Balancing Security and Democracy, and the Role of Expertise: Biometrics Politics in the European Union

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

What is the relationship between security policies and democratic debate, oversight and rights? Does coping with security threats require exceptions to the rule of law and reductions of liberties? The inquiry that follows tries to answer such questions in the context of the European Union and takes the case of biometric identification, an area were security considerations and the possible impact on fundamental rights and the rule of law are at stake. Some hypotheses are explored through the case study: “securitisation” and “democratisation” are in tension but some hybrid strategies can emerge; the plurality of “authoritative actors” influences policy frames and outcomes; and knowledge is a key asset in defining these authoritative actors. A counter-intuitive conclusion is presented, namely that biometrics, which seems prima facie an excellent candidate for technocratic decision-making, sheltered from democratic debate and accountability – is characterised by debate by a plurality of actors. Such pluralism is limited to those actors who have the resources – including knowledge – that allow for inclusion in policy making at EU level, but is nevertheless significant in shaping policy; it explains the central role of the metaphor of balancing security and democracy, as well as the “competitive cooperation” between new and more consolidated policy areas. The EU is facing another difficult challenge in the attempt at establishing itself as a new security actor and as a supranational democratic polity: important choices are at stake to assure that citizens’ security is pursued on the basis of the rule of law, respect of fundamental rights and democratic accountability.

Key words

biometrics democracy expertise pluralism security surveillance 

List of acronyms

EBF

European Biometrics Forum

EURODAC

European data base for comparison of fingerprints of asylum seekers

GOP

Group of personalities in the field of security research

ICAO

International Civil Aviation Organisation

IPTS

Institute for Prospective Technology Studies

ISA

Joint Supervisory Authority (of Schengen)

MRTDs

Machine readable travel documents

OPECST

Office Parlamentaire d’Évaluation des Choix Scientifiques et Technologiques

POST

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology

PNR

Passenger name record

SIS

Schengen information system

STOA

Scientific and Technological Options Assessment panel

TAB

Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag

VIS

Visa Information System

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

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank colleagues working in different disciplinary and professional contexts for their constructive and insightful comments to an earlier version of this contribution, written during my fellowship at the European University Institute: Tony Bunyan, Raffaella Del Sarto, Andreas Follesdal, Adrienne Héritier, Cathleen Kantner, Friedrich Kratochwill, Daniel Neyland, Helga Nowotny, Ernesto Savona, Pascal Vennesson. The discussions with colleagues and students in various occasions provided useful insights, e.g., presentations of work in progress at the Working Group on Security of the European University Institute, at the Programme of Philosophy and Social Sciences of the University of Milan-Bicocca, at the Department of Sociology of the University of Trento, and at the Conference on Ethical Aspects of Biometrics held in Brussels in December 2005. Thanks also to Marianne Wade for her sharp and constructive editorial comments to this article.

References

  1. Aus, J. (2003). Supranational Governance in an ‘Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’: Eurodac and the politics of biometric control. SEI Working Paper, Sussex University Institute.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, B., & Edge, D. (Eds.) (1982). Science in context. Open Univ. Press, Milton Keynes, and MIT Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  3. Bigo, D. (2000). When two become one. Internal and external securitisation in Europe. In M. Kelstrup & M. C.Williams (Eds.) International relations theory and the politics of European integration. London: Routledge, pp. 171 ff.Google Scholar
  4. Bobbio, N. (1987). The future of democracy: A defence of the rules of the game. Cambridge UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brodeur, J. P., et al. (Eds.) (2003). Democracy, law and security: Internal security services in contemporary Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  6. Chryssochoou, D. (1998). Democracy in the European Union. London: Taurus Academic Studies.Google Scholar
  7. Clarke, R. (2002). Biometrics Inadequacies and Threats, and the Need for Regulation. Australian National University, at: http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/DV/BiopmThreats.html.
  8. Council of the EU (2005). Press Release 6228/05.Google Scholar
  9. Council of Europe (2005). Progress Report on the application of the principles of Convention 108 to the collection and processing of biometric data, T-PD (2005) BIOM, Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  10. Dahl, R. (1985). Controlling nuclear weapons: Democracy versus guardianship. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Data Protection WP (2003). Working Paper on Biometrics, 12168/02.Google Scholar
  12. Data Protection WP (2004a). Opinion 7/2004 on the inclusion of biometric elements in residence permits and visas taking account of the establishment of the European information system on visas (VIS).Google Scholar
  13. Data Protection WP (2004b). Strategy Document, 11648/04.Google Scholar
  14. De Jong, M. & Mentzel, M. (Eds.) (2001). Democracy in S&T policy advice in Europe, special ssue of SPP, vol.28, n.6.Google Scholar
  15. Dewerpe, A. (1994). Espion. Une anthropologie historique du secret d’etait contemporain. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  16. EC (2004a). Council Decision of 8 June 2004 establishing the Visa Information System (VIS), O.J. L 213 of 15.6.2004.Google Scholar
  17. EC (2004b). Council Regulation on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by member states EC n.2252/2004, OJ L 385/1 of 29.12.2004.Google Scholar
  18. EC (2006). Modified Proposal for a Regulation laying down a uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals (COM (2006) 110, 10/3/2006).Google Scholar
  19. ECJ (2006). Judgement of the Court of Justice in the Joined Cases C-317/04 and C-318-04, http://www.curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp06/aff/cp060046en.pdf.
  20. Eriksen, E. O. (2001). Democratic or technocratic governance? In C. Joerges, Y. Meny, & J. Weiler (Eds.), Mountain or molehill? A critical appraisal of the commission white paper on governance. Florence and Harvard Law School: European University Institute.Google Scholar
  21. European Commission (2001a). White Paper on Governance, http://europa.eu.int/comm/governance/white_paper/index_en.htm (accessed 16/5/2005).
  22. European Commission (2001b). Report of the working group ‘Democratising expertise and establishing scientific reference systems’, in preparation of the White Paper on Governance, Brussels: http://europa.eu.int/comm/governance/areas/index_en.htm (accessed 16/5/2005).
  23. European Commission (2002). COM (2002) 276 final, Communication from the Commission on Impact Assessment.Google Scholar
  24. European Commission (2003a). COM (2003) 771 final, 11.12.2003, Development of SIS II and possible synergies with VIS.Google Scholar
  25. European Commission (2003b). COM (2003) 558 final, 24.9.2003, Biometrics in visa and residence permits.Google Scholar
  26. European Commission (2004a). COM(2004) 116 final, Proposal for a Council Regulation on standards for security features and biometrics in EU citizens’ passports.Google Scholar
  27. European Commission (2004b)–Annex, SEC (2004) 1628, Commission Staff Working Document, Annex to the Proposal for a Regulation concerning the VIS and the exchange of data on short stay-visas, Extended Impact Assessment.Google Scholar
  28. European Commission (2005a). C(2005) 409 Commission Decision of 28/02/2005 establishing the technical specifications on the standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by member states.Google Scholar
  29. European Commission (2005b). COM(2005) 122 final: Communication from the Commission establishing for the period 2007–2013 a framework programme on Fundamental Rights and Justice; COM(2005) 123 final: Communication from the Commission establishing a framework programme on Solidarity and the Management of Migration Flows for the period 2007–2013; COM(2005) 124 final: Communication from the Commission establishing a framework programme on “Security and Safeguarding Liberties” for the period 2007–2013.Google Scholar
  30. European Council (2003a). Council Conclusions, Thessaloniki: http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/76279.pdf (accessed 16/05/2005).
  31. European Council (2003b). A secure Europe in a better world – The European security strategy, http://ue.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.ASP?id=266&lang=EN&mode=g (accessed 16.5.2005).
  32. European Council (2004a). Declaration on Combating Terrorism, http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/79637.pdf (accessed 16.5.2005).
  33. European Council (2004b). The Hague Programme. Strengthening freedom, security and justice in the EU, http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/news/information_dossiers/the_hague_priorities/doc/hague_programme_en.pdf (accessed 16/5/2005).
  34. European Ombudsman (2004). Balancing the obligations of citizenship with the recognition of individual rights and responsibilities – The role of the Ombudsman, http://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int/speeches/en/2004-09-09.htm.
  35. European Parliament (2004). Report on the Commission’s Proposal for a regulation on standards for security features and biometrics in EU citizens passports, by C.Coelho A6-0028/2004.Google Scholar
  36. Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (1990). Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Dordrecht: Kluewer.Google Scholar
  37. Furedi, F. (2002). Culture of fear: Risk taking and the morality of low expectation. London: Continuum Int.Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  38. GOP (2004). Research for a secure Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the EU.Google Scholar
  39. Harty, M. (2005). U.S. visa policy: Securing borders and opening doors. The Washington Quarterly, 28(2), 23–43, Spring.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. IPTS (2003). Security and Privacy for the Citizen in the Post-September 11 Digital Age. A prospective overview, JRC, EUR 20823.Google Scholar
  41. IPTS (2005). Biometrics at the Frontier: Assesssing the Impacts on Society, JRC, EUR 21585.Google Scholar
  42. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch. Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. JSA (2004). Sixth report, January 2002–December 2004, http://www.schengen-jsa.dataprotection.org (accessed 16.5.2005).
  44. Kantner, C. (2004). Kein modernes Babel. Kommunikative Voraussetzungen europäischer Őffentlichkeit. VS Verlag fűr Sozialwissenschaften, Berlin.Google Scholar
  45. Kohler-Koch, B., & Eising, R. (1999). The transformation of governance in the European Union. London-New York: Routlege.Google Scholar
  46. Koopmans, R., & Erbe, J. (2004). Towards a European public sphere? Vertical and horizontal dimensions of Europeanised political communication. Innovation, 17, 97–118.Google Scholar
  47. Koslowsky, R. (2005). Toward Virtual Borders: Expanding European Border Control Policy Initiatives and Technology Implementations, paper at the Conference ‘An Immigration Policy for Europe?’, NYU in Florence and RSCAS, March 13–15.Google Scholar
  48. Lacombe, D. (1996), Reforming Foucault: A critique of the social control thesis. British Journal of Sociology, 47(2), 332–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Laffan, B., O’Donnell, R., & Smith, M. (2000). Europe’s experimental union. Rethinking integration. London–New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Lianos, M. (2003). Social control after Foucault. Surveillance & Society, 1(3), 421–430.Google Scholar
  51. Liberatore, A. (1998). The management of uncertainty. Learning from Chernobyl. Amsterdam–Singapore: Gordon and Breach Publishers.Google Scholar
  52. Liberatore, A. (2004). Governance and democracy: Reflections on the European debate. In S. Munshi & B. P. Abraham (Eds.), Good governance, democratic societies and globalisation. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Liberatore, A. (2005). Governance and participatory approaches in Europe. In U. Petschow, J. Rosenau, E-U. Von Weizsäcker (Eds.), Governance and sustainability. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.Google Scholar
  54. Liberatore, A., & Funtowicz, S. (Eds.) (2003). Democratising expertise, expertising democracy. Special Issue of Science and Public Policy, 30(2), June 2003.Google Scholar
  55. Lindblom, C. (1965). The intelligence of democracy. Decision making through mutual adjustment. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  56. Lipchutz, R. (Ed.) (1995). On security. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Lodge, J. (2004). EU homeland security: Citizens or suspects? European Integration, 26(3), 253–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lyon, D. (2004). Globalising surveillance. Comparative and sociological perspectives. International Sociology, 19(2), 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Majone, G. (2002). What price safety? The precautionary principle and its policy implications. Journal of Common Market Studies, (40), 89–109.Google Scholar
  60. Mathiesen, T. (1999). On Globalisation of Control: Towards an Integrated Surveillance System in Europe. London: Statewatch Publications.Google Scholar
  61. Molas-Gallart, J. (2002). Coping with dual-use: A challenge for European research policy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(1), 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nelson, L. (2004). The making of policy: Biometrics, privacy and anonymity. Chicago Policy Review, 8(1), 19–36.Google Scholar
  63. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Rethinking science. Knowledge and the public in the age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  64. Nye, J. (2004). The decline of America’s soft power. Foreign Affairs, 16–20, May–June.Google Scholar
  65. OPECST (2003). Rapport sur les méthodes scientifiques d’identification des personnes á partir de données biométriques et les techniques de mise en ouvre, Assemblée Nationale n.938, Sénat n.355, Paris.Google Scholar
  66. O’Riordan, T., & Cameron, J. (Eds.) (1994). Interpreting the pracautionary principle. London: Earthscan Publications.Google Scholar
  67. Pastore, F. (2001). Reconciling the Prince’s Two ’Arms. Internal/external security policy coordination in the EU. Occasional paper, Institute for Security Studies, Paris.Google Scholar
  68. POST (2001). Biometrics and security, Postnote November 2001, n.165.Google Scholar
  69. Rawls J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Rothschild, E. (1995). What is security? Daedalus, 124(3), 53–98.Google Scholar
  71. Sandel, M. (Ed.) (1984). Liberalism and its critics. Oxford: Balckwell.Google Scholar
  72. Schlesinger, P. (1995). Europeanisation and the Media: National Identity and the Public Sphere. Working Paper n.7, The Norwegian Research Council, Oslo.Google Scholar
  73. Schmitter, P. (2000). How to democratise the European Union...and why bother? Lanham–Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  74. Schmitter, P. (2003). The Quality of Democracy: The Ambiguous Virtues of Accountability, http://www.iue.it/SPS/People/Faculty/CurrentProfessors/PDFFiles/SchmitterPDFfiles/Accountability.pdf.
  75. Sjursen, H. (2003). Security and defence. ARENA Working paper 10/03.Google Scholar
  76. STOA- European Parliament (1998). An Appraisal of the Technologies of Political Control, STOA PE 1666.499.Google Scholar
  77. TAB (2002). Summary of TAB Working Paper n.76 on Biometric identification systems. German Bundestag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  78. TAB (2003). Summary of TAB Working Paper n.93 on Biometrics and identity documents: Performance, political context, legal considerations, German Bundestag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  79. UK Presidency of the EU (2005). Liberty and Security. Striking the Right Balance, http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/LibertySecurity.pdf (accessed 8/9/2005).
  80. Van der Ploeg, I. (2002). Biometrics and the body as information: normative issues of the socio-technical coding of the body. In D. Lyon (Ed.), Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk and automated discrimination (pp. 53–73). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  81. Waever, O. (1995). Securitisation and desecuritisation. In R. Lipchutz (Ed.), On security. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Walker, N. (Ed.) (2004). Europe’s area of freedom, security and justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Wallace, H., & Wallace, W. (Eds.) (2000). Policy-making in the European Union. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Weiler, J., Haltern, U., & Mayer, F. (1995). European democracy and its critique. Five uneasy pieces. Working paper, European University Institute, Florence.Google Scholar
  85. Wind, M. (2001). Bridging the gap between the governed and the governing? In C. Joerges, Y. Meny, J. Weiler (Eds.), Mountain or molehill? A critical appraisal of the commission white paper on governance. Florence and Harvard Law School, Cambridge MA: European University Institute.Google Scholar
  86. Zolo, D. (1992). Democracy and complexity: a realist approach. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.European Commission, Directorate General for ResearchBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations