Harmonization of internal security practices across the EU: the role of EU agencies' staff

The institutionalization of border, migration and security cooperation among EU Member States and the creation of a constitutional dimension to the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) exacerbated some trust and cooperation difficulties derived from the sensitivity of the matters at stake. The everlasting tension between integrative fervours and sovereign reservations resulted in an unclear attribution of competences at source and left unanswered the practical question of how to operationalize a common freedom, security, and justice action, when the core of law-and-order stems directly from the sovereignty -i.e., the exclusive competence and sole responsibility- of the Member States. Failing to achieve harmonization through law (because of the high sovereign sensitivity and politicization), EU governance turned to harmonization through practices, trying to increase trust and boost cooperation on a practical level playing field. While legislative production regulating the core of EU asylum and migration is still scarce (i.e., regulating the substance of migration), hard law provisions mushroom when it comes to empowering agencies, regulating operational cooperation, or harmonizing practices across the EU (i.e., regulating the administration of migration). The actual (EU) management of migration occurs then within this latter executive/administrative dimension. EU agencies like Frontex, Europol and the EUAA developed a substantial policy-influencing, operational, regulatory, and implementation-influencing capacity. Not only are these agencies increasingly relevant for the end addressees of border and security policies (i.e., migrants, asylum-seekers, (alleged) criminals), but they are also gaining formal and informal power vis-à-vis Member States. By developing standards and benchmarks, by training security staff all across the Union, as well as by overseeing that common rules and policies are implemented correctly, EU security agencies no longer embody the regulatory state idea of decentralized and depoliticized administrations. On the contrary, agencies’ staff are more and more included in pinpointing political priorities, shaping security cultures, and developing foundational concepts (like those of risk and threat) upon which common interiors policies are based. This paper explores the potential of EU agencies’ staff to socialize practitioners and decision-makers to certain security standards and practices and their perceptions of what public good they pursue (e.g., security vs. liberty).