Eva Magdalena Stambøl

Working paper on implementation of EU crisis response in Mali

This paper offers a critical review of the EUTM and EUCAP in Mali, arguing that this is another example of international interventions that may be well-intended, but that end up producing very mixed results on the ground. One reason for this is the gaps between intentions and implementation and between implementation and local reception/perceptions. Whereas the first gap points to mismatches between EU policy intentions and what effect the implementation of these policies actually have (see for example Hill 1993), the latter gap reveals the inability of an international actor to both understand how key concepts such as ‘security sector reform’ and ‘border management’ are understood on the ground as well as translating its own policies and Brussels’ developed mandate into policies that makes sense for people on the ground (Cissé, Bøås, Kvamme and Dakouo 2017).

EU initiatives along the ‘cocaine routes’ to Europe: Fighting drug trafficking and terrorism by proxy?

While broad scholarly attention has been devoted to the securitization of migration in the ′EU’s relations with neighboring countries, less attention has been given to the ways in which the EU is partnering with third countries to fight other central ′‘unconventional security threats′’, such as terrorism and drug trafficking. This article traces the evolution of EU cooperation on these two issues with countries along the cocaine trafficking routes to Europe, i.e. Latin America and the Caribbean and West Africa. A mapping of EU initiatives and cooperation reveals that not only can a securitization of EU cooperation be observed in both regions, but various ′‘unconventional security threats′’, perceived in geopolitical terms, seem increasingly to serve as drivers for EU external action. The modalities of EU support – through international and regional organizations as well as third countries’ own counter-crime and counter-terrorism capabilities – suggest that the Union is fighting drug trafficking and terrorism ′‘by proxy′’. The article discusses whether the ′‘indirect′’ EU approach is a strategy of efficient engagement, or rather a way of avoiding commitment while portraying itself as a ′‘global crime fighter′’. Lastly, more analytical attention to third country interests, agency, and opposition is suggested in order for analyses to transcend the one-directional understanding of power seemingly underpinning the proxy concept.

Best practices in EU crisis response and policy implementation

This report has two aims. First, to take stock of how the Europen External Action Sercvice (EEAS) and the Commission have institutionalized lessons-learned mechanism. Second, to discuss the extent to which these mechanisms and practices incorporate the EU’s ambitions for a ‘conflict-sensitive’ and ‘comprehensive’ crisis-response approach. In this sense, this report will serve as a point of departure for case-study research to be undertaken within the framework of Work Packages 5–7 of the EUNPACK project, on whether there is a gap between policy and practice with regard to institutional learning.

Understanding the EU’s crisis response toolbox and decision-making processes

Heads of States Can Change the Course of International Drugs Policy in 2016: Where does the EU stand?

A quick overview of the past ten to fifteen years developments in drugs policies in Europe reveals two diverging trends: a public health and social policy track on the one hand, and a security policy track on the other. While as the future of drugs policy as a political field in its own right is being questioned in the European context, the EU has explicitly stated its objective of a greater involvement and role in international drugs policy. Apart from continuity in harm reduction and research promotion – i.e., EU’s key contributions to global drugs policy – EU support to larger and deeper reconfigurations of the global drug prohibition regime remains highly unlikely.

Governing Cocaine Supply and Organized Crime from Latin America and the Caribbean: The Changing Security Logics in European Union External Policy

The logics of the European Union’s policy and practices against narcotic drugs in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) have undergone a substantial shift the past decade: from development to security. Based on an empirical mapping of the EU’s drug-related projects in LAC, this article argues that an ‘integrated and balanced’ approach to drugs policy is being replaced by a bifurcation between the broader domains of development policy and security policy. Questions are raised as to how the EU’s projects on development and security might counteract one another, and how the Union’s programme aimed at dismantling transnational organized crime along the cocaine trafficking routes to Europe might have unintended consequences. While keeping in mind the shifting tectonics of the international drug prohibition consensus, the article goes on to analyze the increasingly salient security rationale in EU external drugs policy against the backdrop of the EU’s emerging role as a global security actor. In doing so, it touches upon the intrinsic tensions between human rights and (supra) national security.

We Saw it Coming: Jihadist Terrorism, Challenges for the European Union

Nothing about the recent Paris or Copenhagen terrorist attacks was totally unexpected. Indeed, they were the sort of thing that security apparatuses in Europe had been preparing to have to deal with. Although security responses to terrorism are traditionally considered a quintessential national sovereignty prerogative, in the past ten to fifteen years the recognition that highly asymmetric security threats respect no borders has heightened the EU’s role as a coordinator in this policy domain. Some claim that counter-terrorism has changed the role and functioning of the EU itself towards a more operational character in security matters. Both old and new security responses to terrorism have (re-)emerged on the agenda of the EU and its member states in the ‘post-Paris attacks’ phase.

Menneskerettigheter som brekkstang i internasjonal narkotikapolitikk

Menneskerettigheter og narkotikakontroll har lenge fungert som to separate og isolerte spor i FN-systemet. De siste årene har imidlertid dette skillet blitt krafig kritisert av en stadig mer profesjonell, innflytelsesrik og verdensomspennende narkotikapolitisk reformbevegelse. Bevegelsen hevder at strukturene som blir iverksatt gjennom repressiv narkotikalovgivning- og politikk på internasjonalt nivå i praksis genererer menneskerettighetsbrudd. Kritikken har tvunget FN til å granske sin egen narkotikapolitikk i lys av menneskerettighetene, og de senere år har tydelige endringer unnet sted.