Suchergebnisse

International audience ; La lutte contre la « radicalisation ». Genèse et expansion d'un nouveau sens commun administratif en France et dans l'Union européenne Laurent Bonelli, Université de Paris-Nanterre Francesco Ragazzi, Leiden University / Sciences Po Paris Comment étudier l'institutionnalisation d'un espace européen de liberté, de sécurité et de justice ? L'option la plus immédiate consiste sans doute à retracer la genèse d'institutions spécifiques (comme Europol ou Eurojust) ou celle de procédures communes (le mandat d'arrêt européen par exemple) et, le cas échéant, à s'interroger sur leurs effets sur les droits pénaux, ainsi que sur le travail des forces de l'ordre et des magistrats des Etats membres. A condition de prendre une distance par rapport aux prophéties politiques des pères fondateurs de l'Europe (l'intégration comme sens de l'histoire) et des multiples rationalisations académiques qui les accompagnent 1 , ces sociogenèses permettent de rendre compte des agencements singuliers dans lesquelles ces réalisations voient le jour, où s'entremêlent des intérêts hétérogènes, se nouent des coalitions spécifiques et s'articulent des rapports de forces particuliers 2. En effet, s'il existe bien des « entrepreneurs d'Europe » dans les champs politiques et bureaucratiques nationaux, dans des groupes d'intérêt (des syndicats aux ONG) ou dans des institutions communautaires, leur activisme ne suffit pas à comprendre les évolutions observables 3. Penser en termes de configuration-pour reprendre le concept de Norbert Elias 4-permet au contraire de réintroduire de la contingence et surtout de rendre compte relationnellement de ce qui se joue simultanément ou successivement dans des espaces différents, trop souvent isolés dans l'analyse (comme le proposent les travaux en terme « d'échelle », locale, nationale ou européenne) 5. C'est ce programme que nous entendons suivre ici au sujet de la lutte contre la « radicalisation », largement défendue par des acteurs communautaires (comme M. Gilles de Kerchove, le ...

The fight against "radicalisation". Development and expansion of a new common administrative sense in France and the European Union Laurent Bonelli, University of Paris-Nanterre Francesco Ragazzi, Leiden University/Sciences Po Paris How to study the institutionalisation of a European area of freedom, security and justice? The most immediate option is perhaps to trace the origins of specific institutions (such as Europol or Eurojust) or to common procedures (e.g. the European Arrest Warrant) and, where appropriate, to question their effects on criminal rights and the work of the law enforcement agencies and magistrates in the Member States. On condition that they distance themselves from the political propheties of the founding fathers of Europe (integration as a sense of history) and the many academic rationalisations that accompany them 1, these sociogenese give an account of the unique arrangements in which these achievements emerge, where diverse interests are intertwined, specific coalitions are formed and power ratios are articulated 2. Indeed, while there are "entrepreneurs from Europe" in national political and bureaucratic fields, in interest groups (from trade unions to NGOs) or in Community institutions, their activism is not enough to understand the observable developments 3. Think in terms of configuration-to use the Norbert Elias 4-concept, on the contrary, it is possible to reintroduce contingencies and, above all, to report back on what is happening simultaneously or successively in different spaces. too often isolated in the analysis (as proposed by the work in terms of "scale", local, national or European) 5. This is the programme that we intend to follow here in relation to the fight against "radicalisation", widely defended by community actors (such as Gilles de Kerchove, the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator) since 1 Georgakakis, D., "The historical and political sociology of the European Union: an overall view and a few counter-points", ; International audience ; The fight against ...

International audience ; La lutte contre la « radicalisation ». Genèse et expansion d'un nouveau sens commun administratif en France et dans l'Union européenne Laurent Bonelli, Université de Paris-Nanterre Francesco Ragazzi, Leiden University / Sciences Po Paris Comment étudier l'institutionnalisation d'un espace européen de liberté, de sécurité et de justice ? L'option la plus immédiate consiste sans doute à retracer la genèse d'institutions spécifiques (comme Europol ou Eurojust) ou celle de procédures communes (le mandat d'arrêt européen par exemple) et, le cas échéant, à s'interroger sur leurs effets sur les droits pénaux, ainsi que sur le travail des forces de l'ordre et des magistrats des Etats membres. A condition de prendre une distance par rapport aux prophéties politiques des pères fondateurs de l'Europe (l'intégration comme sens de l'histoire) et des multiples rationalisations académiques qui les accompagnent 1 , ces sociogenèses permettent de rendre compte des agencements singuliers dans lesquelles ces réalisations voient le jour, où s'entremêlent des intérêts hétérogènes, se nouent des coalitions spécifiques et s'articulent des rapports de forces particuliers 2. En effet, s'il existe bien des « entrepreneurs d'Europe » dans les champs politiques et bureaucratiques nationaux, dans des groupes d'intérêt (des syndicats aux ONG) ou dans des institutions communautaires, leur activisme ne suffit pas à comprendre les évolutions observables 3. Penser en termes de configuration-pour reprendre le concept de Norbert Elias 4-permet au contraire de réintroduire de la contingence et surtout de rendre compte relationnellement de ce qui se joue simultanément ou successivement dans des espaces différents, trop souvent isolés dans l'analyse (comme le proposent les travaux en terme « d'échelle », locale, nationale ou européenne) 5. C'est ce programme que nous entendons suivre ici au sujet de la lutte contre la « radicalisation », largement défendue par des acteurs communautaires (comme M. Gilles de Kerchove, le coordinateur de l'Union européenne pour la lutte contre le terrorisme) depuis le 1 Georgakakis, D., « La sociologie historique et politique de l'Union européenne : un point de vue d'ensemble et quelques contre points »

When it comes to anticipating terrorism, do recent technological advancements fundamentally change the modus operandi of intelligence services? Recent scholarship has focused on the new modes of reasoning brought about by 'hi-tech' forms analysis such as data mining, graph visualization and the algorithmic treatment of big data. While this article recognizes the increasing influence of these techniques, it argues they should not overshadow much more low-tech modalities through which a large part of counterterrorism work takes place. Low-tech counter-terrorism, based on qualitative methods and conjectural reasoning, still matters. Drawing on the case of French domestic intelligence services and based on qualitative interviews, observations and declassified documents, this article shows that the practices of security professionals, rooted in traditional institutional habituses developed over time, are largely in continuity with previous 'low-tech' forms of police work. In a context in which the uses of digital security technologies have generated discussions about politics and ethics, this article suggests that traditional techniques of intelligence gathering and processing therefore still merit a great amount of attention.

In the wake of the disclosures surrounding PRISM and other US surveillanceprogrammes, this study makes an assessment of the large-scale surveillancepractices by a selection of EU member states: the UK, Sweden, France,Germany and the Netherlands. Given the large-scale nature of surveillancepractices at stake, which represent a reconfiguration of traditional intelligencegathering, the study contends that an analysis of European surveillanceprogrammes cannot be reduced to a question of balance between dataprotection versus national security, but has to be framed in terms of collectivefreedoms and democracy. It finds that four of the five EU member statesselected for in-depth examination are engaging in some form of large-scaleinterception and surveillance of communication data, and identifies parallels anddiscrepancies between these programmes and the NSA-run operations. Thestudy argues that these surveillance programmes do not stand outside therealm of EU intervention but can be engaged from an EU law perspective via (i)an understanding of national security in a democratic rule of law frameworkwhere fundamental human rights standards and judicial oversight constitute keystandards; (ii) the risks presented to the internal security of the Union as awhole as well as the privacy of EU citizens as data owners, and (iii) the potentialspillover into the activities and responsibilities of EU agencies. The study thenpresents a set of policy recommendations to the European Parliament.

In the wake of the disclosures surrounding PRISM and other US surveillanceprogrammes, this study makes an assessment of the large-scale surveillancepractices by a selection of EU member states: the UK, Sweden, France,Germany and the Netherlands. Given the large-scale nature of surveillancepractices at stake, which represent a reconfiguration of traditional intelligencegathering, the study contends that an analysis of European surveillanceprogrammes cannot be reduced to a question of balance between dataprotection versus national security, but has to be framed in terms of collectivefreedoms and democracy. It finds that four of the five EU member statesselected for in-depth examination are engaging in some form of large-scaleinterception and surveillance of communication data, and identifies parallels anddiscrepancies between these programmes and the NSA-run operations. Thestudy argues that these surveillance programmes do not stand outside therealm of EU intervention but can be engaged from an EU law perspective via (i)an understanding of national security in a democratic rule of law frameworkwhere fundamental human rights standards and judicial oversight constitute keystandards; (ii) the risks presented to the internal security of the Union as awhole as well as the privacy of EU citizens as data owners, and (iii) the potentialspillover into the activities and responsibilities of EU agencies. The study thenpresents a set of policy recommendations to the European Parliament.