Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 139–157 | Cite as

Transatlantic homeland security cooperation: the promise of new modes of governance in global affairs

  • Patryk PawlakEmail author


This article investigates the development of transatlantic cooperation on homeland security. It analyses the extent to which existing forms of cooperation between states were suitable to deal with new security challenges as exemplified by the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks and investigates what solutions were elaborated to address potential handicaps. It demonstrates how existing legal and political instruments limited the effective international cooperation in the field of homeland security (i.e. flexibility, adjustability and speed of action). This led to adjustments and emergence of new modes of governance in three realms: policy; polity; and politics. Three policy areas inform the conclusions reached in this article: data protection; container security; and mutual legal assistance.


homeland security conflict and cooperation modes of governance data protection networks 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    The White House, Homeland Security Presidential Directive-2: Combating Terrorism through Immigration Policies (Washington, DC: The White House, 2001).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The White House, Smart Borders for the 21st Century (Washington, DC: Office of the Press Secretary, 2002).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    European Parliament, ‘Statement of Pat Cox, the President of the European Parliament with regard to the transfer of the PNR data to the US authorities’, 25 May 2004.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Michael Cox, ‘Beyond the West: Terrors in Transatlantia’, European Journal of International Relations 11, no. 2 (2005): 203–33.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Michael Cox ‘Kagan’s World’, International Affairs 7, no. 3 (2003): 523–32.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Robert Kagan, America and Europe in the New World Order (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elisabeth Pond, Friendly Fire: The Near-Death Experience of the Transatlantic Alliance (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2004).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Erik Jones, ‘Debating the Transatlantic Relationship’, International Affairs 8, no. 4 (2004): 595–612.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett, ‘A Framework for the Study of Security Communities’, in Security Communities, ed. Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 29–66.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    John Peterson and Mark A. Pollack, Europe, America, Bush: Transatlantic Relations in the Twenty First Century (London: Routledge, 2003).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cox, ‘Beyond the West’, 205.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cox ‘Beyond the West’; Thomas Risse, ‘US Power in a Liberal Security Community’, in America Unrivalled: The Future of the Balance of Power, ed. John Ikenberry (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002), 260–283.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Risse, ‘US Power in a Liberal Security Community’.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Interview with a US official, Department of Homeland Security, Washington DC, May 2007.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    The Economist, ‘Europe and America. Sixty Years On’, June 3, 2004.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    The Economist, ‘Transatlantic Tensions’, April 4 2007.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oliver Treib, Holger Bähr and Gerda Falkner, ‘Modes of Governance: A Note Towards Conceptual Clarification’, European Governance Papers N-05–02, (Florence: European University Institute, 2005).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Adrienne Héritier, ‘New Modes of Governance in Europe: Policy-Making Without Legislating?’, in Common Goods: Reinventing European and International Governance, ed. Adrienne Héritier (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002), 185–206.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Treib, Bähr and Falkner, ‘Modes of Governance’, p. 5. See also: James N. Rosenau and Ernst-Otto Czempiel, Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Beate Kochler-Koch, ‘The Evolution and Transformation of European Governance’, in The Transformation of Governance in the European Union, ed. Beate Kochler-Koch and Rainer Eising (London: Routledge, 1999), 14–36.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    For more on transgovernmental networks, see: Anne Marie Slaughter, A New World Order (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004)Google Scholar
  22. 21a.
    Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, ‘Transgovernmental relations and International Organisations’, World Politics 27, no. 1 (1974): 39–62.Google Scholar
  23. 22.
    Although they are a legitimate tool for policy-makers, it needs to be underlined that often the development of those new modes of governance is criticised by civil liberties organisations for their lack of transparency.Google Scholar
  24. 23.
    Jonathan Stevenson, ‘How Europe and America Defend Themselves’, Foreign Affairs 83, no. 2 (2003): 75–90.Google Scholar
  25. 24.
    Jeffrey S. Lantis, ‘American Perspectives on the Transatlantic Security Agenda’, European Security 13, no. 1 (2004): 361–80.Google Scholar
  26. 25.
    Wyn Rees, Transatlantic Counter-Terrorism Cooperation. The New Imperative (London: Routledge, 2006)Google Scholar
  27. 25a.
    Jeremy Shapiro, ‘Domestic Dilemmas US Homeland Security Policy and Transatlantic Relations. An American Perspective’, in European Homeland Security Post-March 11th and Transatlantic Relations, ed. Didier Bigo, Jeremy Shapiro and Andrei Fedorov (Brussels: CEPS, 2004), 13–21Google Scholar
  28. 25b.
    Jack Clarke, ‘The United States, Europe, and Homeland Security: Seeing Soft Security Concerns through a Counterterrorist Lens’, European Security 13, no. 1–2 (2004): 117–38.Google Scholar
  29. 26.
    Clarke ‘The United States, Europe, and Homeland Security’.Google Scholar
  30. 27.
    Lantis American Perspectives on the Transatlantic Security Agenda’.Google Scholar
  31. 28.
    The White House, National Strategy for Homeland Security, 60.Google Scholar
  32. 29.
    Lantis American Perspectives on the Transatlantic Security Agenda’.Google Scholar
  33. 30.
    Interview with a US official, Department of State, Washington DC, June 2007.Google Scholar
  34. 31.
    Joseph Lampel, ‘Rules in the Shadow of the Future: Prudential Rule-Making Under Ambiguity in the Aviation Sector Business’, International Relations 20, no. 3 (2006): 343–9.Google Scholar
  35. 32.
    Anthony Lang Jr, Nicholas Rengger and William Walker, ‘The Role(s) of Rules: Some Conceptual Clarifications’, International Relations 20, no. 3 (2006): 274–94.Google Scholar
  36. 33.
    ‘Rules in the Shadow of the Future’, p. 343.Google Scholar
  37. 34.
    See: International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism of 2001, International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism of 1999, International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings of 1997, Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, Supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation of 1998, International Convention against the Taking of Hostages of 1979, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation of 1971.Google Scholar
  38. 35.
    See: European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism of 1977 and Amending Protocol of 2003; European Convention on Extradition of 157 and first and second Additional Protocols of 1975 and 1978 respectively; European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 1959 and first and second Additional Protocols of 1978 and 2001 respectively; European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters of 1972; European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes of 1983; Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime of 1990; Convention on Cybercrime of 2001 and Additional Protocol concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems of 2003; Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism of 2005; Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism of 2005.Google Scholar
  39. 36.
    Created in 1923 and grouping 186 countries constitutes one of the oldest organisations of this type. It is main objective is to facilitate police cooperation in fields such as drugs, criminal organisations, public safety and terrorism, corruption and trafficking in human beings.Google Scholar
  40. 37.
    FATF was created in 1989 as an intergovernmental policy-making body with the purpose of developing and promoting national and international policies to combat terrorism financing and money-laundering.Google Scholar
  41. 38.
    Richard Falk, ‘The Grotian Quest’, in International Law: A Contemporary Perspective, ed. Richard Falk, Friedrich Kratochwil and S. Mendlowitz (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1985), 36–42.Google Scholar
  42. 39.
    This opinion contradicts with the view expressed by Joyner, who argues that ‘flexibility therefore remains a chief strength of international law’[0]. See: Christopher Joyner, International Law in the 21st Century. Rules for Global Governance (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield), 294. While ‘international legal rules can adapt, change and evolve’ it does not mean that their interpretation is flexible. Thus, the divergence of opinions may result either from the understanding of flexibility (i.e. flexibility of law in long term perspective) or be related to time factor (i.e. how much time is needed for change would be a sign of flexibility).Google Scholar
  43. 40.
    In December 2002, IMO has introduced a number of amendments to the SOLAS, including the new International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code) with security-related requirements for governments, port authorities and shipping companies. As a result, a comprehensive IMO security regime for international shipping entered into force on 1 July 2004. See: International Maritime Organisation, International Convention on Safety of Life at Sea (London: IMO, 2002).Google Scholar
  44. 41.
    The EU-US CSI Agreement was a compromise to the competency fight between the Commission and the EU member states.Google Scholar
  45. 42.
    Department of Homeland Security, Container Security Initiative. 2006–2011 Strategic Plan (Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2006).Google Scholar
  46. 43.
    An example of regulation with extraterritorial application would be the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, which extends the territorial application of the US initially internal embargo to foreign companies trading with Cuba and penalised them. This act was vividly opposed by the European Union who adopted a Council Regulation (No 2271/96) declaring the extraterritorial provisions of the Helms-Burton Act to be unenforceable within the EU. It also imposed sanctions against US companies and their executives for making Title III complaints.Google Scholar
  47. 44.
    In case of the European Union, for instance, the Treaty in articles 224 and 225 EC allows member states to fully or partially suspend the application of the EC Treaty on the security grounds. Also, the WTO provisions which are usually the benchmark for international trade and regulation include exemptions based on security provisions (article XXI GATT). The European Court of Justice has delivered a few rulings involving the application of the articles 224 and 225 EC, the most famous of which is the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) case. For more on this article and its political and legal implications see: Constantin Stefanou, A Legal and Political Interpretation of Articles 224 and 225 of the Treaty of Rome. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Cases (Aldershot: Ashgate Dartmouth, 1997).Google Scholar
  48. 45.
    It must be mentioned, however, that members of the World Customs Organisation are considering the possibility of using the WTO Dispute Settlement system by arguing that the US customs security measures constitute a barrier to trade.Google Scholar
  49. 46.
    The EU and the US have concluded three PNR Agreements. The first PNR Agreement was concluded in 2004 and alter annulled by the European Court of Justice after the case brought by the European Parliament. An interim PNR Agreement has been signed in 2006 and the PNR Agreement currently in force has been signed in June 2007.Google Scholar
  50. 47.
    Passenger Name Record is a record of each passenger’s travel requirements that contains all information necessary to enable reservations to be processed and controlled by the booking and participating airlines. First APIS requirements were implemented on the basis of the US Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act of 2002. The requirement for international passengerscontrols prior to their departure has been mandated to DHS on the basis of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA).Google Scholar
  51. 48.
    Department of Homeland Security, Advanced Passanger Information System. Preventing Terrorists from Boarding International Flights and Vessels Destined for or Departing from the U.S., (Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2007).Google Scholar
  52. 49.
    Elspeth Guild, ‘International Terrorism and EU Immigration, Asylum and Border Policy: The Unexpected Victims of 11 September 2001’, European Foreign Affairs Review 8, no. 3 (2003): 331–46.Google Scholar
  53. 50.
    Interview with a former US official, Department of Homeland Security, Washington DC, May 2007.Google Scholar
  54. 51.
    Helen Fenwick, ‘The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: A Proportionate Response to 11 September?’, Modern Law Review 65. No. 5 (2002): 724–62.Google Scholar
  55. 52.
    Patryk Pawlak, ‘The External Dimension of Area of Freedom Security and Justice: Hijacker or Hostage of Cross-Pillarisation’, Journal of European Integration 31, no. 1 (2009): 25–44.Google Scholar
  56. 53.
    The changes introduced in the Treaty of Lisbon do not make substantial progress in this regard. The partition of homeland security issues still remains and the trend for inter-institutional struggles may be only enhanced by creation of the European Union External Service.Google Scholar
  57. 54.
    Section 501 of the HR 1.Google Scholar
  58. 55.
    James J. Carafano and David Heyman, DHS 2.0: Rethinking the Department of Homeland Security (Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation, 2004).Google Scholar
  59. 56.
    In the US, these are Departments of State, Homeland Security, Justice, FBI. In the EU: the Council, the European Commission, the European Parliament and specialised agencies like Europol, Eurojust and Frontex. Implementation of homeland security provisions is often the competency of member states.Google Scholar
  60. 57.
