This paper focuses on the struggles between arguments for security on the one hand and justice on the other hand concerning EU counter-terrorist policies. Through the creation of an ‘area of freedom, security and justice’ as initiated in 1999, the European Union aims to ensure the free movement of persons while also providing appropriate security measures without encroaching on fundamental rights and freedoms. This principle was put to the test when in the wake of the attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001 the EU quickly adopted and initiated various laws and programs focused on countering terrorism. While the EU has since September 2001 claimed to combine the fight against terrorism with a defense of human rights, scholars (e.g. ELISE 2005: 42) have pointed out this often resulted in a balancing of or trade off between the values of security and justice. Pursued in this paper is the question under what conditions arguments about either security or justice prevailed over the other. Theoretically, this paper draws on the securitization theory of the Copenhagen School which considers the concept of security a social construct resulting from the invocation by a securitizing agent of a threat requiring the use of certain measures to protect a specified referent object or value (Buzan, Wæver & De Wilde 1998: 25). Methodologically, the focus on the position of the actors, the type of arguments made and the location of these arguments in larger discourses in order to capture the successful agent-audience interaction critical to legitimating any claim. The paper is based on a study of two cases: 1) the ECJ’s ruling in the cases of Kadi and Yusuf in 2008 and 2) efforts by European Members of Parliament to address the lack of accountability concerning EU spending on counter-terrorism since 2011.
