Risks associated with manipulation and dissemination of private data are an increasingly recognized security concern. In response to this development, this chapter sheds light on privacy in the context of digital networks. More precisely, legal means for personal data protection in an Internet environment is the focal point. In addition to legal means, information security is conceived of as a critical success factor and will therefore also be taken into consideration. Of particular interest in this context is the new EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that will be applicable as law in all Member States by 25 May 2018. The analysis presented in the chapter emphasizes the importance of the EU’s responsibility to protect its citizens from privacy infringements due to insufficient security measures. Only time will tell how efficient the somewhat new legal requirements for information security such as pseudonymization as laid down in the GDPR will turn out in practice.
New knowledge and technology created through R & D is the most important production factor for economic growth. The European Union (EU) has fallen behind some competitors both with respect to the input side (R & D investments and R & D personnel) and the output side (patent applications) of innovation. If the EU cannot match the pace of innovation in competing regions, then growth will not be the only thing at risk; firms in the EU could lose competitiveness and both employment and productivity could fall. Even if the European Commission has the ambition to coordinate the efforts of Member States in innovation and growth through EU Horizon 2020, the substantial fragmentation in policy efforts among the countries is a major problem when trying to avoid threats to economic growth. If the EU aims to maintain its competitiveness and growth, then extraordinary measures are required regarding innovation and technology development. This chapter identifies four important areas in which measures are necessary: public financing of R & D in the business sector, public financing of business innovation, intellectual property rights and university R & D.
This chapter argues that the asylum and migration control policies of the European Union (EU) are usefully analysed as an expression of liberal thought. The chapter shows how the roots of these policies go all the way back to the creation of the Union in the 1950s and illustrates how this heritage affects prevailing rules in the areas of migration and asylum. This order was paradoxically strengthened during the crisis of 2015 and 2016. Against this backdrop, the chapter explains why the concept of solidarity in EU law is poorly constructed and maps possible solutions. If the EU is serious about its liberal identity it cannot completely deny the rationality and free will of the asylum seeker. The question is if there is a reformist alternative: a complement to the present protectionist system that acknowledges the rationality and free will of the asylum seeker without demanding utopian or revolutionary wonders of the Union in its present form. The chapter then tests whether humanitarian visas could constitute such a complement, where the asylum seeker and the EU Member State meet in a rational discourse before the asylum seeker has decided to travel to Europe. As the Court of Justice of the EU has practically written off this option, this might tell us something of how the particular form of liberalism that the EU represents can be articulated.
This chapter critically analyses the EU’s use of targeted sanctions, addressing the question of how the EU’s sanctions policy discourse should be understood and what implications the EU sanctions may have on the international arena. It analyses both the opportunities in using sanctions for security policy purposes and the tensions that the use of this instrument can entail. The chapter seeks not only to place the EU in a global security context, but also to present the policy aims of EU sanctions, including theoretical and practical challenges. For this, the EU’s ongoing sanctions regimes are presented in detail, and the EU’s sanctions on Russia are discussed in depth. The chapter ends with a discussion of how sanctions can be understood in a geo-economic perspective, and how they can contribute to the EU’s security.
Joakim Gullstrand and Christian Jörgensen
Food security has been increasing in the modern era and today is relatively high for most European households. Still, the prospect of high food security in the future may be challenged by rapid rise in global demand, driven by growth in both population and household income, while future supply could be constrained by climate change and scarcity of key inputs such as water, energy, and soil quality. These challenges are likely to have an asymmetrical influence on food security in countries and hence may lead to regional and global tensions. Therefore, the future food security of Europe is interlinked with global food security and other types of security, as it may, for example, trigger conflicts and acts of terrorism. The solution to handle potential food insecurity in the future is not to fall back on an isolationistic policy but instead to strengthen the long-term efficiency of the food system through policies fostering international trade and by a changed European attitude towards biotechnology to break the deadlock on both research and production focusing on genetically modified feed and food. In the short run, the policies and regulations already in place for upholding food security should be strengthened by facilitating European transfers to households troubled by price spikes and by increasing low, or absent, emergency reserves to handle unexpected and sudden disruptions.
Facing the Challenge of Multiple Security Threats
Edited by Antonina Bakardjieva Engelbrekt, Anna Michalski, Niklas Nilsson and Lars Oxelheim
This chapter argues that US pressure, as well as contemporary threats and problems, compel Europe to take more responsibility in the sphere of security. Yet, is Europe willing to do so and what does responsibility taking encompass? The chapter examines public opinion in the European Union (EU) Member States, the views of significant Member States, and brings the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) into the analysis. The chapter indicates that threat perceptions are shared to a reasonable degree in Europe, and that the political will exists to handle threats and instabilities in both southern and eastern neighbourhoods and in the Middle East. Yet, most EU states have not yet reached NATO’s goal of spending 2 percent of GDP on defence and in this sense, Europe does not assume enough responsibility. The chapter suggests that European politicians highlight to their electorates that responsibility taking can provide status in international affairs, and that national interests might be served by providing for the collective European interest. Also, it suggests that responsibility should be distributed effectively, including between the EU and NATO, and that leaders take responsibility for security in both short- and long-term- perspectives.
Sten Widmalm, Thomas Persson and Charles Parker
In recent years the European Union (EU) has explicitly embraced the goal of protecting all its citizens. The expression of this goal can be found in the solidarity clause of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, which establishes a legal obligation that the EU and its Member States should assist each other when one of them is the object of a terrorist attack or a natural or human-made disaster. As a result of this aspiration, the EU has increasingly assumed a central role as a crisis manager. In this chapter we present the capacities that the EU has developed to deliver on these commitments and analyse the obstacles that impede these efforts. We also examine, with the help of survey data from the European Commission’s Eurobarometer, the expectations of citizens of EU Member States of the EU’s crisis management capacity. Finally, drawing on interviews with top officials from eighteen European civil protection services, we outline the challenges facing Europe’s crisis management capacity in light of the differences in trust and common norms among the EU’s crisis management authorities and the many different administrative cultures represented in these agencies. The chapter concludes with some reflections on the wider implications that should be taken into consideration as the EU works on further developing its crisis management capabilities.