Search results

'Societal security' has become a popular way in which to conceptualise security in research and practice. This chapter tracks its conceptual lineage, demonstrates that two variants of societal security have emerged, and argues that, while borne from the same intellectual seed, each variant grew along a relatively isolated and narrow pathway. One turned to a focus on the security of cultural identities and employed constructivist methods to understand those identities and what threatens them. The other turned to the security of life-giving functions, using mainly objectivist methods to understand them and their protection. The objectivist variant of societal security not only fuelled academic research but also quickly gained traction in policy circles across the Nordic region and in the European Union. This chapter assesses these developments, explains why they took place, and suggests future avenues for research on this latter variant of societal security to improve its scholarly utility. ; NordSTEVA

AbstractIn recent years a subtle change has taken place in the policy‐making machinery shaping European integration. The traditional methods for producing collective European Union (EU) policies, typified by the extensive analysis of a problem, extended phases of consultation with stakeholders, the deliberate cultivation of support for proposals, occasional decision‐making moments and their long‐term implementation, now share space with what is best described as crisis‐oriented methods for arriving at collective decisions. These methods prioritize the early identification of the next crisis, specific kinds of actors and technologies, abbreviated decision‐making procedures and new narratives on the raison d'etre of European integration. This article treats this development as a kind of crisisification of EU policy‐making – a change in the processes by which collective decisions are made – and explores its implications for practice and research by drawing on both classical EU studies approaches and insights from critical security studies.

In recent years a subtle change has taken place in the policy‐making machinery shaping European integration. The traditional methods for producing collective European Union (EU) policies, typified by the extensive analysis of a problem, extended phases of consultation with stakeholders, the deliberate cultivation of support for proposals, occasional decision‐making moments and their long‐term implementation, now share space with what is best described as crisis‐oriented methods for arriving at collective decisions. These methods prioritize the early identification of the next crisis, specific kinds of actors and technologies, abbreviated decision‐making procedures and new narratives on the raison d'etre of European integration. This article treats this development as a kind of crisisification of EU policy‐making – a change in the processes by which collective decisions are made – and explores its implications for practice and research by drawing on both classical EU studies approaches and insights from critical security studies.

AbstractAs crises grow more transnational in origin and effect, managing them effectively will require international cooperation. This article explores the dilemmas inherent to producing common crisis management capacities across national governments. Drawing on the literature related to "international public goods," the article builds an approach for understanding these dilemmas through the lens of collective action and the perverse incentives associated therein. The article applies this approach to cooperation in Europe on an issue that typifies the transnational crisis—the spread of communicable disease—and highlights obstacles to European Union ambitions to build a robust system for disease surveillance and control. Having isolated the obstacles, the article then identifies solutions to facilitate cooperation toward more effectively producing the good in question.

This article investigates both the operation and the democratic legitimacy of the European Union committee system. This vast but rarely studied system is an important site of European governance, exercising an increasing amount of policy responsibility while also providing the essential arenas necessary for supranational problem solving. Despite their contribution to the success of the "European project," committees are increasingly coming under attack, notably for their lack of democratic credentials. The article employs original empirical research based on interviews and internal documentary evidence to answer a timely question: does the EU committee system strike an appropriate balance between the values of system effectiveness and democratic legitimacy? Following the application of a set of democratic principles to EU committees, the article finds that a poor balance has been struck between effectiveness and democracy. The article concludes with some operational suggestions for improving this balance in the short‐to‐medium term.