Europol and the Policing of International Terrorism: Counter-Terrorism in a Global Perspective
Mathieu DeflemJustice QuarterlyVol. 23 No. 32006 pp. 336-359
Deflem (2006) investigates the European Police Office (Europol) and provides a review of the history, structure, purpose, and current practices of this international policing organization. Using the bureaucratization theory of policing as a framework for investigation, the author explains the basis of Europol’s present counter-terrorism strategies. Deflem uses interviews with Europol officials and archival data, including information gathered from official documents, news reports, press releases, and web sites, to demonstrate that this organization possesses features of professional expertise similar to those displayed by other international police organizations but remains unique in many respects.
Deflem begins by describing the process of bureaucratization that influences the development of international police cooperation in the Western industrial world. According to the bureaucratization theory of policing previously proposed by Deflem (2002), this development is dependent on three conditions. First,international police organizations must establish a position of relative independence from the government directives of participating nations in order to spur cooperation between politically diverse states. Second, a common understanding of a particular problem, such as terrorism, must exist so that expert systems of knowledge can be shared effectively between the police of national states. Third, international police work generally remains focused on enforcement aimed at issues with local or national significance.
Deflem places Europol’s counter-terrorism operations within the theoretical model of police bureaucratization to demonstrate that Europol faces dual forces of political control. The first form of political control is represented by the formal mandates of the organization, which are determined by the regulative bodies of the European Union (EU). The author notes that while Europol’s operations are clearly defined by the EU and that they are not dependent only on informal resolutions as other international policing agencies are, the organization depends on the EU Council to determine leadership and pass appropriate legislation, both of which can be hindered by political-ideological bickering. This dependency may sometimes hinder Europol’s effectiveness;however, some level of autonomy is maintained through meetings of European counter-terrorism officials that take place without EU Ministers. Independence and increased efficiency are also achieved through cooperative agreements reached at institutional and nation-state levels, including agreements made with countries that are not currently members of the EU (e.g. FBI).
According to Deflem, the second form of political control stems from the participating police agencies themselves. The author argues that an international police agency must operate within the context of an existing professional culture of policing in order to effectively build a cooperative network between nations. This may pose problems for Europol, particularly when the type of information shared is not specific enough for the police institutions to make arrests (intelligence agencies tend to disseminate more general information) and when linguistic barriers between police, and their terrorist targets, or other agencies, slows investigative processes. Despite these differences, Deflem reports that since 9/11 the participating agencies have begun to develop a shared understanding of terrorism that allows increased cooperation.
Deflem concludes that Europol’s response to these two forces will continue to shape the activities of counter-terrorism policing in the European Union in the future.
Tamara D. Madensen University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA
