of security research: Towards a programme to advance European security through research and technology. Brussels, 3.2.2004. COM(2004) 72 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (EC). (2009). A European security research and innovation agenda—Commission’s initial position on ESRIF’s key findings and recommendations. Brussels. COM(2009) 691 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (EC). (2011). Impact assessment accompanying the communication from the Commission ‘Horizon 2020—The framework programme for research and innovation’. Brussels. SEC(2011) 1427 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (EC). (2012a). Security industrial policy. Action plan for an innovative and competitive security industry. Brussels, 26/7/2012. COM(2012) 417 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (EC). (2012b). The roots of democracy and sustainable development. Europe’s engagement with civil society in external relations. Brussels, 12/9/2012. COM(2012) 492 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (EC). (2012c). Ethical and regulatory challenges to science and research policy at the global level. Luxembourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (EC). (2012d). Report of the Societal Impact Expert Working Group. DG ENTR Report, February 2012, Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (EC). (2013a). EU research for a secure society. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (EC). (2013b). Developing an indicator of innovation output. Brussels, SWD(2013) 325 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (EC). (2014). Revision of the European Commission impact assessment guidelines. Public Consultation Document. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (EC). (2015a). Ex-post evaluation of the fp7 security research programme. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (EC). (2015b). The European agenda on security. COM(2015) 185 final. Luxembourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Council. (2003). A secure Europe in a better world—European security strategy. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Council. (2008). Report on the implementation of the European security strategy—Providing security in a changing world. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Council. (2010a). Internal security strategy for the European Union. Towards a European security model. Luxembourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Council. (2010b). The Stockholm programme—An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Council. (2012). Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing Horizon 2020. Brussels. File 2011/0401.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament (EP). (2010). Review of security measures in the research framework programme. Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament (EP). (2014). Review of security measures in the 7th research framework programme FP7 2007–2013. Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Science Foundation (ESF). (2013). Science in society: Caring for our futures in turbulent times. Science Policy Briefing 50, Strasbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Science Fundation (ESF). (2015). The future of security research in the social sciences and humanities. Standing Committee for the Humanities Discussion Paper. Strasbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferretti, M. P., & Pavone, V. (2009). What do civil society organisations expect from participation in science? Lessons from Germany and Spain on the Issue of GMOs, Science and Public Policy, 36, 287–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fondation Sciences Citoyennes. (2009). Participation of civil society organisations in research. STACS Report Science, Technology and Civil Society, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1990). Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M. et al. (Eds.). (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2009). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. In D. M. Kaplan (Ed.), Readings in the philosophy of technology (pp. 570–583). MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jobert, B., & Kohler-Koch, B. (2008). Changing images of civil society: From protest to governance. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler-Koch, B. et al. (Eds.). (2013). De-mystification of participatory democracy: EU governance and civil society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolliarakis, G. (2013a). Der Umgang mit Ungewissheit in der Politik Ziviler Sicherheit (Coping with uncertainty in civil security research). In S. Jeschke, et al. (Eds.), Exploring Uncertainty. Ungewissheit und Unsicherheit im interdisziplinären Diskurs (Uncertainty and insecurity in interdisciplinary discourse) (pp. 313–332). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolliarakis, G. (2013b). Resilience as an innovation policy objective: Blind spots and untapped potential for security research. In M. Lauster (Ed.), 8th future security research conference—Proceedings (pp. 107–116). Stuttgart: Fraunhofer VVS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolliarakis, G. (2014a). Of wolves and sheep: CSO participation as a responsible research and innovation mechanism in European Security Research. In S. Brodersen, J. Dorland, & M. S. Jørgensen (Eds.), An innovative civil society: Impact through co-creation and participation. 6th Living Knowledge Conference, 274–296. Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolliarakis, G. (2014b). Sicherheitsforschung und ihre Schnittstelle zur Sicherheitspolitik: Intendierte und nicht-intendierte Konsequenzen der Wissenschaftsförderung (Security Research and its Interface with Security Policy). In C. Daase et al. (Eds.), Politik und Unsicherheit (Poltics and insecurity). Frankfurt: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolliarakis, G. (2016). ‘Acceptance’ and ‘acceptability’ of security-related technologies. SecurePART Policy Brief #2. Retrieved February 10, 2016, from http://www.securepart.eu/download/securepart_pb-2160119151110.pdf

  • Kolliarakis, G. (2016a). In quest of reflexivity: Towards an anticipatory governance regime for security. In M. Friedewald, et al. (Eds.), Discourses of privacy and security. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberatore, A., & Funtowicz, S. (Eds.). (2003). Introduction to the special issue “democratising” expertise, “expertising” democracy: What does this mean, and why bother? Science and Public Policy, 30(1): 146–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchetti, R. (2015). The conditions for civil society participation in international decision making. In D. Della Porta & M. Diani (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social movements (pp. 753–766). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monitoring Activities of Science in Society/European Commission (MASIS). (2009). Challenging futures of science in society—Emerging trends and cutting-edge issues. Report of the MASIS Expert Group, Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H. et al. (Eds.). (2001). Rethinking science: Knowledge in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rainey, H. G., & Jung, C. S. (2015). A conceptual framework for analysis of goal ambiguity in public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 71–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchey, T. (2011). Wicked problems—Social messes. Decision Support Modelling with Morphological Analysis. Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Planning, 4, 155–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruzza, C. (2007). Europe and civil society: Movement coalitions and European governance. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statewatch. (2009). NeoConOpticon: The EU security-industrial complex. London. Retrieved February 10, 2016, from http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/neoconopticon-report.pdf

  • Steffek, J., Kissling, C., & Nanz, P. (Eds.). (2007). Civil society participation in European and Global governance. A cure for the democratic deficit? Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N. (2008). Ambiguity and choice in European public policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(4), 514–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N. (2013). Building better theoretical frameworks to the European Union’s policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(6), 807–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Political Science & Cluster of Excellence, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany

    Georgios Kolliarakis

Authors
  1. Georgios Kolliarakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. LUISS, Roma, Italy

    Raffaele Marchetti

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kolliarakis, G. (2017). From Window-dressing to Windows of Opportunity: Civil Society Actors in the EU Security Regime—The Case of DG HOME. In: Marchetti, R. (eds) Partnerships in International Policy-Making. International Series on Public Policy . Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94938-0_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation