Security Re-Divided: ESDP and JHA are Distinct.

The objective of the paper is a twofold contribution to the debate on ‘new modes of governance in European security’: firstly, we will â€" at a conceptual level â€" critically question one of the most widespread ‘wisdoms’ of contemporary scholarship, that is the alleged fusion of formerly distinct domains into one new ‘security sphere’; secondly, we will thus demonstrate â€" at an empirical level â€" that the governance processes of rule-setting and implementation in the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) do still function according to distinct logics from Justice and Home Affairs (JHA). In other words, we will argue that the distinction of internal and external security is still a helpful heuristic for the explanation of these processes at the European level. Most contemporary debates of both academics and practitioners on European security policy build on the premise that we have witnessed significant changes in this domain during the two previous decades. The Cold War threats are gone and have been replaced by less visible, more complex and increasingly fragmented security problems â€" reaching from terrorism to failed states and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In some way or the other, everything is related to everything. These real-world trends are reflected in the literature’s debates on ‘security governance’ with an emphasis on new actors, new issues and, consequently, changed policy-making processes. However, this new trend to incorporate essentially everything into the study of security policy comes at the expense of conceptual clarity and eventually explanatory leverage. In contrast, the paper will argue that â€" despite countervailing forces â€" it is still highly appropriate to distinguish between internal and external security affairs. In other words, neither the pure broadening of the ‘security’ notion nor the conceptual overstretching of ‘governance’ contributes to a better understanding of contemporary security practices. Despite some intuitive plausibility, the heuristic value-added is fairly limited. This will be empirically demonstrated by a comparative analysis of two prototypical governance processes, where allegedly distinct domains merge. Firstly, rule-setting is characterised by one distinguishing feature: while decisions are taken among equals in JHA, ESDP is still subordinated to the UN-Security Council, and partly NATO. Secondly, the implementation of rules is similarly organised into distinct logics: JHA clearly functions according to a (binding) legal logic, whereas every government remains its own judge in ESDP. Adopting the terminology of the governance literature, we may speak of hierarchical modes vs. soft modes of governance. Although all of these distinct forms of governance deal with the problem of security, they do function according to distinct logics. This, in turn, implies not to give up prematurely conceptual tools â€" even though they might be under continuous stress. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]