Category: 9.1 Crisis Coordination – Civil Protection

Fundamental Rights Agency :  Surveillance by intelligence  services: fundamental rights safeguards and remedies in the EU.  Mapping Member States’ legal frameworks

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY : FULL REPORT AVAILABLE HERE

 Introduction

Recent revelations of mass surveillance underscore the importance of mechanisms that help prevent fundamental rights violations in the context of intelligence activities.

This FRA report aims to evaluate such mechanisms in place across the European Union (EU) by describing the current legal framework related to surveillance in the 28 EU Member States. The report first outlines how intelligence services are organised, describes the various forms surveillance measures can take and presents Member States’ laws on surveillance. It then details oversight mechanisms introduced across the EU, outlines the work of entities set up thereunder, and presents various remedies available to individuals seeking to challenge surveillance efforts.

The report does not assess the implementation of the respective laws, but maps current legal frameworks. In addition, it provides an overview of relevant fundamental rights standards, focusing on the rights to privacy and data protection.

Background

In June 2013, media worldwide began publishing the ‘Snowden documents’, describing in detail several surveillance programmes being carried out, including by the United States’ National Security Agency (NSA) and by the United Kingdom’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). These brought to light the existence of extensive global surveillance. Details of these programmes, which set up a global system of digital data interception and collection, have been widely publicised 1 and critically assessed.2

Neither the US nor the British authorities questioned the authenticity of the revelations,3 and in some cases confirmed them.4 However, the media’s interpretation of the programmes was sometimes contested – for example, by the UK Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament 5 and academia.6

Since most of the Snowden revelations have not been recognised by the British government, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, in hearing challenges to the legality of the programmes, took the approach of hearing cases on the basis of hypothetical facts closely resembling those alleged by the media.7 For the Austrian Federal Agency for State Protection and Counter Terrorism (BVT), the Snowden revelations represented a “paradigm shift”: “Up until a few years ago, espionage was largely directed at state or business secrets, and not, for the most part, at people’s privacy, which can now be interfered with extensively by intelligence services since they possess the necessary technical resources to do so”. 8

The Snowden revelations were not the first to hint at the existence of programmes of large-scale communication surveillance set up in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks.9

But the magnitude of the revelations was unprecedented, potentially affecting the entire world.

The revelations triggered an array of reactions.10 In the intelligence community, and in particular among the specialised bodies in charge of overseeing the work of intelligence services, dedicated inquiries were conducted.11 The European Union reacted strongly.

The European Commission (EC), the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament (EP) reported on the revelations, expressing concern about mass surveillance programmes, seeking clarification from US authorities, and working on “rebuilding trust” in light of the damage created by the revelations.12

On 12 March 2014, the EP adopted a resolution on the US NSA surveillance programme, surveillance bodies in various Member States and their impact on EU citizens’ fundamental rights, and transatlantic cooperation in Justice and Home Affairs (the Resolution).13

The resolution drew on the in-depth inquiry that the EP tasked the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (LIBE) to conduct during the second half of 2013, shortly after the revelations on mass surveillance were published in the press.14

The wide-reaching resolution launched a “European Digital Habeas Corpus”, aimed at protecting fundamental rights in a digital age while focusing on eight key actions. In this context, the EP called on the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) “to undertake in-depth research on the protection of fundamental rights in the context of surveillance, and in particular on the current legal situation of EU citizens with regard to the judicial remedies available to them in relation to those practices”.15

Scope of the analysis

This report constitutes the first step of FRA’s response to the EP request. It provides an overview of the EU Member States’ legal frameworks regarding surveillance. FRA will further consolidate its legal findings with fieldwork research providing data on the day-to-day implementation of the legal frameworks. A socio-legal report based on an empirical study, to be published at a later stage, will expand on the findings presented ere.

While the EP requested the FRA to study the impact of ‘surveillance’ on fundamental rights, given the context in which the resolution was drafted, it is clear that ‘mass surveillance’ is the main focus of the Parliament’s current work. During the data collection phase, FRA used the Parliament’s definition to delineate the scope of FRA net’s research.

The EP resolution refers to “far-reaching, complex and highly techno-logically advanced systems designed by US and some Member States’ intelligence services to collect, store and analyse communication data, including content data, location data and metadata of all citizens around the world, on an unprecedented scale and in an indiscriminate and non-suspicion-based manner” (Paragaph 1).

This definition encompasses two essential aspects: first, a reference to a collection technique, and second, the distinction between targeted and untargeted collection.

The report does not analyse the surveillance techniques themselves, but rather the legal frameworks that enable these techniques. For Member States that carry out signals intelligence, the focus of the analysis is on this capacity, and not on other intrusive capabilities the services may have (such as wiretapping).

This report covers the work of intelligence services. It does not address the obligations of commercial entities which, willingly or not, provide intelligence services with the raw data that constitute Signals Intelligence (SIGINT), and are otherwise involved in the implementation of the surveillance programmes.16 The private sector’s role in surveillance requires a separate study.

While the premise of this report is the existence of an interference, since the “secret monitoring of communications” interferes with privacy rights from a fundamental rights point of view,17 the report focuses on analysing the legal safeguards in place in the EU Member States’ legal frameworks, and therefore on their approaches to upholding fundamental rights.

“Assuming therefore that there remains a legal right to respect for the privacy of digital communications (and this cannot be disputed (see General Assembly Resolution 68/167)), the adoption of mass surveillance technology undoubtedly impinges on the very essence of that right.” UN, Human Rights Council, Emmerson, B. (2014), para. 18

The report’s analysis of EU Member States’ legal frameworks tries to keep law enforcement and intelligence services separate. By doing so, the report excludes the work of law enforcement from its scope, while recognising that making this division is not always easy.

As stated by Chesterman, “Governments remain conflicted as to the appropriate manner of dealing with alleged terrorists, the imperative to detect and prevent terrorism will lead to ever greater cooperation between different parts of government”.18 The EP resolution recognises this and called on the Europol Joint Supervisory Body (JSB) to inspect whether information and personal data shared with Europol have been lawfully acquired by national authorities, particularly if the data were initially acquired by intelligence services in the EU or a third country.19

The Snowden revelations have also shed light on cooperation between intelligence services. This issue, important for the oversight of intelligence services’ activities, has been addressed by the EP resolution (Paragraph 22), by oversight bodies,20 by the Venice Commission,21 and by academia.22

This aspect, however, proved impossible to analyse in a comparative study, since, in the great majority of cases, cooperation agreements or modalities for transferring data are neither regulated by law nor public. This in itself creates a fundamental rights issue linked to the rule of law and, more particularly, regarding the importance of the existence of a law that is accessible to the public, as well as regarding the rules governing the transfer of personal data to third countries.

Though this report could not deal with this aspect beyond referencing the lack of proper control by over-sight bodies, it does raise important questions under relevant legal standards.

Fundamental rights and safeguards Continue reading “Fundamental Rights Agency :  Surveillance by intelligence  services: fundamental rights safeguards and remedies in the EU.  Mapping Member States’ legal frameworks”

Attentats terroristes de Paris : “fluctuat nec mergitur”, envers et contre tout

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON CDRE SITE ON NOVEMBER 15 2015

 par Henri Labayle

Le carnage abominable commis dans les rues de Paris, ce vendredi soir, fait resurgir nombre d’interrogations déjà posées dans ces mêmes colonnes et restées sans réponses, il y a dix mois à peine.

Semblables et pourtant différentes, ces questions interpellent la société européenne autant que la société française. Elles obligent à ne pas laisser notre émotion prendre le pas sur ce qu’il reste de notre raison, à conserver deux convictions : celle d’un destin commun commandant que ne soit pas sacrifiés les principes d’une Communauté de droit .

1. Un destin commun

L’image donne souvent à la réalité l’apparence du spectacle. Les sociétés européennes se sont ainsi habituées au feuilleton médiatique de la violence terroriste, de ces attentats aux multiples formes allant de l’assassinat aveugle aux explosions meurtrières. Des rues d’Israël à celles de Beyrouth, hier encore, la relation de ces vies fauchées et de ces corps démembrés conservait jusqu’alors un caractère passablement artificiel pour les opinions publiques européennes. En tous cas pour celles qui n’avaient pas eu à en connaître dans leur chair comme en Irlande ou en Espagne. Loin et donc irréel …

Brutalement, l’attentat le plus violent que la France ait eu à connaître depuis plus d’un demi siècle ramène à la vérité. Les quatre vingt morts du Bataclan et la vision d’un corps de kamikaze devant le Stade de France donnent soudain une réalité tragique à des propos alarmistes que nous n’entendions pas, au sens premier du terme.

Nous ne comprenions pas en effet que l’on ne peut prétendre agir à l’extérieur de nos frontières sans conséquences. Nos sociétés n’ont pas davantage assimilé l’interdépendance dans laquelle nos destins particuliers se lient. De l’exode des réfugiés à travers le continent jusqu’aux attentats de Paris, toute lecture autocentrée ou hexagonale des évènements en cours est sans issue. Désormais, la libre circulation de la période contemporaine ne concerne pas seulement les individus mais elle intègre aussi la violence.

Or, là est le risque de voir le débat public s’égarer sans issue, dans la prétention qu’existerait une solution exclusivement nationale au défi que les sociétés démocratiques doivent relever. Au prétexte à peine dissimulé qu’à la pêche aux voix, l’argument fait recette.

