Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Transparency in the Institutionalisation of Transatlantic Relations: Dynamics of Official Secrets and Access to Information in Security and Trade

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Institutionalisation beyond the Nation State

Part of the book series: Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation ((SEELR,volume 10))

  • 519 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter analyses transparency in the context of the institutionalisation of transatlantic relations more specifically in the fields of security and trade. In both of these fields, the EU’s rules on transparency clash with (soft) norms and arrangements of official secrets mostly agreed solely between EU and US executives without parliamentary involvement or external oversight. The paper analyses the TFTP and TTIP as two relevant cases in unveiling the dynamics between access to information and official secrets in transatlantic relations. The chapter posits that despite the many limitations to access to information, transatlantic relations have contributed to better-defined legal limits to secrecy in the EU. Yet the chapter concludes that the EU regime of official secrets, largely resulting from security-driven cooperation, grants a wide discretion to US institutions on disclosure of information and would remain a concern for parliamentary access to information in the EU.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Meijer (2013), pp. 429, 430.

  2. 2.

    Art 1 TEU, Art 15 TFEU.

  3. 3.

    Art 42 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, Art 1(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents [2001] OJ L145/43.

  4. 4.

    See Abazi (2016b), p. 247; Fahey (2016), p. 327; Cremona (2015), p. 351; de Goede (2012), p. 214; Argomaniz (2009b), p. 119.

  5. 5.

    See Kaunert et al. (2015), p. 357; Argomaniz (2009a), p. 151; Cross (2013), p. 388; Rees (2009), p. 108. See also more generally, Fahey and Curtin (2014) and Fahey (2014), p. 368.

  6. 6.

    See also Introduction in this volume, Elaine Fahey, Institutionalisation Beyond the Nation State: Transatlantic Relations – Data Privacy and Trade Law.

  7. 7.

    Abazi and Hillebrandt (2015), p. 825.

  8. 8.

    de Goede and Wesseling (2016), p. 253.

  9. 9.

    Rees and Aldrich (2005), p. 905.

  10. 10.

    de Goede and Wesseling (2016), p. 254.

  11. 11.

    Cremona (2015), pp. 351, 361.

  12. 12.

    On both of these aspects, see details Introduction in this volume: Fahey, Institutionalisation (n 6), p. 4.

  13. 13.

    Ibid.

  14. 14.

    Stone-Sweet et al. (2001), p. 3.

  15. 15.

    Ibid, 12.

  16. 16.

    Ibid. 13.

  17. 17.

    Ibid. 7–8.

  18. 18.

    de Goede and Wesseling (2016), p. 10.

  19. 19.

    Gheyle and De Ville (2017).

  20. 20.

    Art 14 of Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data from the European Union to the United States for purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program OJ L 8, 13.1.2010, pp. 11–16.

  21. 21.

    de Goede and Wesseling (2016), p. 2.

  22. 22.

    Bok (1982). For an overview of secrecy and its definition, see Blank (2009).

  23. 23.

    Abazi (2018); Curtin (2014), p. 684; but see also Galloway (2014), p. 668.

  24. 24.

    Case C-658/11, European Parliament v. Council of the European Union, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2025.

  25. 25.

    Abazi (2018).

  26. 26.

    Whitman (2004), pp. 430, 438.

  27. 27.

    See Roberts (2003), p. 329; Reichard (2006).

  28. 28.

    Reichard (2006), p. 318.

  29. 29.

    Rees (2009).

  30. 30.

    Argomaniz (2009a), p. 154.

  31. 31.

    EU-US Europol; EU-US Eurojust, EU-US extradition; EU-US mutual cooperation; EU-US PNR.

  32. 32.

    Agreement between the European Union and the United States on the security of classified information OJ L 115 of 3.5.2007.

  33. 33.

    Roberts (2004), p. 249.

  34. 34.

    EU-US Agreement (n 32) preamble.

  35. 35.

    Current Art. 37 TEU.

  36. 36.

    Rees (2009).

  37. 37.

    Archick (2016).

  38. 38.

    de Goede and Wesseling (2016).

  39. 39.

    See Fuster et al. (2008), p. 191.

  40. 40.

    Funk and Trauner (2016).

  41. 41.

    See Fahey (2017), pp. 528–551.

  42. 42.

    Case C-350/12 P, Council v. Sophie in ‘t Veld, EU:C:2014:2039.

  43. 43.

    Ibid.

  44. 44.

    Ibid.

  45. 45.

    Abazi and Adriaensen (2017).

  46. 46.

    Art 8 of TFTP Agreement.

  47. 47.

    Presentation by the European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly, Decision of the European Ombudsman closing the inquiry into complaint 1148/2013/TN as regards Europol, available at http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/activities/speech.faces/en/58671/html.bookmark.

  48. 48.

    Decision of the European Ombudsman closing the inquiry into complaint 1148/2013/TN against the European Police Office (Europol), para 17.

  49. 49.

    de Goede and Wesseling (2016).

  50. 50.

    See Introduction in this volume: Fahey, Institutionalisation (n 6).

  51. 51.

    See Case T-754/14 Efler and Others v Commission ECLI:EU:T:2017:323.

  52. 52.

    Coremans (2017).

  53. 53.

    See Agence Europe, Warnings of growing hostility on TTIP Bulletin Quotidien Europe, 2014, nr. 11029.

  54. 54.

    European Commission (2014).

  55. 55.

    Crisp (2015).

  56. 56.

    Abazi (2016a), p. 31.

  57. 57.

    Ibid.

  58. 58.

    Decision of the European Ombudsman closing the inquiry into complaint 1148/2013/TN against the European Police Office.

References

  • Abazi V (2016a) European Parliamentary oversight behind closed doors. Camb J Int Comp Law 5(1):31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abazi V (2016b) How confidential negotiations of the TTIP affect public trust. Eur J Risk Regul 7(2):247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abazi V (2018) Secrecy and oversight in the European Union. OUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Abazi V, Adriaensen J (2017) Allies in Transparency? Parliamentary, judicial and administrative interplays in the EU’s international negotiations. Politics Gov 5(3):75–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abazi V, Hillebrandt M (2015) The legal limits to confidential negotiations: recent case law developments to Council transparency: access info Europe and In’t Veld. Common Market Law Rev 52:825

    Google Scholar 

  • Archick K (2016) EU-US cooperation against terrorism. Congressional Research Service Report 7-5700, 2 March 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Argomaniz J (2009a) Post-9/11 institutionalisation of European Union counterterrorism: emergence, acceleration and inertia. Eur Secur 18:151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argomaniz J (2009b) When the EU is the ‘Norm-Taker’: the passenger name records agreement and the EU’s internalization of US border security norms. J Eur Integr 31:119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blank L (2009) Introduction. In: Maret S, Goldman J (eds) Government secrecy: classic and contemporary readings. Libraries Unlimited

    Google Scholar 

  • Bok S (1982) Secrets: on the ethics of concealment and revelation. Pantheon Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Coremans E (2017) From access to documents to consumption of information: The European commission transparency policy for the TTIP negotiations. Politics Gov 5(3):29–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cremona M (2015) Guest editorial ‘Negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)’. Common Market Law Rev 52:351, 361

    Google Scholar 

  • Crisp J (2015) US to open TTIP reading rooms across EU, EUobserver, 29 April 2015. Available online: http://www.euractiv.com/section/trade-society/news/us-to-open-ttip-reading-rooms-across-eu/

  • Cross MD (2013) A European transgovernmental intelligence network and the role of IntCen. Perspect Eur Polit Soc 14:388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtin D (2014) Overseeing secrets in the EU: a democratic perspective. J Common Market Stud 52:684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Goede M (2012) The SWIFT affair and the global politics of European security. J Common Market Stud 50:214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Goede M, Wesseling M (2016) Secrecy and security in transatlantic terrorism finance tracking. J Eur Integr 39:253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2014) The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP): we’re listening and engaging. Available online: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/march/tradoc_152276.pdf

  • Fahey E (2014) On the use of law in transatlantic relations: legal dialogues between the EU and US. Eur Law J 20:368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahey E (2016) On the benefits of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP) negotiations for the EU legal order: a legal perspective. Leg Issues Econ Integrat 43:327

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahey E (2017) Of ‘one shotters’ and ‘repeat-hitters’ - a retrospective on the role of the European Parliament in the EU-US PNR litigation. In: Nicola F, Davis B (eds) EU law stories: contextual and critical histories of European jurisprudence. CUP, pp 528–551

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahey E, Curtin D (eds) (2014) A transatlantic community of law. CUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Funk M, Trauner F (2016) Transatlantic counter-terrorism cooperation. EU Institute for Security Studies. Available online: http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/Alert_15_-_counter_terrorism.pdf

  • Fuster G, De Hert P, Gutwirth S (2008) SWIFT and the vulnerability of transatlantic data transfers. Int Rev Law Comput Technol 22:191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galloway D (2014) Classifying secrets in the EU. J Common Market Stud 52:668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gheyle N, De Ville F (2017) How much is enough? Explaining the continuous transparency conflict in TTIP. Politics Gov 5(3):16–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaunert C, Léonard S, MacKenzie A (2015) The European Parliament in the external dimension of EU counter-terrorism: more actorness, accountability and oversight 10 years on? Intell Natl Secur 30:357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meijer A (2013) Understanding the complex dynamics of transparency. Public Admin Rev 73:429, 430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rees W (2009) Securing the homelands: transatlantic co-operation after Bush. Br J Polit Int Relat 11:108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rees W, Aldrich R (2005) Contending cultures of counterterrorism: transatlantic divergence or convergence? Int Aff 81:905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichard M (2006) The EU-NATO relationship: a legal and political perspective. Ashgate Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts AS (2003) Entangling alliances: NATO’s security policy and the entrenchment of state secrecy. Cornell Int Law J 26:329

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts A (2004) ORCON Creep: information sharing and the threat to government accountability. Gov Inform Q 3:249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone-Sweet A, Sandholtz W, Filgstein N (eds) (2001) The institutionalisation of Europe. OUP, p 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitman RG (2004) NATO, the EU and ESDP: an emerging division of labour? Contemp Secur Pol 25:430, 438

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Maastricht University, Centre for European Research, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Vigjilenca Abazi

Authors
  1. Vigjilenca Abazi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vigjilenca Abazi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for the Study of European Law (ISEL), The City Law School, City University of London, London, United Kingdom

    Elaine Fahey

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Abazi, V. (2018). Transparency in the Institutionalisation of Transatlantic Relations: Dynamics of Official Secrets and Access to Information in Security and Trade. In: Fahey, E. (eds) Institutionalisation beyond the Nation State. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50221-2_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50221-2_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-50220-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-50221-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation