Search

A seemingly continuous stream of crises in Europe has turned scholarly agendas towards assessment of the EU's management of crises. Those assessments vary widely, depending on the analytical focus and criteria used. This paper introduces three assessment criteria drawn from crisis research that pertain to the detection of a crisis, the mobilization of necessary resources, and the nature of the public debate about critical choices made in times of crisis. We relate these crisis management insights to long-standing debates in European integration theory to help link traditional crisis management assessments with EU-focused theorizing. The article offers a framework for assessment of the EU's performance as a crisis manager. We illustrate the utility of the framework with a brief application to the EU's response to Covid-19. We assess the EU's performance in positive terms: the Union acted quickly after a somewhat slow start and was very effective in mobilizing a variety of resources. At the same time, we note that major policy choices were made without a significant public debate about potential effects on the future character of the Union. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The nation state is discovering the limits of its crisis management capacities. The Ebola and Zika outbreaks, the financial crisis, the downing of flight MH17 over Ukraine, sinking ships overfilled with refugees, cyber-attacks, urban terrorism and existential environmental threats serve as strong reminders of the complex origins and transboundary dimensions of many contemporary crises and disasters. As these transboundary aspects of modern crises become increasingly manifest, the need for international, collaborative responses appears ever clearer. But that collaboration does not always emerge in time (or at all). Even in the European Union, which has various transboundary crisis management mechanisms in place, the willingness to initiate joint crisis responses varies. This observation prompted our research question: Why do states collaborate in response to some transboundary crises but not others? We bring together the crisis and collective action literatures to formulate a theoretical framework that can help answer this question. This article identifies crucial factors that facilitate a possible pathway toward a joint response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, the European continent has witnessed a substantial number of 'transboundary crises' - crises that cross geographical borders and affect multiple policy domains. Nation states find it hard to deal with such crises by themselves. International cooperation, thus, becomes increasingly important, but it is not clear what shape or form that cooperation should take. This article explores the growing role of the European Union ( EU) in managing transboundary crises. More specifically, it reflects on the different ways in which the expanding contours of the EU's emerging crisis capacity can be organized. Using three 'performative dimensions' - sense-making, coordination, and legitimacy - the article discusses the possible advantages and disadvantages of a decentralized, network model and compares it with a more centralized, lead-agency model. It concludes that the current network model is a logical outcome of the punctuated and fragmentary process through which EU crisis management capacities have been created. It also notes that the shortcomings of this model may necessitate elements of a lead-agency model. Such 'agencification' of networks for transboundary crisis management may well lead to a hybrid model that is uniquely suited for the peculiar organizational and political creature that the EU is. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Union ( EU) has modest but promising capacities to assist member states overwhelmed by disaster through its Civil Protection Mechanism. The EU also routinely sends civil and military missions to hotspots outside EU territory. But these capacities do not suffice in the face of transboundary crises: threats that cross geographical and policy borders within the Union. Examples include epidemics, financial crises, floods, and cyber terrorism. Nation states cannot cope with these threats without international collaboration. In this article, we explore the EU's efforts to develop transboundary crisis management capacities. We describe these budding capacities, explain their policy origins, and explore their future potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years the European Union has taken a number of steps towards improving civil protection cooperation in Europe. European leaders regularly declare the importance of boosting cooperation to prepare for and respond to disasters and emergencies afflicting member states. Those declarations have been accompanied by a flourish of policy activity, the building of new structures, and even treaty changes. On the surface, this little-known area of European integration appears to be proceeding with great success. A closer look, however, reveals significant gaps between member states' general expressions of enthusiasm and problematic cooperation in practice. We draw upon public goods theory to explain why this might be the case; more specifically, we identify likely game-theoretic obstacles to cooperation in different areas of the civil protection field. We evaluate our theoretical propositions by examining the current state of cooperation in marine pollution response, chemical contamination management, and flood response. We find that cooperation success in practice corresponds generally, but not perfectly, with the predictions of public goods theory. Our findings offer a nuanced view of civil protection cooperation in Europe and illuminate options for improved cooperation in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The world of crises and disasters is changing rapidly. We are witnessing new types of adversity. In addition, modern societies have become increasingly vulnerable to disruptions, new and old. This new world demands new types of responses, which nation states cannot produce alone. Nation states will have to cooperate to protect their citizens from these threats. This article investigates the role of the European Union in the development of new safety and security arrangements. It identifies conceptual building blocks for a new security paradigm and offers design principles that can facilitate a shared way of thinking and acting in the safety and security domain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the face of modern crises, the European Union (EU) has increased its efforts to build common crisis management capacity across the continent. As the EU seeks to both coordinate national crisis and disaster authorities and build its own supranational capacities, it is worth asking whether the EU is capable of designing an effective European homeland security apparatus that will fit member state expectations as well as its unique supranational character. In this article, we apply a bureaucratic politics perspective to explore and assess how the EU's governance structures and policymaking processes constrain and facilitate its efforts to build transnational crisis management capacity. We discuss how institutional and policymaking characteristics may affect the EU's ongoing effort to enhance security and safety for the inhabitants of European states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Union has become increasingly involved with protecting the security and safety of European citizens. The latest addition to this new policy space is critical infrastructure protection (CIP) at the EU level. A central role for the EU in guarding against infrastructural breakdowns and preparing for failures may seem self-evident. In reality, the precise nature of such a role remains unclear. Moreover, enthusiastic rhetoric is not always matched by firm action. This article surveys what the EU has in place in terms of CIP and identifies outstanding issues for debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent organizational, institutional and policy developments signal a new type of co–operative policy activity at the European level and suggest the emergence of a new policy space in the European Union. What binds together the activities in that space is a common concern for the protection of the EU citizen. This new policy space crosses sectoral boundaries, draws in a number of governmental and societal actors, and comprises a variety of institutional venues. Moreover, its dimensions span the internal and external divide in EU policies. This article serves as an introduction to a special issue on the topic of the EU’s emerging protection policy space. It first discusses the empirical parameters of this emerging space, before outlining a set of research questions and surveying the theoretical landscape for addressing these questions. It concludes by introducing the articles that comprise the special issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Union is making explicit moves towards protecting European citizens from threats. Those threats are no longer just military in nature, nor do they stem from well–defined sources. Today’s threat environment includes terrorist networks, new pathogens, critical infrastructure breakdowns, extreme weather and illegal immigration, to name only a few. Just as importantly, those threats cross sectors and countries without difficulty. The EU’s role in helping to combat those threats — and protecting European citizens from harm — is clear and growing. This concluding article of the special issue discusses the implications of this new policy space for theory and practice and highlights several areas in which future research can further enlighten understanding of European cooperation in this critical area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editors discuss various reports within the issue on topics including the European Union's (EU) transboundary crisis management abilities, the EU's civil protection mechanism, and the EU's humanitarian aid.