Certes, l’Europe et ses constructions sécuritaires demeurent des boucs émissaires faciles et cette attitude présente, au demeurant, l’avantage d’éviter la question des responsabilités nationales. L’espace de libre circulation de Schengen constitue l’archétype de ces procès en sorcellerie, ceci avant même que les progrès des investigations policières nous fournissent un tableau plus précis des choses et de leur exacte dimension, internationale ou européenne. Il est donc mis à profit pour essayer de persuader qu’à l’heure d’Internet, guérites et képis seraient une protection imparable. Incapables de gérer hier Sangatte et aujourd’hui Calais, nous serions à même de garantir la sécurité nationale en nous privant de la seule échelle pertinente qui vaille, l’échelle européenne…

Que les inspirateurs et les commanditaires des attentats soient établis à l’étranger ne dissimule en rien la dimension nationale du crime, depuis l’implication de ses auteurs matériels jusqu’au lieu de sa réalisation. Le vieux fantasme de l’ennemi de l’étranger ne résiste guère à l’analyse et celle-ci doit nous conduire à l’introspection. Impossible de réduire ou d’oublier la nationalité française de plusieurs des terroristes. De même, si les yeux se tournent actuellement vers la Belgique, pays voisin, c’est là encore parce que des ressortissants français y auraient séjourné.

Dès lors et comme hier à propos des attentats de janvier, il se confirme malgré nos réticences à l’admettre lucidement que nos propres sociétés ont enfanté des monstres criminels. Une prise de conscience est donc indispensable, avant tout anathème et tout discours guerrier.

Prise de conscience, d’abord, de l’extrême vulnérabilité des sociétés modernes face à une criminalité atypique et asymétrique. Ni ses motivations ni ses modes opératoires ne sont encore pleinement assimilés par le corps social. Les sacrifices humains y sont délibérément assumés par ceux qui en sont à la fois auteurs et victimes. Dans l’histoire du terrorisme en Europe, que 7 des 8 assaillants répertoriés à ce jour se soient fait exploser avec leurs explosifs est une première, absolument terrifiante et sur les ressorts de laquelle nous devrions nous interroger en priorité. Elle exprime une détermination et une radicalisation extrêmes qui condamnent largement l’action policière à l’impuissance, malgré tous ses efforts et ses qualités.

Prise de conscience, ensuite, de ce que ce mal n’est pas propre à une société nationale mais qu’il frappe l’ensemble de l’Union européenne. De façon quasiment identique, avec ou sans usage du principe de laïcité ou du respect de la diversité culturelle et religieuse, la société européenne s’avère incapable de dégager une réponse audible et convaincant dans un combat d’idées qui conduit à perdre celui des valeurs.

Le juge de ses consciences lui-même, la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme, vient de témoigner récemment en Grande Chambre de son impuissance à dessiner clairement les frontières de la liberté d’expression. Stigmatisant avec facilité les insanités de Dieudonné ou la négation de la Shoah, il tolère de façon passablement discutable la marge d’appréciation des Etats en matière de génocide arménien … Sans curseur, comment imaginer alors de façon efficace et incontestable un encadrement législatif de cette liberté en Europe, face aux discours radicaux ?

Prise de conscience enfin de ce que l’abandon des questions sécuritaires au fond de commerce des partis extrémistes est une erreur couteuse. Elle alimente à la fois un sentiment désormais injustifié de quiétude civile mais elle risque aussi de nourrir la surenchère et l’excès dans la réaction politique, une fois la menace concrétisée. L’unanimité du pessimisme des services de sécurité français quant à la vraisemblance d’attentats graves contraste ici depuis de longues semaines avec le discours public aseptisé et politiquement correct.

De ce destin commun, manifestement, nombre d’acteurs politiques n’ont pas pris la mesure, préférant évaluer les avantages politiciens qu’ils en escomptent dans les échéances à venir.

Passe encore que l’effet d’aubaine ravisse les tenants des partis extrêmes. Il est moins normal que les représentants de certains Etats membres, comme la Pologne, se saisissent de la situation pour y trouver prétexte à habiller leur refus d’une politique commune d’asile et d’immigration actée à Lisbonne. Et il n’est pas davantage explicable que le souhait « d’une nouvelle politique européenne d’immigration » fasse irruption dans l’allocution d’un ancien Président de la République à un instant de l’enquête où la seule nationalité connue des criminels est française …

A bon escient, Jean Claude Juncker a donc raison d’inciter à ne pas confondre les victimes, que sont l’immense majorité des syriens fuyant l’Etat islamique, et les criminels, que sont leurs tortionnaires.

2. La guerre et le droit

L’outrance des propos tenus ici et là peut s’expliquer par la gravité et l’émotion du moment. Si elle n’a qu’un mérite, c’est de signifier à quel point les attentats de Paris trouvent leurs racines à l’extérieur du territoire de l’Union.

A user d’un mot, la « guerre », qu’il faudrait manier avec précaution face à ce qui est avant tout un crime au sens de la loi pénale, comme y incitent justement Bertrand Badie ou un ancien premier ministrefrançais, les autorités françaises n’ont pas réalisé à quel point les conséquences en étaient prévisibles. Le droit ne peut y être indifférent et le respect du principe de légalité doit demeurer l’axe de notre réaction.

Passons sur le fait que les juristes demeurent interrogatifs sur certaines formes de l’action militaire sur les théâtres d’opération extérieurs, à commencer par l’élimination physique de l’adversaire. N’en restons qu’aux suites de l’abus des postures martiales, inversement proportionnelles à la réalité concrète de trois bombardements aériens en trois mois.

Il ne fallait guère être devin pour comprendre que la propagande terroriste s’en nourrirait pour désigner ses objectifs opérationnels, en toute indifférence pour la subtilité de nos positionnements diplomatiques. « Faire la guerre » implique de se placer sous le feu de l’adversaire et s’il n’est pas certain que l’opinion française en ait eu conscience, il est sûr en revanche que nul ne le lui a expliqué franchement …

Quitte à le faire, sans doute fallait-il introduire alors une cohérence plus grande dans la conduite de cette diplomatie. Par exemple envers les Etats qui sont les soutiens à peine déguisés de l’Etat islamique en Syrie et contribuent dans le même temps à équilibrer notre commerce extérieur, à notre grande satisfaction. Peut-être était-il bon aussi de déployer toute l’énergie nécessaire pour faire le jour sur les circuits de financement et de commercialisation de ses rapines par le même Etat islamique, au vu et au su de tous, au besoin en s’intéressant aux ambiguïtés du comportement des autorités turques et de ses voisins …

Par ailleurs, les outils juridiques et opérationnels de la réponse au terrorisme qui avaient fait l’objet de sévères mises en cause, au plan européen comme national, appellent immédiatement un examen attentif. Gérer la crise en termes militaires n’empêchera pas de se livrer à l’évaluation de ce qui a été fait ou pas depuis 10 mois et les attentats de Charlie Hebdo.

La mise en cause de l’entraide répressive européenne à l’époque a eu, au moins, des effets visibles. Les autorités allemandes ont ainsi immédiatement fait état de l’arrestation d’un suspect, muni d’armes et apparemment à destination de la France. Les prolongements de l’enquête vers la Belgique sont plus significatifs encore de la parenté des inquiétudes et de la qualité des coopérations. A la fois parce que la Belgique s’avère être un centre névralgique de l’action radicale islamique en Europe, comme en témoignent les affaires Nemmouche ou celle du Thalys, mais aussi comme l’illustre le nombre sidérant de « combattants étrangers » qui en partent.

L’impuissance des autorités publiques belges à y faire face, 6 services de police et 19 municipalités différentes y concourent en vain (!!!) dans la banlieue bruxelloise, démontre si besoin en était la nécessité d’une action concertée. Deux des kamikazes français identifiés n’y résidaient-ils pas ? La qualité des échanges et des contrôles Schengen est une réponse avérée en ce sens. Le partage d’expérience aussi.

Précédant le point d’étape qui devait être effectué en tout état de cause en Conseil au mois de décembre, les constats du coordinateur de la lutte contre le terrorisme devraient être instructifs de ce point de vue quant au degré d’engagement des Etats membres dans la lutte contre le terrorisme. Des indicateurs communs de risques positivés par la Commission à l’alimentation des fichiers tels que le SIS II ou le fichier Europol consacré aux « combattants étrangers » ou à l’entraide judiciaire au sein d’Eurojust, l’ambiance a changé. Elle semble, en tous cas, différente, au regard de ce qu’elle était au lendemain des attentats de Charlie Hebdo.

Pour autant, les résistances du passé ne sont pas entièrement dépassées. S’il est trop tôt pour en évaluer l’impact dans le schéma criminel qui a conduit aux attentats de Paris, il conviendra de les confronter aux conclusions des diverses commissions d’enquête ayant fait suite aux attentats de janvier, à l’Assemblée nationale comme au Sénat.

La tonalité du discours des autorités françaises n’est guère encourageante de ce point de vue, à écouter les propos pontifiants de leur ministre de l’Intérieur. Lecture purement intergouvernementale de cette coopération, silence sur les organes intégrés que sont Eurojust ou Europol et la valeur ajoutée que pourrait fournir une coordination européenne de la poursuite, impasse sur le caractère obligatoire que devrait présenter cette coopération au regard du traité de Lisbonne et sur la sanction des Etats défaillants, il semble que le logiciel de nombre d’Etats membres, dont le nôtre, n’ait guère été mis à jour depuis Maastricht.

Ont-ils pris conscience que le monde et ses dangers ont changé et que le besoin de sécurité de ses citoyens est pourtant le moteur le plus fort de l’intégration européenne ?

The law enforcement challenges of cybercrime: are we really playing catch-up?

FULL STUDY ( 68 pages) ACCESSIBLE HERE

Abstract : This study was commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee. With a number of high-profile criminal cases, such as ‘Silk Road’, cybercrime has been very much in the spotlight in recent years, both in Europe and elsewhere. While this study shows that cybercrime poses significant challenges for law enforcement, it also argues that the key cybercrime concern for law enforcement is legal rather than technical and technological. The study further underlines that the European Parliament is largely excluded from policy development in the field of cybercrime, impeding public scrutiny and accountability. AUTHOR(S): Dr. Ben Hayes, Dr. Julien Jeandesboz, Dr. Francesco Ragazzi, Dr. Stephanie Simon, and Prof. Valsamis Mitsilegas.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Cybercrime has become one of the key priorities for EU law enforcement agencies, as demonstrated by the establishment of the European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) in January 2013 and the development of specific European threat assessment reports in this field. High-profile criminal investigations such as the ‘Silk Road’ case, major data breaches or particularly nefarious hacks or malware attacks have been very much in the spotlight and widely reported in the media, prompting discussions and debates among policymakers and in law enforcement circles. Over the last few months, the cybercrime debate has specifically evolved around the issue of encryption and anonymisation.

In this context, this Study argues that debates on the law enforcement challenge of cybercrime in the EU should steer clear both of doomsday scenarios that overstate the problem and scepticism that understates it, and that the key cybercrime concern for law enforcement is legal in nature rather than simply technical and technological. Indeed, the Study finds that the key challenge for law enforcement is the lack of an effective legal framework for operational activities that guarantees the fundamental rights principles enshrined in EU primary and secondary law.

In order to address this core argument, this Study starts by analysing claims and controversies over the Internet ‘going dark’ on law enforcement (Section 2). It shows that these claims have been made for quite some time and should be considered as moral panics rather than accurate reflections of the challenges posed by cybercrime to law enforcement. Moreover, current controversies rehash older ones, conflating law enforcement concerns with intelligence-gathering and surveillance concerns. Without denying the fact that criminal activities do take place online, pose technical difficulties to law enforcement services and require the availability of specific capabilities, this section demonstrates that these difficulties do not impede criminal investigation to such an extent that exceptional means should be envisaged. While these technical aspects need to be considered, they raise issues related to policy and law rather than technology as such. The policy and law-related challenges are made greater by the fact that defining cybercrime is not an easy task. Very broad definitions have been adopted at the EU level, often leading to overlapping and sometimes conflicting mandates.

Section 3 thus analyses the institutional architecture of EU cybercrime policy. It shows that the complexity of cybercrime measures and the expansive mandates and number of actors involved in their implementation make it difficult to ascertain and circumscribe the full scope of EU cybercrime policy. Whereas the Council of Europe (CoE) sought to codify cybercrime powers into an international convention, much of the EU’s policy to fight cybercrime is based on non-legislative measures, including operational cooperation and ad hoc public-private partnerships. Furthermore, important distinctions and restrictions designed to ensure a ‘separation of powers’ between state agencies concerned with law enforcement (cyber-policing), civil protection (cybersecurity), national security (cyber-espionage) and military force (offensive cyber capabilities) are harder to distinguish in the area of cybercrime, at both national and EU level. Section 3 underlines that, within this complex architecture, and with the blurring of the boundaries between those responsible for policing the Internet, for gathering intelligence from it, for conducting cyber-espionage against foreign targets, and for ensuring the safety of critical internet infrastructure, the European    Parliament    and    civil    society    are    largely    excluded    from    policy development, impeding public scrutiny and accountability. This compounds the EP’s existing problems in ensuring that fundamental rights and data protection are diligently protected in the area of justice and home affairs.

In light of these gaps in oversight and accountability, Section 4 analyses in particular the challenge of jurisdiction, cooperation and fundamental rights safeguards. This section argues that operational challenges in cybercrime law enforcement do not change the obligation of EU institutions and Member States to ensure the safeguarding of EU fundamental rights in any operating framework of internal or transnational cooperation in law enforcement and criminal justice. Cybercrime law enforcement frequently cites the challenge of accessing and transferring data through existing Mutual Legal Assistance agreements. Yet practices taken outside of established legal channels cannot guarantee rights protections and run the risk of raising mistrust in the general public, the private sector and in transatlantic relations. Furthermore, across the spectrum of cybercrime prevention, investigation, and prosecution, the particular geography of the digital environment is said to complicate the traditional territorial foundations of law. Law enforcement bodies make continuous reference to the ways in which traditional legal structures stand in the way of operations. However, an updated legal framework designed to overcome these challenges should foreground fundamental rights concerns, which are essential to ensure due process and a necessary condition for the successful prosecution of cybercriminal offences.

In light of these findings, the Study concludes with key recommendations for the European Parliament.

In particular, to ensure that the Parliament is not marginalised altogether with respect to the implementation and review of EU cybercrime policies by the exercise of delegated   powers,   EU   agency   discretion   and   non-legislative   decision-making   bodies, further monitoring of EU council structures, Europol and international cooperation agreements is required (Recommendation 1).

Moreover, the EP should ensure that the development of any cooperation/information-sharing framework guarantees the respect of fundamental rights (Recommendation 2).

In light of the current discussions on a revised CoE Cybercrime Convention, the European Parliament should, further, ensure that the Convention’s obligations are consistent with EU law and fundamental rights protections (Recommendation 3).

The EP must also ensure that cybercrime is not used as a justification to undermine new information security protocols and the right to privacy in telecommunications, both of which are fundamental components of the functioning of the Internet (Recommendation 4).

Finally, if European law enforcement agencies need to keep pace with technological change, it is imperative that training courses on cybercrime forensics and digital evidence include an applied fundamental rights component (Recommendation 5).

Continue reading…

Cybersecurity in the European Union and Beyond: Exploring the Threats and Policy Responses

FULL STUDY ( 152 pages) ACCESSIBLE HERE 

This study was commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee. It sets out to develop a better understanding of the main cybersecurity threats and existing cybersecurity capabilities in the European Union and the United States. The study further examines transnational cooperation and explores perceptions of the effectiveness of the EU response, pinpointing remaining challenges and suggesting avenues for improvement. AUTHORS : Dr Nicole van der Meulen, Eun A Jo and Stefan Soesanto (RAND Europe)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The European Commission published the European Union Cyber Security Strategy along with the accompanying proposal for a Network and Information Security (NIS) Directive in 2013. Since the proposal was published, the cybersecurity landscape has continued to evolve, leading to questions regarding the nature and seriousness of the cyberthreats faced by the European Union (EU), the capabilities of Member States to manage these threats and respond to incidents, and the effectiveness of these capabilities. At the time of writing, discussions about the content and scope of the proposed NIS Directive are continuing. This study of cybersecurity threats in the EU was commissioned by the European Parliament (EP). It has five objectives:

  • To identify key cyberthreats facing the EU and the challenges associated with their identification.
  • To identify the main cybersecurity capabilities in the EU.
  • To identify the main cybersecurity capabilities in the United States (US).
  • To assess the current state of transnational cooperation.
  • To explore perceptions of the effectiveness of the current EU response.

Defining cybersecurity

Any study of cybersecurity must reflect on the challenges introduced by the different meanings of the term. There is no consensus on a standard or universally accepted definition of cybersecurity. The term cybersecurity has roots in information security but is now used to refer to a broader range of issues, linked to national security. The observation that cybersecurity means different things to different people is not without its consequences. How the issue is framed influences what constitutes a threat as well as what counter-measures are needed and justified.

Mapping cybersecurity threats

The study team’s analysis of six threat assessments1 and an existing meta-analysis carried about by Gehem et al. (2015) highlight the difficulty with systematically comparing threat assessments and gauging the reliability of data and findings on the basis of which threat assessments are conducted. The challenge rests in part in the absence of a commonly accepted definition of what constitutes a threat and the variation in the methodology and metrics used for threat assessments. Moreover, some threat assessments reference or are based on other threat assessments, rather than original sources, leading to potential duplication of findings and lack of clarity about the evidence underlying threat assessments. As a result, there is no clearly established framework to classify and map threats.

The study team created a framework for mapping threats. The framework distinguishes:

  • Threat    actors:    states,    profit-driven    cybercriminals,    and    hacktivists   and extremists.
  • Threat tools: malware and its variants, such as (banking) Trojans, ransomware, point-of-sale malware, botnets and exploits.
  • Threat   types:   unauthorised   access,   destruction,   disclosure,   modification   of information and denial of service.

The mapping of the cyberthreat landscape through the review of the six threat assessments was complemented by a discussion on the varying perceptions of the severity of threats and the concept of‘threat inflation’.

Cybersecurity capabilities in the EU

To respond to the evolving threat in the area of cybersecurity, the EU has aimed to provide an overarching response through the publication of the EU Cyber Security Strategy together with the proposed NIS Directive. The Strategy identifies five objectives including:

  • Achieving cyberresilience.
  • Drastically reducing cybercrime.
  • Developing   cyberdefence   policy  and   capabilities  related  to  the  Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).
  • Developing the industrial and technological resources for cybersecurity.
  • Establishing   a   coherent   international   cyberspace   policy  for  the   EU   and promote core EU values.

This study focuses on providing a descriptive overview of capabilities for the first three objectives. Capabilities for the purposes of this study have been operationalised as institutional structures, such as agencies and departments.

  • In the area of cyberresilience, the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) is the primary player at the EU level. ENISA is tasked with addressing the existing fragmentation in the European approach to cybersecurity, namely by bridging the capability gaps of its Member States. In the cybercrime domain, the European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) serves as a European cybercrime platform. Besides combatting cybercrime, EC3 also gathers cyberintelligence and serves as an intermediary among various stakeholders, such as law enforcement authorities, Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs), industry and academia.
  • In the area of cyberdefence, the European Defence Agency (EDA) supports the capability development necessary to implement the Strategy. Its most apparent activities remain in research and development and designing a common crisis response platform. Given that foreign and defence policies have conventionally been areas of domestic competence, it is understandable that EU-wide cyberdefence capabilities have developed at a different pace compared to the other two objectives, cyberresilience and cybercrime.

Cybersecurity capabilities in the US

Cybercapabilities in the US are challenging to map in a comprehensive manner. The tendency to layer initiatives and agencies makes navigating the different components difficult. For the purposes of a high-level comparison with the EU cyber capabilities, the study focuses on key institutional players and their roles in relation to three strategic priorities: cyberresilience, cybercrime and cyberdefence.

  • In the area of cyberresilience, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is the formal leader. The DHS is responsible for securing federal civilian government networks, protecting critical infrastructure and responding to cyberthreats.
  • In the area of cybercrime, the US has not designated any lead investigative agency. Instead, numerous federal law enforcement agencies combat cybercrime in their own capacity. These include the US Secret Service (USSS) and the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Cyber Crimes Center, which are both  agencies  within  the  DHS.  The  Federal   Bureau  of Investigation  (FBI)’s cyberdivision is also involved.
  • In cyberdefence, the Department of Defence (DoD) plays a leading role. It is readily apparent from the DoD’s multiple publications that the US has become more open about its capabilities and willing to name its adversaries. The DoD is also increasingly encompassing in its response to cyberthreats over time, investing in both defensive as well as offensive cybercapabilities, as detailed in its cyberdefence strategy published in April 2015. Commentators note that deterrence is a key characteristic of the US cyberdefence strategy.

Transnational cooperation

The necessity to engage in transnational cooperation to counter the complex challenge posed by cybercrime is widely recognised both inside and outside the EU. Transnational cooperation exists at both the strategic and the operational level. The EU-US Working Group on Cybersecurity and Cybercrime is an example of strategic cooperation and is the first transatlantic dialogue to tackle common challenges in the area of cybercrime and cybersecurity. On an operational level, transnational cooperation has manifested through a range of activities, from botnet takedown to disruption of underground forums.

Challenges, however, remain in the area of combatting cybercrime as identified by the study team through the interviews. Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) are widely regarded as outdated and obstacles to effective and timely information sharing. Further, the importance of acquiring data for investigations is debated among law enforcement agencies and civil society groups. Deconfliction – avoiding the duplication or conflict of efforts – is another challenge. Due to the involvement of various stakeholders, cooperation is essential to avoid potentially disrupting others’ efforts. The draft Europol Regulation contains provisions that interviewees have reported could complicate the attainment of information from the private sector, possibly obstructing future operations.2

Effectiveness of the EU response

Ideally, capabilities respond directly to threats and the effectiveness of the EU response can be measured by noticeable changes in the threat landscape. However, such an assessment is not feasible; there is not enough information available in the public domain and measurement problems persist. Moreover, the EU response is still very much in development and geared towards addressing fragmentation in its approach to cybersecurity, as well as the approach taken by the 28 Member States. This consists of harmonising strategies and standards and coordinating regulatory interventions, as well as facilitating (or more precisely, requiring) information sharing and gap closures between Member States. Due to the inherently relative nature of cybersecurity and the challenges associated with attaining cyberresilience, it is difficult to state whether the new initiatives have been successful. Given these challenges to measuring effectiveness, the study team explored perceptions about the effectiveness of the EU response based on existing commentary and supplemented with interviewees’ responses.
 
The first key finding in relation to the perceived effectiveness of the EU response is that while there is still fragmentation, there is also discernible improvement. Particularly noteworthy is the strategic cooperation agreement between ENISA and EC3, which aims to facilitate closer cooperation and the exchange of expertise. However, questions remain about fragmentation, especially with respect to the proposed NIS Directive. Various points of dissension remain as the trilogue negotiations between the European Commission, European Parliament and the Council of the European Union continue. Moreover, fragmentation is notable not only in terms of operational capabilities but also in terms of Member States’ understanding of the cyberdomain. Bridging these gaps will therefore require technical support as well as strategic guidance.

The second finding is that differences in opinion persist as to whether the overall approach to cybersecurity should be voluntary and informal or mandatory and formal. For example, the CERT community, which has conventionally relied on voluntary participation and cooperation between private and public entities, appears less willing to move to a system in which information sharing is mandatory. In contrast, other security agencies favour law enforcement and support more stringent requirements, for instance in information sharing, as they believe voluntary reporting has failed.

Third, as the new approach proposed through the Strategy and the draft NIS Directive is largely regulatory in nature, the issue of scope – in terms of the entities formally included as having a role in cybersecurity – is heightened and contested. One issue is whether Internet service providers (ISPs) should be included. These scoping challenges are likely to exacerbate existing contentions surrounding the NIS Directive and call into question whether the present regulatory approach is appropriate to secure European cyberspace.

Policy options

Based on this study’s findings the research team suggests the following policy options for the European Parliament’s consideration in terms of EU action on cybersecurity. Each option is elaborated in the Conclusion.

  1. Encourage ENISA, EC3 and others involved in European cyberthreat assessments to investigate further harmonisation of threat assessments, which can effectively incorporate information from Member States and other EU agencies and provide clearer indications of the evidence base for the assessment. This recommendation follows from the findings from the review of threat assessments undertaken for this study.
  2. Make use of existing structures as much as possible. One of the concerns identified by the study team – from a review of existing literature and in interviews with experts – was the tendency of the Commission to develop new structures and exclude existing initiatives and agencies.
  3. Consider reinserting law enforcement in the Network and Information Security (NIS) Directive. The attempt to overcome fragmentation at the EU level is hampered by the exclusion of law enforcement from provisions in the proposed NIS Directive.
  4. Ensure Europol has speedy and more direct access to information from the private sector. Speedy access to relevant information from the private sector is essential for Europol to combat transnational cybercrime. There is potential for this access to be hindered by having to go through the Member States, which may reduce the effectiveness of Europol’s operations, especially as Europol cooperates with partners at the transnational level.
  5. Assess what capability gaps actually exist between the Member States and measure progress. Despite the claims about gaps between Member States, our research suggests that there is very little empirical evidence to indicate which States are more advanced than others and in what areas. To improve this situation and to develop a better understanding of these gaps, ranking Member States and identifying areas of improvement could be made more explicit.

…continue reading

NOTES

1  (ACSC: Threat Report; BSI: State of IT Security Germany; ENISA: Threat Landscape (ETL); Europol: Internet Organised Crime Threat Assessment (iOCTA); NCSC: Cyber Security Threat Assessment the Netherlands (CSAN); Verizon: Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR).
2 European Parliament. 2014b. Legislative resolution of 25 February 2014 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation and Training (Europol) and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JHA and 2005/681/JHA. P7_TA(2014)0121 (COM(2013)0173 – C7-0094/2013 – 2013/0091(COD)). As of 12 October 2015: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2014-0121&language=EN&ring=A7-2014-0096

 

“Foreign Fighters” and EU implementation of the UNSC resolution 2178. Another case of “Legislate in haste, repent at leisure…” ? (2)

by Dalila DELORENZI (FREE Group Trainee – Original in Italian)

1. Foreword
As the hostilities in Syria and Iraq continue and terrorism activities worldwide seem to be on the rise, EU Member States are increasingly confronted with the problem of aspiring and returning ‘foreign fighters’ as described already in this blog HERE. More precisely, in the EU the term is used to indicate European citizens who, after leaving to join jihadist groups, may have become further radicalised and acquired combat experience, and therefore be capable of carrying out deadly terrorist attacks once they return to Europe.

Such phenomenon is anything but new; however, its scale certainly is: as illustrated by the rise of the terrorist group calling itself “Islamic state”, the phenomenon has acquired an entirely new dimension – according to the EU intelligence sources 19% of the total fighters originated from the EU.

It explains then the wide perception of these individuals as a serious threat to the security of both individual Member States and the EU as a whole – especially in the aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks occurred in Brussels[1], Paris[2], Copenhagen[3].

Broadly speaking , a different way to envision human mobility and checks at external borders of Schengen has come to light. Whereas initially, they were rather conceived to protect the Schengen area from threats coming from country outside the Schengen zone, now such threat to security is deemed to be already inside the EU, due to the fact that most of the time militants returning to Europe possess the nationality of a Member State.

2. EU response Continue reading ““Foreign Fighters” and EU implementation of the UNSC resolution 2178. Another case of “Legislate in haste, repent at leisure…” ? (2)”

Some notes on the relations between UNSC Resolution 2240 (2015) fighting smugglers in Mediterranean and the EUNAVFOR Med “Sophia” operation

by Isabella Mercone  (Free Group Trainee – Original Version in Italian)

  1. INTRODUCTION

On 9 October 2015, the Security Council of the United Nations adopted Resolution 2240 (2015), authorizing Member States to intercept vessels off  Libyan coast, suspected of migrant smuggling.

The resolution was adopted in a short time, without much discussion and ahead of schedule, with 14 votes in favour and just one abstention (Venezuela). “Incredible!” – Someone could say – “For once, the Security Council succeeded in adopting a resolution on time.” However, the true is that the adopted resolution is not the one imagined in May by the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the European Union, Federica Mogherini, when operation EUNAVFOR Med was launched. But let’s go one step at a time: let’s see first where the idea of ​​EUNAVFOR Med came from and what is its goal, and let’s try to understand why the EU should have required a resolution by the Security Council, allowing it to intervene in the Mediterranean and dismantle the smuggling of migrants.

  1. THE OPERATION EUNAVFOR MED (now renamed “SOPHIA”)

Continue reading “Some notes on the relations between UNSC Resolution 2240 (2015) fighting smugglers in Mediterranean and the EUNAVFOR Med “Sophia” operation”

(MEIJERS COMMITTEE) Military action against human smugglers: legal questions concerning the EUNAVFOR Med operation

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED HERE ON 23 September 2015

  1. The EUNAVFOR Med operation

On 22 June 2015, the Council of Ministers of the European Union adopted a Common Foreign Security Policy (CFSP) Decision establishing a military crisis management operation with the aim of combatting fighting people smuggling: EUNAVFOR Med.1 This mission is currently in its first phase, focusing on intelligence gathering, i.e. surveillance and the   assessment of existing smuggling networks.

A second phase would involve searching and possibly diverting vessels on the high seas and territorial waters, either under a mandate of the UN Security Council or with the consent of the appropriate coastal state. The Foreign Affairs Council has recently established that the conditions for the second phase have been met insofar as operations in international waters are concerned.2 During the third phase, vessels and related assets of human smugglers would be destroyed and smugglers apprehended.

The mission will operate in a complex legal environment of overlapping rules of refugee law, international human rights law, the law of the sea, and international rules on the use of force. This note discusses some of the most pressing legal questions raised by this operation.

  1. General remarks

At the outset, the Meijers Committee would like to raise a general point regarding the focus on people smuggling as a response to the loss of life at sea. In the absence of safe and legal access to the right to seek asylum in Europe, together with routes for legal migration, people will turn to human smugglers as a last resort. Increased border controls have resulted in higher casualties as people are forced to take more dangerous routes.

The Meijers Committee questions the appropriateness of the approach taken under EUNAVFOR Med to stop the loss of life at sea. The Committee would like to point to the shift from saving lives at sea under  the  Italian-led  Mare  Nostrum  Operation,  to  border management  (Triton),  to  military  action (EUNAVFOR Med). The Meijers Committee emphasizes that the legal obligation to save lives at sea should have primacy in all Union action at sea and that a long-term solution must also involve improving legal access to asylum and legal employment.

  1. Human smuggling as a threat to international peace and
    security

The Meijers Committee notes that the decision establishing the EUNAVFOR Med operation refers explicitly to the need for a UN Security Council Resolution or consent of the coastal states concerned before the second phase of the operation can enter into force.

In this respect the Meijers Committee notes a fundamental difference from the EUNAVFOR operation Atalanta against piracy off the Somalian coast, which was taken as a model for EUNAVFOR Med. The Atalanta operation was explicitly supported by a UN Security Council Resolution, and had the consent of the coastal state involved.3

Articles 39 and 42 UN Charter stipulate that the Security Council shall only authorize the use of force if ‘necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security’. The Meijers Committee is not convinced that the EUNAVFOR MED mission meets this standard. Although the humanitarian crisis may meet this standard, the activities of human smugglers – unlike piracy – do not qualify. Although the Security Council has previously adopted resolutions in response to refugee crises in Iraq and Haiti, these were intended to stabilize the countries of origin and not to prevent persons from seeking refuge elsewhere.

  1. Phase 2: search and diversion of ships

The Second Phase of the operation would involve the search and diversion of ships in third-country territorial waters, which requires the consent of the flag state or a UN Security Council Resolution.

The Meijers Committee recalls that on the high seas, Article 87 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) ensures the right to freedom of navigation. Article 110 permits a warship to board and inspect a vessel if, inter alia, it has no nationality. As regards the vessel, a finding of statelessness should allow states to exercise jurisdiction in order to ensure compliance with the ‘minimum public order on the high seas’, namely, the duties that normally fall on the flag state (Art. 94 UNCLOS).4 This could include a state’s power to escort the vessel into harbor for inspection. As regards the people on board, UNCLOS does not seem to provide a basis for the exercise of jurisdiction.

Although Article 110(1) UNCLOS expressly allows that grounds of interference may be established by Treaty, the UN Smuggling Protocol seems to impose a duty of cooperation only on the contracting parties, while maintaining the requirement of flag state authorization. Article 8(7) of the Smuggling Protocol provides a firmer legal basis for interference with stateless vessels than Article 110 UNCLOS. The wording ‘suppressing the use of the vessel’ or ‘take appropriate measures’ implies the possible use of force. Nevertheless, such force should be used as a means of last resort and will be subject to the requirement of necessity and proportionality. It is noted, however, that the Migrant Smuggling Protocol lacks the precision of, for instance, the UN drug trafficking regime, which explicitly sets out the measures that an intercepting power may take against a drug transport.5 Accordingly, no clear legal basis for action is provided in international law.

Diversions on the high seas may not result in the refoulement of people on board. It is important to stress that States cannot relieve themselves of this obligation by labelling an operation as ‘search and rescue’. The IMO Guidelines on the treatment of persons rescued at sea state that ‘[disembarkation of asylum-seekers and refugees recovered at sea, in territories where their lives and freedom would be threatened should be avoided.’ This approach has been confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights in the Hirsi case.6 Member States remain bound by their obligations under international human rights law, independently of the nature and location of their intervention. In this regard it is particularly problematic that Libya – one of the most important coastal states whose cooperation is sought – is currently a notoriously dangerous and unstable country.

It is unclear how the EU intends to give practical effect to these obligations in the course of the EUNAVFOR Med mission. The Meijers Committee would recommend that clear guidelines be put in place, comparable to the rules applicable in the framework of Frontex coordinated operations at sea.7

  1. Phase 3: destruction of vessels and apprehension of smugglers

The Third Phase of the Operation would entail the destruction of vessels and related assets, and the apprehension of smugglers. The Meijers Committee argues that clear, binding, publicly available rules should be adopted prior to the commencement of Phase 3.

As regards the smugglers it must be noted that unlike piracy and international crimes, international law does not establish universal criminal jurisdiction over human smuggling. As with diversions, the interference with vessels believed to be engaged in human smuggling requires the consent of the flag state (or a UN SC Resolution). In case the ship is sailing without a flag, Article 8 of the Protocol allows a party to take ‘appropriate measures in accordance with relevant domestic and international law’. The extent to which this includes the exercise of criminal jurisdiction over human smugglers is not clear, however.

The Council decision establishing EUNAVFOR Med is silent about the possible detention and prosecution of smugglers. The Meijers Committee points out that even though EUNAVFOR Med is executed by military forces, the EU is not acting as party to an armed conflict and thus normal peace­time law applies. This means that after arrest, those suspected of migrant smuggling should be brought promptly before a judge8. In the case of subsequent criminal prosecution, jurisdiction should be established in one of the Member States. In this respect it is noted that not all Member States have established universal jurisdiction over human smuggling. If smugglers are to be extradited or released to third countries, their fundamental rights should be guaranteed.

The Meijers Committee notes that EUNAVFOR Med is aimed at the destruction of vessels used or suspected of being used for migrant smuggling, possibly even inside third-country territory, yet it remains unclear what legal standard is applied to identify such vessels. The Meijers Committee cautions that the destruction of vessels cannot be arbitrary. Unlike UNCLOS, which provides for clear rules on the seizure and liability for seizure of pirate ships, there is no explicit legal basis in international law for the seizure of migrant smuggling boats. The right to property as enshrined in Article 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR, which will apply to the Member States acting extra-territorially, prescribes that any destruction of property must be provided for by law and must be necessary and proportionate.

  1. Unclear division of responsibility between the EU and its
    Member States

The Meijers Committee recalls that Article 21 TEU requires CFSP actions to be based on human rights. This includes respect for human dignity, including the prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment; personal security and liberty; and protection from arbitrary detention and arrest.9 It also notes, however, that the Court of Justice of the EU has no authority to ensure this respect for fundamental rights as it lack jurisdiction over the CFSP.10 This means that legal remedies would have to be provided under the national law of the participating Member States.

The experience with joint operations under the coordination of Frontex shows that in case of violations of fundamental rights, it is unclear to whom wrongful conduct must be attributed. Although the operation is coordinated by the EU, it is the Member States that provide the assets and personnel, over which they maintain operational command.

Case law issuing from the European Court of Human Rights on the obligations of the Member States as contracting parties to the European Convention on Human Rights clearly indicates with regard to the Member States that they cannot escape their responsibilities under the Convention by acting outside the Convention’s territorial scope. The situation is more complicated, however, when Member States act as agents for the European Union (Bosphorus) or within the context of UN Peace Keeping Operations (Al Jeddah, Behrami, and Saramati). The Meijers Committee therefore stresses that it is fundamentally important that questions of international responsibility and responsibility under the European Convention for Human Rights are addressed prior to commencement of Phases 2 and 3.

Conclusions and recommendations

I. There are no indications that combating migrant smuggling contributes to the restoration of international peace and security or to ending the ongoing humanitarian crises;

II.      Without express consent from third states or authorization from the UN Security Council, the EU lacks jurisdiction over   vessels or assets in third-country territorial waters;
III.      Without express consent from third-country coastal states or   authorization from the UN Security Council, there is no clear legal basis for coercive measures against vessels or assets on the high seas;
IV Despite the unclear legal framework covering interdiction on the high seas, international human rights law does apply;
V.      Should a legal basis for action on the high seas and in territorial waters be provided, clear rules of engagement and proper safeguards should be in place to prevent indiscriminate destruction of civilian property; any undue loss should be compensated;
VI.      An unambiguous legal basis for the arrest and detention of suspected smugglers is needed, and also for the seizure and destruction of any personal property. Suspects should either be prosecuted, extradited or released, the last action having due regard to the right to asylum and the prohibition of refoulement;
VII.      Clear attribution rules and accountability mechanisms for human rights violations committed by EUNAVFOR assets should be in place;
VIII.      The right to apply for asylum, access to asylum procedures on land with proper language and legal assistance, and the prohibition of refoulement should be respected and subject to judicial oversight;
IX.       Outsourcing migration control to third countries, even though outside Member State jurisdiction, should take place with assurances and safeguards against human rights violations.

Notes

1 Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/972 of 22 June 2015 launching the European Union military operation in the southern Central Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR MED), OJ 2015, L157/51.

2 Council of the European Union, “EUNAVFOR Med: Council adopts a positive assessment on the conditions to move to the first step of phase 2 on the high seas”, Press Release, 14 September 2015, no. 643/15.
3 http://www.un.org/Depts/los/piracy/piracy_documents.htm
4 E. Papastavridis, ‘Enforcement Jurisdictions in the Mediterranean Sea: Illicit Activities and the Rule of Law on the High Seas’, International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 25, 2010, p. 585.
5 See Council of Europe Agreement on Illicit Traffic by Sea, implementing article 17 of the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.
6 ECHR, Hirsi Jamaa and others v. Italy, Grand Chamber, Judgment, 23 February 2012, Application no. 27765/09.
7 Regulation (EU) No 656/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing rules for the surveillance of the external sea borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, L 189, 27 June 2014.
8 ECHR, Medvedyev v France, 9 March 2010, appl. no. 3394/03.
9 The promotion and protection of human rights during common security and defence policy operations. In-between a spreading state of mind and an unsolved concern. M L Sánchez Barrueco, in The EU as a ”Global Player” in human rights?, J E Wetzel (edit.), 2011, pp. 158-160.
10 See also Case T-271/10, under appeal C-455/14 P.

About : The Meijers Committee is an independent group of legal scholars, judges and lawyers that advises on European and International Migration, Refugee, Criminal, Privacy, Anti-discrimination and Institutional Law. The Committee aims to promote the protection of fundamental rights, access to judicial remedies and democratic decision-making in EU legislation.

The Meijers Committee is funded by the Dutch Bar Association (NOvA), Foundation for Democracy and Media (Stichting Democratie en Media) the Dutch Refugee Council (VWN), Foundation for Migration Law Netherlands (Stichting Migratierecht Nederland), the Dutch Section of the International Commission of Jurists (NJCM), Art. 1 Anti-Discrimination Office, and the Dutch Foundation for Refugee Students UAF.

Contact info: Louis Middelkoop Executive secretary post@commissie-meijers.nl +31(0)20 362 0505

Please visit www.commissie-meijers.nl

Les lourdes chaînes de Prométhée, réflexions critiques sur la Stratégie européenne de sécurité intérieure 2015 – 2020

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED HERE ON  23 JUIN 2015

par Pierre Berthelet, CDRE

Le Professeur Panayotis Soldatos comparait il y a peu l’Union européenne à Prométhée enchaîné par les Etats membres. Ces réflexions mettant en évidence une construction européenne dépendante des États, « dont les élites politiques, écrit-il, se refusent à admettre la réalité de l’obsolescence de la souveraineté nationale », s’illustrent parfaitement avec l’adoption par le Conseil de la stratégie européenne de sécurité intérieure pour la période 2015-2020.

À première vue, la sécurité intérieure vient de franchir un pas supplémentaire dans l’intégration avec l’approbation par le Conseil le 16 juin 2015, de conclusions renouvelant et modernisant pour cinq années à venir la stratégie 2010-2014. Pour autant, il semble bien que les chaînes soient pesantes, car les États conservent la main, et de main ferme pourrait-on dire, le processus d’intégration dans ce domaine.

Ces conclusions entraînent une série de réflexions critiques quant aux conséquences institutionnelles et quant à la manière dont les États décident d’œuvrer dans la construction européenne en matière de sécurité intérieure.

Elles suscitent d’emblée des interrogations concernant l’inclusion du Parlement européen dans le processus décisionnel lié au déroulement du cycle, ainsi que sur la préservation accrue des droits fondamentaux (1).
Continue reading “Les lourdes chaînes de Prométhée, réflexions critiques sur la Stratégie européenne de sécurité intérieure 2015 – 2020”

STATEWATCH : the migrant crisis in the Mediterranean

Published on Statewatch 

Key Analysis and Documents

1.   Statewatch Special Report: “War” to be declared on migrants: “Structured border zones”
2.   EU: Letter from Commissioner Avramopolous to Ministers with Annex
3.   EU: MED-CRISIS: Official statement on the launch of EUNAVFOR
4.   Statewatch Briefing: Coercive measures or expulsion: Fingerprinting migrants
5.   Statewatch Analysis: The EU’s Planned War on Smugglers
6.   Council: Secret plan for a war on smugglers – document (PSC)
7.   Council Press Release: 18 May 2015
8.   European Commission: A  European Agenda on Migration
9.   Mission in the Med: financial support under the ATHENA Decision
10. European External Action Service: Libya, a Political Framework for a Crisis Approach (EUBAM)
11. Ongoing EU external operations (European External Action service)

NEWS

1.   EU: German-Italian-French non-paper on EU migration policy
2.   EU: European External Action Service (EEAS): European Union Naval Force
3.   EU: European External Action Service (EEAS): EU prepares to go to “war” in the Med
4.   EU: No agreement on sharing “relocation” of migrants
5.   EU: Council of the European Union: LIMITE documents: Migration – Policy debate
6 .  Liquid Traces – The Left-to-Die Boat Case (Vimeo, link)
7.   EU:  Recommendation of XXX on a European resettlement scheme
8.   EU:  The new EU Migration Agenda takes shape: analysis of the first new measures
9.   EU:   MED CRISIS: Press coverage
10. EU: ACP: Destroying boats is not a solution to migration
11. EU: European Parliament: Migration: MEPs debate EU response.”

Key Analysis and Documents

1. Statewatch Special Report: “War” to be declared on migrants who – fleeing from war, persecution and poverty – have arrived in the EU are to be contained and detained in “Structured border zones” to be set up to “ ensure the swift identification, registration and fingerprinting of migrants (“hotspots”)”

This is set out in the Draft Conclusions of the European Council [the EU Heads of State] meeting on 25 and 26 June 2015: Draft conclusions (pdf)

Section 5.c says: “the setting up of structured border zones and facilities in the frontline Member States, with the active support of Member States’ experts and of EASO, Frontex and Europol to ensure the swift identification, registration and fingerprinting of migrants (“hotspots”);” [emphasis added]
Will the “swift fingerprinting” of those described here as “illegal” migrants involve coercive measures? See: Statewatch Briefing on a “Working Document” issued for discussion by the Commission: Coercive measures or expulsion: Fingerprinting migrants (pdf):

“If the data-subject still refuses to cooperate it is suggested that officials trained in the “proportionate use of coercion” may apply the minimum level of coercion required, while ensuring respect of the dignity and physical integrity of the data-subject..”

Statewatch Director, Tony Bunyan comments: “Where is the EU going? Migrants, including pregnant women and minors, who have fled from war, persecution and poverty are to be forcibly finger-printed or held in detention until they acquiesce or are expelled and banned from re-entry.”

Steve Peers, Professor of Law, University of Essex comments on the Draft Conclusions: “It is remarkable that Member States (if this draft is accepted) are indeed willing to accept the relocation of 40,000 asylum-seekers from Italy and Greece, and 20,000 resettled refugees.
It is also notable that all Member States will participate in the latter decision – with even the UK agreeing recently to resettle a few hundred more Syrians. This is a very modest amount of the numbers needing protection however.
The European Asylum Support Office does not seem to have the powers to participate in fingerprinting asylum-seekers, and the reference to ‘bringing together’ rules on fast-tracking asylum applications is very vague. Is the intention to lower standards, and if so, how exactly? Any moves to negotiate more readmission agreements and to expel more people who supposedly have no need for protection will have to comply fully with EU, ECHR and all national and international human rights standards.
Equally if Frontex is to gain more powers over expulsion it must be made more fully accountable, including as regards individual complaints against it.”

See: UN says one million refugees should be no problem for EU (euractiv, link): “The UN rights chief yesterday (15 June) called for the European Union to take bolder steps to address its swelling migrant crisis, insisting the bloc could easily take in one million refugees”

2.  EU: Jailing migrant families together with convicted criminals: A desperate EU policy to deter irregular migration by Steve Peers, Professor of Law, University of Essex:
“Taken together, the loss of these protections will mean that irregular migrants, including irregular migrant families, will not only be detained in ordinary prisons, but mixed in with the ordinary prison population of convicted criminals and those awaiting trial for serious crimes. Moreover, their capacity to challenge their detention by means of judiicial review will be severely curtailed.
Coupled with the recent Commission paper offering guidelines for using force, including against pregnant women, on migrants who refuse to be fingerprinted, this represents a significant turn in EU policy – turning toward direct and indirect threats of physical violence to control their behaviour and induce them to leave.
To say the least, this is hard to square with the EU’s frequent professions of support for the human rights and decent treatment of migrants.”
See: Letter from Commissioner Avramopolous to Ministers with Annex (Statewatch version, 75KB) orlink to Council’s 10.5 MB version (pdf)

3. EU: MED-CRISIS: Official statement on the launch of EUNAVFOR: Council launches EU naval operation to disrupt human smugglers and traffickers in the Mediterranean (Council of the European Union, pdf):
“The first phase focuses on surveillance and assessment of human smuggling and trafficking networks in the Southern Central Mediterranean…. The Council will assess when to move beyond this first step, taking into account a UN mandate and the consent of the coastal states concerned..” [emphasis added]
It is by no means certain that a UN mandate will be forthcoming as this requires the consent of the affected states, in this case Libya. The EU’s own mission in Libya, EUBAM, withdrew from from the country last autumn, has been slimmed down and is now based in Tunisia because of the highly unstable security situation in Libya where two separate governments are vying for power in addition to a number of warring groups:.See:

EU and political situation in Libya: Interim Strategic Review of EUBAM Libya (LIMITE doc no: 7886-15, 13 April 2015, pdf): “a number of additional considerations have arisen as a result of the mission’s relocation to Tunis. The mission’s legal status in Tunis is still unclear, with the Tunisian authorities unofficially indicating that they would prefer not to explore the issue….its presence in Tunis will make it difficult for mission staff to assess conditions and operate in Libya“ [emphasis added]

4. Statewatch Briefing: Coercive measures or expulsion: Fingerprinting migrants (pdf):
New guidelines released by the European Commission allow Member States to use physical and mental coercive measures to take fingerprints of migrants and asylum seekers entering Europe, including minors and pregnant women. If they refuse, they face detention, expulsion and a potential five year EU-wide ban.
“If the data-subject still refuses to cooperate it is suggested that officials trained in the proportionate use of coercion may apply the minimum level of coercion required, while ensuring respect of the dignity and physical integrity of the data-subject..” [emphasis added]

5. Statewatch Analysis: The EUs Planned War on Smugglers (pdf) by Steve Peers, Professor of Law, University of Essex:
“it is clear from the documents discussed in the EUs Political and Security Committee last week that (unless plans have changed radically in the meantime) the High Representative is being economical with the truth. The EU action clearly contemplates action by ground forces. Moreover, it anticipates the possible loss of life not only of smugglers but also of Member States forces and refugees. In effect, the EU is planning to declare war on migrant smugglers without thinking through the consequences.”

6. Secret EU plan for a war on smugglers – document (PSC, pdf)

7. Press Release: Council establishes EU naval operation to disrupt human smugglers in the Mediterranean (pdf) and Comparison between Draft and Final Statements (pdf)

8. European Commission: A European Agenda on Migration (COM 240-15, pdf)

9. Mission in the Med could call for financial support under the: ATHENA Council Decision (pdf)

10. European External Action Service: Libya, a Political Framework for a Crisis Approach (LIMITE doc no: 13829-14, pdf)

11. Ongoing EU external operations (European External Action service, pdf)

NEWS

1. EU: German-Italian-French non-paper on EU migration policy (pdf) and Letter (pdf). Includes:
– Dialogue with source/transit countries: At upcoming EU-Africa summit in Malta “we should also discuss the relationship between migration and mobility and their impact on development, the promotion of fair trade and the strengthening of security cooperation as well as return and readmission issues”
– Proposal for EU CSDP civilian mission in Niger: EUCAP Sahel Niger to become permanent and “work even more closely with Nigerien authorities in the fight against smuggling and trafficking in human beings”
– Adequate funding for continued “engagement” with countries in the Horn of Africa, to deal with migration from/through those countries (in the recent ISF-Police work programme some money was put aside for this, see: Annual Work Programme for 2015 for support to Union Actions under the Internal Security Fund – Police cooperation and crime prevention (pdf)
– “We must increase the effectiveness of return and readmission programmes”
And: “Our migration policy goals should relate to other relevant horizontal foreign policies such as counter-terrorism, maritime security, water and climate policy and a reviewed European Neighbourhood Policy which also considers the neighbours of our neighbours.”

2. EU: MED-CRISIS: European External Action Service (EEAS): European Union Naval Force – Mediterranean (Press statement, pdf): Contributing States: Currently 14 Member States (BE, DE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, LT, LU, NL, SE, SI, UK):
“The Council shall assess whether the conditions for transition beyond the first phase have been met, taking into account any applicable UN Security Council Resolution and consent by the Coastal States concerned.”
Consent is needed for the EU to act within the territorial waters of another state (eg: Libya) and see: Comments below on this position.

See also: EU foreign ministers to agree on Mediterranean intelligence operations (euractiv, link): “EU foreign affairs ministers will today (22 June) agree on an intelligence gathering operation, the first phase of the bloc’s response to the burgeoning migration crisis in the Mediterranean, but military action against people smugglers will depend on the support of Libya’s National Unity Government and the United Nations.” and Naval bid to tackle migrants in Med (Yahoo News, link): “With GCHQ – Britain’s listening post in Cheltenham – said to be tracking the activities of smuggling gangs moving people to the Libyan coast, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon indicated that he wanted to see more intelligence-sharing.” also:Exclusive: France backs Italy-UK Plan for Sicily Intel Cell (Migrant Report, link)

See: EU agrees to launch military operation against people smugglers (FT, link): “EU officials have warned that casualties were possible after deciding to launch military action against people smugglers in the Mediterranean. Ministers of the 28-country bloc meeting in Luxembourg on Monday gave the go-ahead for a c controversial intelligence gathering operation, which will precede full-blown military action this year … “The use of firepower will be done in such a way that we do all we can to prevent any casualties to anyone,” said one EU official. “There is a difference between smugglers and migrants. If they are migrants, we will be even more cautious.” Asked whether the military operation created the risk of collateral casualties, the official replied: “Of course it would.”” and: EU navies take up position in Mediterranean(euobserver, link)
3. EU: European External Action Service (EEAS): EU prepares to go to “war” in the Med: Proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to the Council for a Council Decision launching the European Union military operation in the Southern Central Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR MED) (pdf);
“The Operation Plan and the Rules of Engagement concerning the European Union military operation in the Southern Central Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR MED) are approved…. EUNAVFOR MED shall be launched on xxx 2015.”
See: EU naval mission for Med gets green light (Politico, link)
See also: Draft Council Decision on a European Union military operation in the Southern Central Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR MED) (LIMITE doc no: 8921-15, pdf) and Proposal for for a Council Decision on a European Union military operation in the Southern Central Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR Med) (LIMITE doc no: 8731-15, pdf): This contains details on:
Mission: “The Union shall conduct a military crisis management operation contributing to the disruption of the business model of human smuggling networks… systematic efforts to dispose of vessels and assets before they are used by smugglers”
Mandate: includes: “boarding search, seize and diversion of smuggling ships”
“The Operation Headquarters of EUNAVFOR MED shall be located in Rome, Italy”
“PSC shall exercise the political control and strategic direction of EUNAVFOR MED” [Political Security Committee]
“The EUMC shall monitor the proper execution of EUNAVFOR MED conducted under the responsibility of the EU Operation Commander” [EU Military Committee]
“The Council hereby authorises the PSC to invite third States to offer contributions”

4. EU: No agreement on sharing “relocation” of migrants: Council of the European Union: Justice and Home Affairs Council, 15-16 June 2015, Luxembourg: Final press release (pdf):
“As regards the concrete proposal on relocation, Ministers stressed that on the basis of the principle of solidarity they are all ready to make an effort to help member states under a particular migratory pressure. Several delegations stressed the necessity to strike the right balance between solidarity and responsibility.. Ministers invited the Council’s preparatory bodies to continue these discussions with the aim of achieving full implementation as soon as possible.”
See also; Civil Liberties Committee Chair, Claude Moraes, regrets EU minister’s failure to reach agreement on the migration package (EP Press release, pdf)

5. EU: Council of the European Union: LIMITE documents: Migration – Policy debate & European Council draft Conclusions
– European Agenda on Migration – Policy debate (LIMITE doc no: 9825-15, 11 June 2015, pdf) Many areas of disagreement between Member States on how to respond to the crisis in the Mediterranean:
“”Immediate Action” but also builds on four pillars as a basis for a comprehensive European migration policy: – Reducing incentives for irregular migration; – Border management; – Strong common asylum policy; – New policy on legal migration….
There is wide consensus with regard to the need to further cooperate with third countries since both the root causes of and solutions to migration related issues can be sought there. In order to ensure a genuinely comprehensive approach, some Member States have suggested to strengthen the links with the Internal Security Strategy and measures proposed therein….
Member States’ views differ on the proposed concept of relocation in order to respond to high volumes of arrivals that includes temporary scheme for persons in need of international national protection.. The total number of persons to be relocated, the available funding, and the capacity of the Member States’ structures to deal with relocation were equally questioned…” [emphasis added]
and: Update: COR -1 (LIMITE doc no: 9825-15, 12 June 2015, pdf)

– European Council (25 and 26 June 2015) – Draft guidelines for the conclusions (LIMITE doc no: 8392-15, 10 June 2015, pdf): Covers Mediterranean crisis response, security challenges, economic issues, the Digital Agenda and the UK:
Position on “1. “Relocation / resettlement p.m.” is blank as is Position: “IV. UK p.m” and “Return policy:Mobilise all tools to promote readmission of unauthorised economic migrants to countries of origin and transit….” [emphasis added]
read the restraint manual.

6. Liquid Traces – The Left-to-Die Boat Case Vimeo, link): “Liquid Traces offers a synthetic reconstruction of the events concerning what is known as the “left-to-die boat” case, in which 72 passengers who left the Libyan coast heading in the direction of the island of Lampedusa on board a small rubber boat were left to drift for 14 days in NATO’s maritime surveillance area, despite several distress signals relaying their location, as well as repeated interactions, including at least one military helicopter visit and an encounter with a military ship. As a result, only 9 people survived.” See also: Left ot die – report (link)

7. EU: MED-CRISIS: Germany and France urge Commission to revise immigration plan (euractiv, link): “Germany and France on Monday (1 June) urged the EU to find a fairer way to admit and distribute asylum seekers, as their leaders met the European Commission chief in Berlin….. France and Germany said in the joint statement that they currently were among five member states, along with Sweden, Italy and Hungary, that “are in charge of 75% of the asylum seekers”. “This situation is not fair and no longer sustainable,” they said.”
See European Commission: Recommendation of XXX on a European resettlement scheme (COM 286-15, pdf) and Annexes (pdf)

8. EU: MED-CRISIS: European Commission: Recommendation of XXX on a European resettlement scheme (COM 286-15, pdf): It was going to be 5,000 people, then 40,000 now:
“The Commission recommends that Member State resettle 20 000 people in need of international protection”
and Annexes (pdf)

8.  The new EU Migration Agenda takes shape: analysis of the first new measures (EU Law Analysis, link)

9. EU: MED CRISIS: Press coverage:
EU’s refugee plans need a reality check: The EU this week outlined plans to resettle and relocate refugees, but one expert taking a closer look at the proposals argues they put the rights of migrants and asylum seekers at risk. (The Local, link) Good critique of EU plans

EU border chief wants protection from armed smugglers: The EU’s border agency Frontex wants military protection from armed migrant smugglers as it expands operations in the Mediterranean and closer to the Libyan coast (euobserver, link)

British tourists complain that impoverished boat migrants are making holidays ‘awkward’ in Kos(Independent, link)

Mediterranean migrant crisis: Hundreds rescued off Sicily (BBC News, link) and Migration: Are more people on the move than ever before? (BBC, link) with map

Italy Hands Smuggler Unprecedented Life Sentence as Europe Prepares for Migrant Deluge (BB, link)

Tunisian – and Top E.U. Generals – Fear Mission Creep Madness in Libya (The Daily Beast, link): “A newly revealed classified document and a history of grave misjudgments warn against the dangers of the new EU plan to stop migrants…. Europe’s defense chiefs are warning their political superiors that the planned military mission to stop migrant-smuggling boats crossing the Mediterranean can lead to land operations in Libya and possible clashes with the Islamic State’s affiliate in that failing North African state, a turn of events bound to threaten neighboring Tunisia’s fragile equilibrium still further.”

Tunisian PM Speaks Against EU Military Action to Stop Refugee Smugglers (Sputnik News, link):
“Tunisia opposes any military effort by the EU to tackle refugee smuggling across the Mediterranean Sea, Prime Minister Habib Essid said Thursday. “Tunisia’s position was always clear… We are originally against all military action, both to regulate political conflict and to regulate the problem with illegal smugglers,”  Essid said in the European Parliament.”

Migrants en Méditerranée : la Tunisie contre toute intervention militaire [Migrants in the Mediterranean: Tunisia against all military intervention] (rtbf.be, link):
“Habib Essid said that his country is “against any military intervention to solve this problem. This problem must be resolved upstream and downstream. These people take risks, sell everything they have around them to come to Europe, for more freedom, for better economic opportunities for work. I know the problems this poses for all countries of the European Union, but the solution is to look other than make occasional military interventions.”
The European Parliament press release does not mention these comments: Tunisia’s Prime Minister Habib Essid on security and migration challenges (pdf)

Before the Boat: Understanding the Migrant Journey (MPI, link): “Deep, sophisticated insight into the decision-making process of those who undertake these journeys is necessary; without this information and a wider understanding of the political economy of migrant smuggling, policymakers essentially are making decisions in the dark.”

10. EU: MED-CRISIS: ACP: Destroying boats is not a solution to migration (euractiv, link): “The Secretary-General of the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) group of states said yesterday (21 May) that his organisation was against the EU’s idea of destroying the boats of human traffickers, who make fortunes by luring prospective immigrants into risky journeys across the Mediterranean.”

And see: Twisting the ‘lessons of history’ to authorise unjustifiable violence: the Mediterranean crisis (Open Democracy, link): “More than 300 slavery and migration scholars respond to those advocating for military force against migrants attempting to cross the Mediterranean. This is no slave trade. Where is the moral justification for actions that cost lives?”

Also: “The War on migrants and refugees: has the ‘never again’ imperative been forgotten?” (Franck Duvell, link): “This imperative derived from the lessons learned from the Holocaust and the failure to rescue the European Jews has now been relinquished it seems. Are we now back at the moral state of the 1930s were unwanted populations are removed from the ‘realm of moral subjects’ (Bauman 1996) and killed or left to die and the needy are turned away and refused shelter?”

11. EU: European Parliament: Migration: MEPs debate EU response (pdf): “MEPs discussed on 20 May European Commission plans to tackle the large numbers of migrants seeking to reach the European Union, often risking their lives at sea. Commission vice president Frans Timmermans and migration commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos announced a number of measures, including an emergency mechanism for relocating migrants, a resettlement scheme to take in migrants from countries outside the EU and more funds for securing borders.”

See also: MEPs angry at member states over immigration (euractiv, link): “EU lawmakers on Wednesday accused some member states of passing the buck by rejecting a Brussels plan for binding quotas for refugees making the dangerous Mediterranean crossing.”

Les lourdes chaînes de Prométhée, réflexions critiques sur la Stratégie européenne de sécurité intérieure 2015 – 2020

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED HERE ON 23 JUIN 2015

par Pierre Berthelet, CDRE

Le Professeur Panayotis Soldatos comparait il y a peu l’Union européenne à Prométhée enchaîné par les Etats membres. Ces réflexions mettant en évidence une construction européenne dépendante des États, « dont les élites politiques, écrit-il, se refusent à admettre la réalité de l’obsolescence de la souveraineté nationale », s’illustrent parfaitement avec l’adoption par le Conseil de la stratégie européenne de sécurité intérieure pour la période 2015-2020.

À première vue, la sécurité intérieure vient de franchir un pas supplémentaire dans l’intégration avec l’approbation par le Conseil le 16 juin 2015, de conclusions renouvelant et modernisant pour cinq années à venir la stratégie 2010-2014. Pour autant, il semble bien que les chaînes soient pesantes, car les États conservent la main, et de main ferme pourrait-on dire, le processus d’intégration dans ce domaine.

Ces conclusions entraînent une série de réflexions critiques quant aux conséquences institutionnelles et quant à la manière dont les États décident d’œuvrer dans la construction européenne en matière de sécurité intérieure.

Elles suscitent d’emblée des interrogations concernant l’inclusion du Parlement européen dans le processus décisionnel lié au déroulement du cycle, ainsi que sur la préservation accrue des droits fondamentaux (1). La stratégie ne fait pas véritablement l’impasse sur ces deux questions, car elle les mentionne en soulignant l’importance de ces problématiques. Cependant, l’observateur ne peut que demeurer sur sa faim quant aux modes d’inclusion du Parlement européen, et à la manière dont les droits fondamentaux ont vocation à être davantage pris en compte, alors que le Conseil semble précisément se focaliser davantage sur la sécurité que sur la liberté. Cette stratégie pour la période 2015-2020, justifiée par la permanence des menaces, voire leur accroissement, en premier lieu, le terrorisme et la grande criminalité organisée (p. 2 des conclusions du Conseil du 16 juin), est qualifiée par le Conseil de « globale et réaliste » (p. 5). Son adoption mérite d’être saluée à ce titre, car elle confère une certaine cohérence à une action qui dépasse les frontières de l’espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice, pour comprendre des thématiques telles que la gestion de crise, la protection des infrastructures critiques et la cybersécurité. Pour autant, en l’examinant de plus près, cette stratégie pour la période 2015-2020 n’apparaît pas exempte de toutes critiques. Il est vrai qu’elle est bien plus précise concernant les priorités fixées par la stratégie précédente qui avait, par exemple, érigé la « lutte contre la violence en elle-même » en un objectif de sécurité de l’Union.

En revanche, elle l’est moins que le plan d’action venant compléter cette stratégie de 2010 et ce, en raison de l’ambiguïté des objectifs fixés par la stratégie européenne pour la période 2015-2020 (2). Il est même possible de considérer que la stratégie de 2015 est de moins bonne facture que la précédente, car il s’agit à la fois d’un document opérationnel, mais qui n’en est pas réellement un, et d’un document stratégique, mais qui n’en est pas réellement un non plus. De prime abord, elle se positionne à mi-chemin entre d’une part, des conclusions des 4 et 5 décembre 2014 qui énoncent les grands principes, et d’autre part, un plan d’action destiné à lister des mesures concrètes. Néanmoins, sa portée se révèle être bien plus opérationnelle que stratégique, car le plan d’action à venir, visant à mettre en œuvre cette stratégie censée, comme son nom le laisse supposer, être un document de nature stratégique, est réduit à la portion congrue (3).

Si le positionnement de la stratégie est complexe sur le plan normatif, il l’est beaucoup moins sur le plan conceptuel dans la mesure où la stratégie de 2015 demeure, comme celle de 2010, très empreinte d’une idéologie de la sécurité globale (4). Elle révèle certes, le peu d’audace de la part du Conseil concernant les avancées en matière de sécurité, reflétant le double discours habituel des États, très volontaires dans les déclarations d’intention, mais beaucoup moins dans la concrétisation de celles-ci. En revanche, elle suscite des interrogations quant aux relations qu’entretiennent la sécurité intérieure et l’espace pénal européen et ce, en raison de la place faite à la doctrine relative à la sécurité globale (5). L’un et l’autre se construisent de manière séparée et même dans l’ignorance mutuelle. La stratégie révèleà ce propos un monde de la sécurité (police, douane, garde-frontières) dont l’horizon d’action est davantage marqué par une collaboration avec celui de la sécurité et de la défense, qu’avec celui de la justice.

1. Une impasse sur le Parlement européen et sur les droits fondamentaux ?

Continue reading “Les lourdes chaînes de Prométhée, réflexions critiques sur la Stratégie européenne de sécurité intérieure 2015 – 2020”