Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Aus (2003), Lodge (2004) for the EU context and Nelson (2004) for the US context.

  2. See, Barnes and Edge (1982), Jasanoff (1990), Liberatore (1998), Nowotny, Scott, & Gibbons (2001).

  3. e.g., Clarke (2002); IPTS (2005).

  4. The very notion of security is the object of extensive scholarly and policy debate, e.g., Lipchutz (1995), Rothschild (1995), Sjursen (2003).

  5. On EU governance and democracy see, for example, Chryssochoou (1998); Kohler-Koch and Eising (1999), Ericksen (2001), Laffan, O’Donnell, & Smith (2000), Liberatore (2004), Schmitter (2000), H. Wallace and W. Wallace (2000), Weiler, Haltern, & Mayer (1995), Wind (2001).

  6. In Orwell’s novel 1984, the world is divided into three countries that span the entire globe: Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. Oceania, like the other two, is a totalitarian society led by Big Brother, which censors everyone’s behavior, even their thoughts. The Echelon electronic spy system was intensely debated in Europe in 1998–see STOA (1998). Concerning diverse perspectives on Michel Foucault’s work – especially ‘Surveiller et punir’(1975), translated in English as “Discipline and punish”. See, for instance, Lacombe (1996), Lianos (2003), Mathiesen (1999).

  7. GOP (2004); Molas-Gallart (2002).

  8. On the blurring of internal and external dimensions of security see Bigo (2000) and Pastore (2001); concerning science policy more specifically see GOP (2004).

  9. See Council, 14534/04, 11.11.2004, VISA 203/COMIX 684.

  10. 15 older EU member states except Greece; inclusion of new EU member states in the programme was considered by the US administration in March 2005 (see European Voice, 3–9 March 2005, p.6), but was partly “offset” by controversy over further postponement.

  11. For further information on the Florence meeting see La Repubblica, 18 October 2004, p.14, “Impronte sui passaporti nella UE”, and European Voice, 21–27 October 2004, p.4, “Biometric ID set for backing from ministers”.

  12. Sources: European Council, Inter-institutional File 204/0039 (CNS), 19 October 2004, 13490; Statewatch: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/oct/10eu-biometrics-fp.htm; European Voice, 21–27 October 2004, p.4.

  13. On “soft power” with focus on the USA see Nye (2004); for a discussion of ‘soft security’ and related notions in the European context see Sjursen (2003).

  14. OPECST (2003), Annex VI, Conseil JAI du 27/2/2003, Déclaration commune franco-allemande sur l’utilisation de la biométrie.

  15. I use the expression quite literally, as ICAO entitles a section of its 2003 blueprint “What applications are there for biometric solutions?”, ICAO (2003, p.14).

  16. Sources: IPTS, 2005, pp.83–85; International Biometric Group (2003) – IBG is a US company established in 1996, http://www.kiosks.org/pdfs/BMR_2003-2007.pdf; International Biometric Industry Association (IBIA), a trade association founded in 1998 in Washington, D.C. to advance the collective international interests of the biometric industry. http://www.ibia.org/biometrics/.

  17. The EBF aims at developing world-class standards, best practice and innovation in the biometric industry to strengthen trust and confidence in the use of emerging biometric applications; the Commission provided initial funding in support of the EBF, which received additional funding from the Irish Department of Communications. (For further information see http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/1506/330; and http://www.eubiometricforum.com/.

  18. The contributions of Parliamentary Technology Assessment Offices are focused on here in order to restrict the otherwise too broad issue of the role of national parliaments and as a link to the work of STOA at the European Parliament, also considering that a European network, EPTA, formally links such offices, see: http://www.eptanetwork.org/EPTA/.

  19. E.g., Amnesty International, “Concerns in Europe July–December 2001”, http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGEUR010022002; Statewatch: “Biometrics: The EU takes another step down the road to 1984”: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/sep/19eubiometric.htm; Privacy International: “PI forges coalition calling on European Parliament to stop mass fingerprinting proposal”: http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-85336.

  20. When asked, ESAG Spokesperson showed prudence and stated “every country starts from a different premise and faces different challenges. Biometric identification is one such measure that may work in some cases, but not in others” (e-mail of 14 April 2005 from Jorg Borgwardt).

  21. E.g., the German TAB, 2002, discussed these issues under the heading of “Constitutional aspects of biometrics”.

  22. E.g., see the legal analysis for Statewatch, prepared by Steve Peers, University of Essex: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/nov/11biometric-legal-analysis.htm.

  23. http://www.edps.eu.int/legislation/Opinions_A/05-10-19_Opinion_SISII_EN.pdf.

  24. Source: http://www.ecre.org/policy/eu_developments.shtml; see also the analysis of Aus, (2003).

  25. Rebekah Thomas, (2005): http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=289.

  26. Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs Antònio Vitorino [first Commission with this portfolio] see: http://europa.eu.int/comm/archives/commission_1999_2004/vitorino/index_en.htm#en); Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security Franco Frattini, Data Protection in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice –21 December 2004, SPEECH/04/549. In August 2005 the Commission presented a proposal for a Council Decision on the protection of personal data in the course of activities of police and judicial cooperation: COM (2005), 4/8/2005.).

  27. The Hague Programme’s objective is focused on such balancing –see p.12: http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/news/information_dossiers/the_hague_priorities/doc/hague_programme_en.pdf; G. De Vries at Clark University: http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cmsUpload/ClarkUniversityOctober17.2004.pdf.

  28. It is unsettling to note that while arguing for a balance, Mr. Clarke suggested that UK could consider pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights, e.g., with regard to the issue of expulsions of suspects. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/09/nrights09.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/09/09/ixportal.html; http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/sep/03clarke.htm.

  29. Research projects funded by the Commission and conducted by independent research institutions, also address the matter: e.g., ELISE, http://www.eliseconsortium.org/article.php3?id_article=18; CHALLENGE, http://www.libertysecurity.org/; BITE, http://www.biteproject.org/. On technical solutions to privacy issues, the project VIPBOB proposes a “virtual PIN” that maps a user’s biometric traits to a unique number and would mean that no biometric sample has to be stored in a database, a source of privacy concerns. http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/2578/330.

  30. For a detailed examination of technical issues see, for instance, Clarke (2002); IPTS (2003, 2005); OPECST (2003); POST (2001); TAB (2002, 2003).

  31. On identity issues, see IPTS (2003, 2005), Van Der Ploeg (2002).

  32. DNA is a much less discussed identifier in the context of the policy developments on biometrics discussed in this paper, but is surely very important also considering that DNA databases are being developed in some countries for law enforcement purposes and they could also present “function creep” and other problems – see Puri, http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bciclr/24_2/05_TXT.htm., Monteleone, http://www.diritto.it/articoli/penale/monteleone.html. UK introduced it in 1995 and some US states introduced it even earlier, e.g., California in 1992. Projects to establish it are under way in Greece, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Italy. On 27 May 2005, seven countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, The Netherlands) signed the Prüm Convention – or Schengen III – that provides for the establishment of national DNA analysis files.

  33. No content analysis of media was possible in the context of the present study; selected media were checked only superficially at specific points of time, e.g., following the attacks in Madrid or specific meetings, e.g., the Florence informal meeting of October 2004 or in connection with instances of reporting on national debates as in the UK debate on ID cards or the German one on the (early) introduction of biometric passports. An interesting example of public debate steered by a national authority is the French debate launched by the Ministry of Interior – a number of meetings and web-based consultations, also reported in the press, were held in 2005: http://www.foruminternet.org/carte_identite/.

  34. See, for example, Kantner (2004), Koopmans and Erbe (2004), Schlesinger (1995).

  35. See footnotes 23 and 44; on Italy see http://www.rai.it/news/articolonews/0,9217,77234,00.html; http://www.privacy.it/garanterelaz2003.html.

  36. On the notion of extended peer review see Funtowicz and Ravetz (1990).

  37. European Commission (2001b), Liberatore and Funtowicz (2003).

  38. Bobbio (1987), Dahl (1985), Zolo (1992).

  39. Bobbio (1987), Rawls (1971), Sandel (1984).

  40. In his Historical Review of Pennsylvania of 1759.

  41. On critical and positive views of the principle see Majone (2002), O’Riordan and Cameron (1994).

  42. See, for example, Brodeur et al. (2003), Dewerpe (1994).

  43. See European Commission (2004b) – Annex, Extended Impact Assessment, Sect. 8; questions raised in the Internet-based consultation available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/news/consulting_public/news_consulting_vis_en.htm.

  44. See, for example, de Jong and Mentzel (2001), Liberatore (2005).

  45. The ECJ judgement argues that the legal basis for the Commission Decision and subsequent Council Decision on the EU--US agreement was wrong: in the first case with reference to the Directive of 1995 on data protection in relation to the internal market, and in the second case concerning Art. 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community; such legal provisions do not cover data protection and conclusion of international agreements in the field of security, and the transfer of PNR has been demanded and agreed indeed on ground of (state) security.

  46. Following the White Paper on Governance, ex-ante Impact Assessment of legislative or policy proposals by the Commission was introduced as part of the program on Better Regulation. See European Commission (2002) and following guidelines, the latest issued in March 2006.

Abbreviations

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

References

  • 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.

  • Barnes, B., & Edge, D. (Eds.) (1982). Science in context. Open Univ. Press, Milton Keynes, and MIT Press, Boston.

  • 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 

  • Bobbio, N. (1987). The future of democracy: A defence of the rules of the game. Cambridge UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodeur, J. P., et al. (Eds.) (2003). Democracy, law and security: Internal security services in contemporary Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate.

  • Chryssochoou, D. (1998). Democracy in the European Union. London: Taurus Academic Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Council of the EU (2005). Press Release 6228/05.

  • 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.

  • Dahl, R. (1985). Controlling nuclear weapons: Democracy versus guardianship. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Data Protection WP (2003). Working Paper on Biometrics, 12168/02.

  • 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).

  • Data Protection WP (2004b). Strategy Document, 11648/04.

  • De Jong, M. & Mentzel, M. (Eds.) (2001). Democracy in S&T policy advice in Europe, special ssue of SPP, vol.28, n.6.

  • Dewerpe, A. (1994). Espion. Une anthropologie historique du secret d’etait contemporain. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (2004a). Council Decision of 8 June 2004 establishing the Visa Information System (VIS), O.J. L 213 of 15.6.2004.

  • 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.

  • 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).

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • European Commission (2001a). White Paper on Governance, http://europa.eu.int/comm/governance/white_paper/index_en.htm (accessed 16/5/2005).

  • 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).

  • European Commission (2002). COM (2002) 276 final, Communication from the Commission on Impact Assessment.

  • European Commission (2003a). COM (2003) 771 final, 11.12.2003, Development of SIS II and possible synergies with VIS.

  • European Commission (2003b). COM (2003) 558 final, 24.9.2003, Biometrics in visa and residence permits.

  • European Commission (2004a). COM(2004) 116 final, Proposal for a Council Regulation on standards for security features and biometrics in EU citizens’ passports.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • European Council (2003a). Council Conclusions, Thessaloniki: http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/76279.pdf (accessed 16/05/2005).

  • 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).

  • European Council (2004a). Declaration on Combating Terrorism, http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/79637.pdf (accessed 16.5.2005).

  • 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).

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (1990). Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Dordrecht: Kluewer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furedi, F. (2002). Culture of fear: Risk taking and the morality of low expectation. London: Continuum Int.Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • GOP (2004). Research for a secure Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the EU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harty, M. (2005). U.S. visa policy: Securing borders and opening doors. The Washington Quarterly, 28(2), 23–43, Spring.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPTS (2003). Security and Privacy for the Citizen in the Post-September 11 Digital Age. A prospective overview, JRC, EUR 20823.

  • IPTS (2005). Biometrics at the Frontier: Assesssing the Impacts on Society, JRC, EUR 21585.

  • Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch. Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge MA.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • JSA (2004). Sixth report, January 2002–December 2004, http://www.schengen-jsa.dataprotection.org (accessed 16.5.2005).

  • Kantner, C. (2004). Kein modernes Babel. Kommunikative Voraussetzungen europäischer Őffentlichkeit. VS Verlag fűr Sozialwissenschaften, Berlin.

  • Kohler-Koch, B., & Eising, R. (1999). The transformation of governance in the European Union. London-New York: Routlege.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopmans, R., & Erbe, J. (2004). Towards a European public sphere? Vertical and horizontal dimensions of Europeanised political communication. Innovation, 17, 97–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Lacombe, D. (1996), Reforming Foucault: A critique of the social control thesis. British Journal of Sociology, 47(2), 332–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laffan, B., O’Donnell, R., & Smith, M. (2000). Europe’s experimental union. Rethinking integration. London–New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lianos, M. (2003). Social control after Foucault. Surveillance & Society, 1(3), 421–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberatore, A. (1998). The management of uncertainty. Learning from Chernobyl. Amsterdam–Singapore: Gordon and Breach Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Liberatore, A., & Funtowicz, S. (Eds.) (2003). Democratising expertise, expertising democracy. Special Issue of Science and Public Policy, 30(2), June 2003.

  • Lindblom, C. (1965). The intelligence of democracy. Decision making through mutual adjustment. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipchutz, R. (Ed.) (1995). On security. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Lodge, J. (2004). EU homeland security: Citizens or suspects? European Integration, 26(3), 253–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, D. (2004). Globalising surveillance. Comparative and sociological perspectives. International Sociology, 19(2), 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majone, G. (2002). What price safety? The precautionary principle and its policy implications. Journal of Common Market Studies, (40), 89–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathiesen, T. (1999). On Globalisation of Control: Towards an Integrated Surveillance System in Europe. London: Statewatch Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molas-Gallart, J. (2002). Coping with dual-use: A challenge for European research policy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(1), 155–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, L. (2004). The making of policy: Biometrics, privacy and anonymity. Chicago Policy Review, 8(1), 19–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Rethinking science. Knowledge and the public in the age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nye, J. (2004). The decline of America’s soft power. Foreign Affairs, 16–20, May–June.

  • 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.

  • O’Riordan, T., & Cameron, J. (Eds.) (1994). Interpreting the pracautionary principle. London: Earthscan Publications.

  • Pastore, F. (2001). Reconciling the Prince’s Two ’Arms. Internal/external security policy coordination in the EU. Occasional paper, Institute for Security Studies, Paris.

  • POST (2001). Biometrics and security, Postnote November 2001, n.165.

  • Rawls J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild, E. (1995). What is security? Daedalus, 124(3), 53–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, M. (Ed.) (1984). Liberalism and its critics. Oxford: Balckwell.

  • Schlesinger, P. (1995). Europeanisation and the Media: National Identity and the Public Sphere. Working Paper n.7, The Norwegian Research Council, Oslo.

  • Schmitter, P. (2000). How to democratise the European Union...and why bother? Lanham–Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitter, P. (2003). The Quality of Democracy: The Ambiguous Virtues of Accountability, http://www.iue.it/SPS/People/Faculty/CurrentProfessors/PDFFiles/SchmitterPDFfiles/Accountability.pdf.

  • Sjursen, H. (2003). Security and defence. ARENA Working paper 10/03.

  • STOA- European Parliament (1998). An Appraisal of the Technologies of Political Control, STOA PE 1666.499.

  • TAB (2002). Summary of TAB Working Paper n.76 on Biometric identification systems. German Bundestag, Berlin.

  • TAB (2003). Summary of TAB Working Paper n.93 on Biometrics and identity documents: Performance, political context, legal considerations, German Bundestag, Berlin.

  • 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).

  • 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 

  • Waever, O. (1995). Securitisation and desecuritisation. In R. Lipchutz (Ed.), On security. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, N. (Ed.) (2004). Europe’s area of freedom, security and justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Wallace, H., & Wallace, W. (Eds.) (2000). Policy-making in the European Union. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Weiler, J., Haltern, U., & Mayer, F. (1995). European democracy and its critique. Five uneasy pieces. Working paper, European University Institute, Florence.

  • 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.

  • Zolo, D. (1992). Democracy and complexity: a realist approach. Oxford: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Commission, Directorate General for Research, Brussels, Belgium

    Angela Liberatore

Authors
  1. Angela Liberatore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angela Liberatore.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liberatore, A. Balancing Security and Democracy, and the Role of Expertise: Biometrics Politics in the European Union. Eur J Crim Policy Res 13, 109–137 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-006-9016-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-006-9016-1

Key words

Search

Navigation