Mirror, Mirror on the Wall. Who's the Fairest of Them All? The Double Logic in the Imposition of JHA Instruments of Control on Candidate Countries

Abstract

The development of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) within the European Union (EU) has followed a remarkably capricious pattern. As a relatively new policy domain within the EU, it has been approached with caution and suspicion by politicians in the member States, who have implicitly or explicitly expressed resentment at relinquishing national control in sovereigntywsensitive areas, such as immigration and asylum control, police and judicial co-operation, and the fight against transnational organised crime, fraud and corruption. On the other hand, national politicians have embraced the construction of the AFSJ as an opportunity to turn the EU into a joint internal security enterprise which should bring the EU closer to the citizens of Europe. The latter approach has emerged particularly since the special Council Summit which was convened in Tampere during the Finnish Presidency and which was solely developed to Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) cooperation. The institutionalisation trend which was reinforced at the Tampere summit - particularly through the endorsement of the creation of Eurojust and the European Police College - has however been fettered by nested games and bargaining processes.