"Political Collaboration under Pressure: Some lessons from the European Arrest Warrant"

Payne, Diane and with Andreou, George and Kinnunen, Jussi and O'Mahoney, Jane. (2005) "Political Collaboration under Pressure: Some lessons from the European Arrest Warrant". In: UNSPECIFIED, Austin, Texas. (Unpublished)

	Plain Text Download (70Kb)
	Microsoft Word Download (296Kb)

Abstract

[Introduction]. In recent years, the area of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) has become a top priority on the EU agenda. Even at a glance, one is struck by the speed with which policy issues within this broad policy area, which were usually seen as the last remaining preserve of the individual member states, are increasingly perceived and identified as European-wide policy concerns. In particular, this research paper focuses the analysis on the political negotiations for the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) framework decision. The fine balance between security, freedom and justice in the newly enlarging Europe is being rigorously tested in the current pervasive climate of fear, which is fuelled by the "global threats" of terrorism and cross-border crime. The negotiations for the European Arrest Warrant provide an excellent example of how these contrasting pressures can play out within the arena of EU policy making. In the first part of this paper, the historical context for the emergence of the European Arrest Warrant negotiations is presented. The next section presents the analytical approach used in this research, which involved the application and comparison of different explanations or models of policy making. Since the 1980s, several models of collective decision making have been developed that provide far reaching insights into the dynamics of decision making processes (for example Bueno de Mesquita et al 1985 , Stokman and Van Oosten 1994 ). The main differences between the models concern the assumptions they make regarding the behaviour of the actors involved in the decision-making process. On the basis of the accuracy of the models’ forecasts of decision outcomes, we can make inferences about the relevance of the influence strategies posited. The empirical research first examined the policy preparatory stage at the national level and in particular focused on three small member states, Greece, Ireland and Finland. This research illustrates the strong cross-national differences that exist with regard to the level of centralisation, as well as the level of transparency, which characterises the processes of EU policy preparation in the JHA arena in each country. Following this, the analysis focused on the decision-making phase at the European level for the European Arrest Warrant. The application of the modelling approach allows an insight into the kind of bargaining across issues, as well as the likely gains and losses incurred by the member states involved in these negotiations.

Actions (login required)