Informal Counterterrorism Arrangements in Europe: Beauty by Variety or Duplicity by Abundance?

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F26482789%3A_____%2F12%3A%230000207" target="_blank" >RIV/26482789:_____/12:#0000207 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

—

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Informal Counterterrorism Arrangements in Europe: Beauty by Variety or Duplicity by Abundance?

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Most existing analyses of counterterrorism cooperation among EU Member States have focused on the formal EU agencies and institutions, which may be regarded as direct vertical extensions of political and executive power in the EU Member States. When it comes to practical cooperation, however, it appears that national security agencies in Europe often prefer to utilize horizontal non-EU counterterrorism arrangements. Because of their flexibility and relative independence from national governments, as well as their ability to include a broader range of participants on equal footing, it is generally assumed that these informal arrangements are more suitable for achieving common goals than their more formal and hierarchical EU counterparts. This article argues that the informal non-EU arrangements also suffer from a number of distinct shortcomings. This, in turn, questions the wisdom of the post-9/11 response to terrorism by putting yet more formal EU bodies and/or informal arrangements on

Název v anglickém jazyce

Informal Counterterrorism Arrangements in Europe: Beauty by Variety or Duplicity by Abundance?

Popis výsledku anglicky

Most existing analyses of counterterrorism cooperation among EU Member States have focused on the formal EU agencies and institutions, which may be regarded as direct vertical extensions of political and executive power in the EU Member States. When it comes to practical cooperation, however, it appears that national security agencies in Europe often prefer to utilize horizontal non-EU counterterrorism arrangements. Because of their flexibility and relative independence from national governments, as well as their ability to include a broader range of participants on equal footing, it is generally assumed that these informal arrangements are more suitable for achieving common goals than their more formal and hierarchical EU counterparts. This article argues that the informal non-EU arrangements also suffer from a number of distinct shortcomings. This, in turn, questions the wisdom of the post-9/11 response to terrorism by putting yet more formal EU bodies and/or informal arrangements on

Druh

J_x - Nezařazeno - Článek v odborném periodiku (Jimp, Jsc a Jost)

CEP obor

AD - Politologie a politické vědy

OECD FORD obor

—

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/GAP408%2F11%2F0395" target="_blank" >GAP408/11/0395: Privatizace bezpečnosti: Role aktérů privátního sektoru v reakcích na současné bezpečnostní hrozby</a><br>

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2012

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Cooperation and Conflict

ISSN

0010-8367

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

47

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

4

Stát vydavatele periodika

SE - Švédské království

Počet stran výsledku

23

Strana od-do

495-518

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—