    International Air Transport Association, Comments of the International Air Transport Association in respect of: US Immigration and Naturalisation Service Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Manifest Requirements under Section 231 of the Act, 8 CFR Parts 217, 231 and 251 RIN 1115-AG57 (Federal Register Vol. 68, No. 2, 3 January 2003).Google Scholar
  61. 58.
    Adrienne Héritier, Policy-Making and Diversity in Europe: Escaping Deadlock (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  62. 59.
    Treib, Bähr and Falkner, ‘Modes of Governance’.Google Scholar
  63. 60.
    Patryk Pawlak, ‘From Hierarchy to Networks: Transatlantic Governance of Homeland Security’, Journal of Global Change and Governance 1, no. 1 (2007): 1–22.Google Scholar
  64. 61.
    The United States Mission to the European Union, U.S., EU Discuss Transportation, Border Security, 27 April 2007.Google Scholar
  65. 62.
    Council of the EU, EU— US Policy Dialogue on Border and Transport Security, no. 8956/04, 26 April 2004.Google Scholar
  66. 63.
    Patryk Pawlak ‘From Hierarchy to Networks.Google Scholar
  67. 64.
    Art. 1 of the Adequacy decision.Google Scholar
  68. 65.
    Even more interesting is the evolution that this legal instrument underwent: the Undertakings in 2004, the ‘Letter to the Council Presidency and the Commission from the DHS’ in 2006, and the ‘US Letter to EU’ accompanying the agreement of 2007. See: Department of Homeland Security, ‘Undertakings of the Department of Homeland Security Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP)’, 11 May 2004Google Scholar
  69. 65a.
    Council of the European Union, ‘Letter to the Council Presidency and the Commission from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of the United States of America, Concerning the Interpretation of Certain Provisions of the Undertakings Issued by DHS On 11 May 2004 in Connection with the Transfer by Air Carriers of Passenger Name Record (PNR) Data’, 13738/06, Brussels, 11 October 2006Google Scholar
  70. 65b.
    Council of the European Union ‘Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the Processing and Transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) Data by Air Carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS)’, OJ EU L 204, 4 August 2007.Google Scholar
  71. 66.
    Predicated crime approach means that legal action is taken in response to a crime that has already been committed, i.e. there are victims, casualties, etc. The preventive crime approach relies on taking action before a factual crime happens. Source: Interview with former US official in the Department of Justice, Washington, June 2007.Google Scholar
  72. 67.
    Council of the EU, ‘Council Decision of 6 June 2003 Concerning the Signature of the Agreements Between the European Union and the United States of America on Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters’, L 181/25.Google Scholar
  73. 68.
    Art. 4 and 5 MLA Agreement respectively.Google Scholar
  74. 69.
    Interview with a Council Secretariat official, Brussels, March 2007.Google Scholar
  75. 70.
  76. 71.
    Department of Homeland Security, Securing the Global Supply Chain. Customs-Trade Partnership against Terrorism (Washington, DC: US Customs and Border Protection, 2004).Google Scholar
  77. 72.
    These include a broad range of topics like personnel, physical and procedural security; access controls; education, training and awareness; manifest procedures; conveyance security; threat awareness; and documentation processing. Furthermore, C-TPAT members are obliged to increase security practices of their service providers and business partners.Google Scholar
  78. 73.
    Department of Homeland Security, Securing the Global Supply Chain. Customs-Trade Partnership against Terrorism (Washington, DC: US Customs and Border Protection, 2004).Google Scholar
  79. 74.
    A proposal to introduce security amendments to the EU Customs Code has been introduced by the European Commission in 2003. See: Regulation (EC) no. 648/2005 of 13 April 2005.Google Scholar
  80. 75.
    European Commission, Supply Chain Security: EU Customs’ Role in the Fight against Terrorism (Brussels: European Commission, 2007).Google Scholar
  81. 76.
    Art. 5 of the security amendments of the Community Customs Code.Google Scholar
  82. 77.
    The establishment of the Transatlantic Economic Council can be interpreted as a move towards formal institutional architecture emerging at the transatlantic level.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of Transatlantic Studies 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social and Political SciencesEuropean University InstituteFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations