Security and Justice

This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizen’s Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee, analyses the Schengen area in the wake of the European ‘refugee crisis’ and other recent developments. With several Member States reintroducing temporary internal border controls over recent months, the study assesses compliance with the Schengen governance framework in this context. Despite suggestions that the end of Schengen is nigh or arguments that there is a need to get ‘back to Schengen’, the research demonstrates that Schengen is alive and well and that border controls have, at least formally, complied with the legal framework. Nonetheless, better monitoring and democratic accountability are necessary.

Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document. When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.

Conflict-related violence against women and girls (VAWG) has drawn increasing attention, yet scholars, policymakers, and practitioners focussed on conflict-related VAWG and those focussed on post-conflict statebuilding and peacebuilding have largely worked separately. Less attention has been given to VAWG during post-conflict transitions than during conflict itself. This article makes three major contributions to guide researchers and policymakers in addressing VAWG in post-conflict contexts. First, it identifies critical gaps in understanding the intersection between VAWG and post-conflict statebuilding and peacebuilding processes. Second, it presents an ecological model to explore the drivers of VAWG during and after armed conflict. Third, it proposes a conceptual framework for analysing and addressing the intersections of VAWG with both post-conflict statebuilding and peacebuilding. The article concludes that application of this framework can help policymakers shape statebuilding and peacebuilding processes to more effectively institutionalise approaches to VAWG so that post-conflict transitions advance sustainable, positive peace.

The article explores the roles of European Union (EU) institutions and Europol, focusing on their potential involvement as experts in legal proceedings. While EU institutions primarily engage in governance and policy implementation, their participation as expert entities in legal cases is unique and occurs only under specific circumstances. In contrast, Europol plays a more defined role in criminal investigations within the EU, particularly when formalised through resolutions or agreements. Europol's involvement represents a unique collaborative model of expertise, contributing significantly to law enforcement activities.

Alle rechten voorbehouden. Behoudens de door de Auteurswet 1912 gestelde uitzonderingen, mag niets uit deze uitgave worden verveelvoudigd (waaronder begrepen het opslaan in een geautomatiseerd gegevensbestand) of openbaar gemaakt, op welke wijze dan ook, zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van de uitgever. De bij toepassing van artikel 16B en 17 Auteurswet 1912 wettelijk verschuldigde vergoedingen wegens fotokopiëren, dienen te worden voldaan aan de Stichting Reprorecht. Voor het overnemen van een gedeelte van deze uitgave in bloemlezingen, readers en andere compilatiewerken op grond van artikel 16 Auteurswet 1912 dient men zich tevoren tot de uitgever te wenden. Hoewel aan de totstandkoming van deze uitgave de uiterste zorg is besteed, aanvaarden de auteur(s), redacteur(en) en uitgever geen aansprakelijkheid voor eventuele fouten of onvolkomenheden.

Ma ÁNGELES PÉREZ MARÍN El futuro órgano instructor común: una propuesta para la organización de la fiscalía europea ... 143 autores y cómplices de estas actividades ilegales y solicitar la apertura del juicio oral ante los órganos jurisdiccionales nacionales. A partir de estas líneas iniciales esbozadas en el Tratado de Funcionamiento, será necesario establecer las normas aplicables a la Fiscalía Europea y al desempeño de sus funciones y especificar su organización interna. PALABRAS CLAVE: Unión Europea; fraude financiero; Fiscalía Europea; Espacio de libertad, seguridad y justicia; cooperación judicial en materia penal. ABSTRACT: Criminal policy for the protection of the financial interests, initiated by the European Economic Community, now the European Union, and the production of rules in this area, has allowed some sectors speak about the existence of a European Economic Criminal Law. Furthermore, it follows from the contents of articles 86 and 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that the legislator intends to create, at least, a supranational procedural stage for investigating offences against the Union 's financial interest, that will be part of a criminal process in which will also be involved the competent courts of the Member States in order to combat these ilegal activities. In this way, the article 86 provide for the possibility of creating a European Public Prosecutor 's Office (EPPO) that will occupy a central place in this new criminal proceeding. The EPPO powers include the investigation of frauds and any other illegal activities affecting, directly or indirectly, the financial interests of the Union, prosecuting and bringing to judgrnent in the competent courts ofthe Member States the perpetrators of, and accomplices in, of these offences. From these inicial fines, outlined in the Treaty on the Functioning, will be necessary to set the rules applicable to the European Public Prosecutor 's Office and to the performance of its functions and to specifi its internal organization.

• Rule of law and justice reform is integral to sustainable development, yet is complex and bound in social norms and political power. • International support to this agenda is moving away from top-down, state-centric approaches, to be more bottom-up and end-user focused. • There is also a growing interest in politically smart and adaptive approaches. However, what makes for 'effective experimentalism' is under-documented, under-explored and under-systematised.

This document, as well as any data and any map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

The Maastricht Treaty (signed on February 7th, 1992) provides that the Member States are resolved to facilitate freedom for movement of persons while providing higher level of security and safety for their people. This is a step further for opening common borders between the states and, thus, establishing the internal market as an area without frontiers where freedoms for movement for persons, goods, services and capital is ensured. First attempts were made in 1984 by signing the Saarbruecken Agreement between France and West Germany for gradual abolition of border checks on the common Franco-German border, and – above all – Schengen Agreement from 1985 between France, West Germany, and BeNeLux on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders. The efforts toward more freedom in cross-border movement are related to necessary measure to safeguard public order and public security. This is why the above mentioned agreements provide cooperation between competent authorities in the fields of visa and immigration policy, and combat of transfrontier criminality. So, all further acts to these goals are later called “Schengen acquis”, and they establish the Schengen area as a symbol for free movement in crossing common borders and compensatory control on external borders, as well as approximated national policies in certain fields – e.g. visa, asylum. To the beginning of 2000s the accession of majority of EU Member States to these legal acts is a fact.
The Amsterdam Treaty (from 1997) integrates these achievements into the European Community competences and makes significant reform to the third EU pillar. Visa, asylum and immigration policies are moved to the first pillar (integration) and within the third pillar remain police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Till the time of entry into force of this threaty most of the old Member States of the Union have been accessed to the Schengen agreement and the Convention for its application.
Finally, the Threaty of Lisbon revokes the three pillar system of the EU and proclaimes the area of freedom, security and justice as an integral part of the Union’s policies defined and developed via rules of the Treaty for the functioning of the Union – Art. 67-89. The area is now based on the policies of free movement of persons (where lack of internal border control is provided to the citizens), immigration and visa and asylum (oriented to third countries nationals) and police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (with the aim to combat criminality that affects the interests of more countries), and civil justice cooperation (where access
to justice and mutual recognition of judicial acts on civil matters is provided).

The existing guidelines for security sector reform (SSR) tend to draw on theoretical work in the field of civil-military relations, which in turn has been derived from Western, liberal democratic models of governance. Although guidelines strongly advise that local culture and context need to be considered when drawing up objectives for post-conflict SSR programmes, this is not often reflected in practice. This article considers some of the reasons for this, citing both in-country challenges and donor-related issues, and suggests that one of the biggest problems is a lack of alternative, nonorthodox models of civil-military relations to draw upon. It is further suggested that elements of suitable alternative models may be found in states which possess political structures not entirely dissimilar to the Western, liberal democratic ideal, but which can offer different perspectives. Detailed research of these structures should produce a pool of sub-models which could then be employed to create bespoke, culturally appropriate objectives for use in post-conflict SSR programmes.

• Nigeria's federal structure directs about half of national public resources to state and local levels, where governance patterns and quality are variable. • Part of one of DFID's largest governance portfolios, the SPARC programme aims to work adaptively at the state level to support policy and strategy, public financial management, and public service management. • Support to public sector reform in developing countries is more effective if it takes a flexible, politically informed and locally-led approach, and SPARC's experience illustrates some challenges and opportunities of operationalising such an approach. • The programme has innovative features to identify reform priorities with partners and enable flexible allocation of resources, while also revealing potential tensions between donor and local priorities, flexibility and the technical demands of core governance reforms, and specific problem-driven interventions and joining up smaller initiatives. • SPARC provides lessons for future governance programming, particularly the importance of making assumptions and trade-offs explicit.

What evidence is available on Area Based Stabilisation (ABS) particularly focusing on its key characteristics, strengths, weaknesses and how is it different from other approaches to stabilisation? What are the lessons learned from the attempts to implement ABS? Contents 1. Overview 2. Stabilisation approaches 3. Illustrative lessons 4. References Due to the policy focus of this paper, this rapid literature review draws predominantly on policy and practitioner texts, including some unpublished papers provided by FCDO. It draws on some academic texts, particularly for the text on general approaches to stabilisation and on high-level lessons and critiques of the stabilisation agenda. This paper prioritises literature published within the last five years. However, it also includes evaluative papers published in the 2000s and 2010s that focus on the stabilisation interventions carried out in those decades. This rapid review is not comprehensive but is illustrative of some of the key debates and lessons regarding stabilisation approaches. Key points Stabilisation approaches Definition and common features-The term stabilisation is generally used to describe broadranging military and civilian efforts to prevent or address instability in a foreign country, it is an essentially contested concept, and stabilisation activities range widely. The evolving stabilisation agenda-Stabilisation is a policy-driven and often controversial concept that is grounded in the military sphere yet is used alongside a broad range of security, peace, and state-building concepts. Its debates build on discussions around the securitydevelopment nexus and liberal interventionism that have evolved since the end of the Cold War. More recent approaches have shifted "at least rhetorically" with military activities taking "a back seat, while political and civilian aspects are given a much higher priority" (Wittkowsky & Breuer, 2020). Shifts in the practical approach of donors include moves towards: more context-specific, problem-focussed, and iterative approaches, and strategies with narrower objectives and clearer priorities. Hot stabilisation versus a political approach to stabilisation-One way that donor approaches are analysed comparatively is between "hot" compared to political approaches (Pedersen, 2019). The older, hot stabilisation approach "emphasises the military aspects of conflict resolution and enlists civilian actors and aims as a means to further the goal of stabilising the situation and laying the ground for a sustainable order that can be maintained by local actors… [where the focus in on] (re-) establishing the state's monopoly on violence and strengthening the legitimate authority of the state through institution building and the delivery of key public services" (Pedersen, 2019, p.12). While a political approach to stabilisation (a more recently popular approach) focuses on "forging a new and more inclusive political settlement that can ensure stability in heterogeneous societies... to foster a renegotiation of power-sharing arrangements to enable non-violent forms of politics to emerge and deal with the basic disagreements over interests, ideas and the distribution and use of power" (Pedersen, 2019, p.13-14). This approach diverges between those that focus on elites and elite bargains (which might lead to shorter stabilisation interventions around power-sharing), and those that focus on grassroots/people-centred approached to build inclusive societies (a longer-term perspective).

Different links between empowerment, gender equality and conflict are discussed in the literature, including: (1) whether gender inequality impacts on outbreaks of conflict and vice versa; (2) whether patriarchal norms, identities and empowerment impact on outbreaks of conflict and vice versa; (3) whether political empowerment impacts on outbreaks of conflict and vice versa; (4) whether economic empowerment impacts on outbreaks of conflict and vice versa; (5) whether social empowerment impacts on outbreaks of conflict and vice versa. There is a small body of literature on each point that generally suggests correlation, rather than causation. The majority of this literature has been produced by the same small group of academics over the past 15 years. Where there is evidence it is largely quantitative, with some qualitative analysis. There is a substantial theoretical literature, which this paper does not explore. The quantitative analyses tend to use a very small set of indices and single indicators that are thought to be 'relatively comparable and uncontaminated' (Caprioli, et al., 2009). The literature has been limited by data difficulties: data is fragmented (found in varying sources and languages); in many places, no data is available; there are comparability and standardisation problems; and political agendas may contaminate data (ibid). In recognition of the limited literature base, and data limitations, this core group of academics Caprioli, Hudson, McDermott, Ballif-Spanvill, Emmett and Stearmer (2009) recently set up the comprehensive WomanStats Database. 3 Key findings  A number of studies quantitatively find a strong correlation between levels of gender inequality and conflict (e.g. Caprioli, 2005, etc). They find that gender inequality increases the likelihood that a state will have internal conflict and international disputes. And countries with low human rights standards (including on gender inequality) are more likely to have militarised and violent interstate disputes (during the period 1980 to 2001). Women's equality is considered 'a consistent predictor of both international violence and internal conflict' (Caprioli, Hudson, McDermott, Emmett and Ballif-Spanvill, 2007). However, the nature of the relationship is not clear.

This article interrogates the images of justice produced by justice indicators, which tend formally to become truths about the nature of justice and injustice in jurisdictions worldwide. However, what are these indicators really constructing? Underlying the construction of indicators and indicatorology may be forms of discipline and power implicated in what Mitchell terms 'rule by experts'. 1 This article analyses the 'sea of indicators' of justice, and consider ways in which they construct these new forms of discipline and power. The article then suggests that more qualitative approaches to measuring justice, which have been recently favoured by the World Bank and the UNDP, among others, may not necessarily provide a solution as they ignore the wider realities of global injustice. The article then argues that it is necessary to interrogate the internal dynamics of indicatorology with the wider alternative frameworks of global (in)justice as indicated in the work of Pogge, Baxi, Santos and Sen.

of the EU Final report of the Study to examine the possibility of preparing a legal instrument in order to confer executive powers on Member States ’ officers participating in operations at the external borders of another Member State or in the context of return enforcementBrussels, April 2006 This document presents the results of the Study on the powers of border officers carried out by Unisys for the Directorate General Justice, Freedom and Security of the European Commission. This study has for objective to assess the situation in the 25 EU Member States, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland with respect to the possibility of conferring executive powers on border officers invited to operate at the external EU borders of another state or in the context of joint return enforcement. From there it draws

In a post-9/11 environment, the Department for International Development (DFID) shifted its strategic focus towards an integrationist approach that aligned mainstream development programming with the national security agenda. A key part of those reforms was integrating counterterrorism – directly and indirectly – into DFID's portfolio. Using a feminist institutionalist approach, I examine how discourses about women, development, security, and counterterrorism are reproduced through a ‘development-security-counterterrorism nexus’. Within the nexus, DFID represents a key site for the production, reproduction, and evolution of gendered discursive practices1 about women. I argue that institutional evolution is possible through a process of discursive evolution where certain discourses become more or less engrained or ‘sedimented’2 depending on the presence of alternative ideas and knowledges. The central research question asks how did gender-sensitive development work evolve after 9...

One of the most prominent elements of external policy in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice is that of "integrated border management". Its material content is defined and legislated in the current regulations on the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, limiting its field of action to the control of migratory flows at the border. However, no formal analysis has been conducted of the concept of integrated border management. Even the most specialist literature has been limited to identifying and analysing the material content, barely considering the term "integrated" within the framework of shared competences between the EU and Member States. Consequently, the aim of the present paper is to identify a formal definition of "integrated border management", by analysing the development of the concept and its material component. I shall also highlight the short-term implications of this formal definition for the EU, especially with respect to the adoption of an EU "integrated management strategy" consistent with the national strategies of Member States.

This license allows for copying any part of the work for personal and commercial use, providing author attribution is clearly stated. This book was originally published by the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF), an international foundation whose mission is to assist the international community in pursuing good governance and reform of the security sector. The title transferred to Ubiquity Press when the series moved to an open access platform. The full text of this book was peer reviewed according to the original publisher's policy at the time. The original ISBN for this title was 978-92-9222-228-4. SSR Papers is a flagship DCAF publication series intended to contribute innovative thinking on important themes and approaches relating to security sector reform (SSR) in the broader context of security sector governance (SSG). Papers provide original and provocative analysis on topics that are directly linked to the challenges of a governance-driven security sector reform agenda. SSR Papers are intended for researchers, policy-makers and practitioners involved in this field. The views expressed are those of the author(s) alone and do not in any way reflect the views of the institutions referred to or represented within this paper.

Erwin van Veen is a senior research fellow in the Conflict Research Unit at Clingendael. This guest post builds on the author’s longer policy brief: ‘Securing its success, justifying its relevance: Mapping a way forward for Security Sector Reform.’ Follow Erwin on Twitter @ErwinVeen

Reading packs are commissioned by the UK Government's Department for International Development (DFID) for independent study and professional development use. They are intended to be thought-provoking introductions to emerging issues and debates within the subject areas they cover. The views expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of GSDRC, its partner agencies or DFID.

Armed conflicts are increasingly interpreted as products of the breakdown of the rule of law. In turn, weak rule of law institutions are understood as a major challenge to early post-conflict reconstruction and long-term conflict prevention. Considered essential for the maintenance of peaceful social relations, rule of law reform has thus become a priority in peacebuilding activities in the periphery. Yet enforcing a liberal legal framework in war-torn countries has had mixed success at best, with reforms encountering severe difficulties in gaining the necessary legitimacy within disrupted communities to function authoritatively. This report explores the process of the prioritisation of the rule of law, presenting the assumptions that favour its application and the typical reforms implemented in the context of peacebuilding initiatives. In addition to discussing the current challenges to the modus operandi of external interventions, it makes concrete proposals for potential improvements.

The article addresses the debated issue of the democratic accountability of Europol and Eurojust. After a short introduction on the discussion in the pre-Lisbon phase, it focuses on the current legislative framework. Through a comparative analysis of the relevant provisions of reg (EU) 2016/794 (concerning Europol) and reg (EU) 2018/1727 (on Eurojust), the article highlights an asymmetry in the intensity of the parliamentary oversight on the two Agencies and a much strong interest of Parliaments in the control on Europol. The reasons of this misalignment are identified in the different nature of the two bodies (police vs. judicial) and the reinforced operational dimension of Europol’s activity, which can have a stronger impact on fundamental rights. The second part of the contribution analyses the experience of the recently established Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group (JPSG) on Europol, identifying some limits to the parliamentary control mechanism, linked, on the one hand, to the...

The analysis is concerned with the current state of the Schengen Area, its legal and institutional framework, as well as the impact of COVID-19 on its functioning. The paper demonstrates that COVID-19 has forced EU Member States to adopt unprecedented measures on mobility restriction. The author distinguishes three groups of measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: the temporary reintroduction of border controls at internal borders; a ban on crossing internal borders; a ban on entering into the EU for third-country nationals. All measures were taken on a national level; EU institutions do not have enough competence in this sphere, which is why they have mostly played a coordinating role. Moreover, the pandemic increases the deficit of solidarity between EU Member States. The author concludes that the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates that the EU needs more powers to react in such a situation. Thus, the EU has to create additional legal instruments for the realization of a common ...

The purpose of this paper is to articulate three “game changers” that can improve how the international community contributes to rule of law development in situations of fragility. Such change is long overdue. Many justice and security engagements fail to deliver their intended objectives because of the complexity of fragile environments, the political sensitivity of change in this area and current ways of working. In today’s aid speak, transformative results are few and value for money is limited. Worse, the incentives and resources of many international actors are stacked against more realistic and political ways of providing support to rule of law development.

One of the most pressing problems in post-conflict societies is the establishment of trust between the police and citizens. Trust levels are low, and in many cases police services themselves are perpetuators of abuse and violence against communities. Afghanistan is also a case in point. To tackle this problem both Ministry of Interior Afghanistan (MoIA) and the police have taken several measures to facilitate better cooperation between police services and communities. At the heart of these measures is the establishment of community-oriented policing (COP). As a policing model its relevance lies in building trust and legitimacy in police/ community relations. The use of information and communication technology (ICT) is an important step in this direction.

This paper will explore the motivation, workings and potential effect of the police’s use of various information and communication technologies to build trust in Afghanistan. To what degree do these efforts in fact contribute to trust-building and broader human security? What happens to trust-building when it comes to technology mediated interaction? Attention will be given to how the police, in addition to their own efforts, might link to ICT solutions being developed in civil society that are also aimed at improving accountability and more relations with the police and government in general. In doing so, it will consider the wider relations between the government and civil society, and the role technology might have in mediating this relationship and contributing to or hindering broader human security.

More often than not Security Sector Reform (SSR) takes place against many odds, in barely enabling political, security, economic, and social environments. This volume offers evidence-based analyses of positive and negative SSR records in barely enabling environments, drawing on the experiences of specific national and international SSR programs and experiences in Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe.

The following paper concentrates on the analysis of the criticism of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice of the European Union. The Author focuses on the nature of this criticism, its subject – the process of securitization of the EU and also on the sources of such criticism. This paper addresses fundamental questions related to the issues of both general criticism of the AFSJ (its technocratic character and lack of parliamentary and judiciary control) and the criticism of particular activities of the EU agencies, such as Europol and Frontex.

DCAF Occasional Papers constitute studies designed to promote reflection and discussion on civil-military relations and issues of democratic control over defence and security sectors. These studies are commissioned by the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces.

GSDRC Topic Guides aim to provide a clear, concise and objective report on findings from rigorous research on critical areas of development policy. Rather than provide policy guidance or recommendations, their purpose is to signpost policymakers and practitioners to the key debates and evidence on the topic of focus, to support informed decision-making. This Guide complements other GSDRC Topic Guides on: Statebuilding and Peacebuilding in Situations of GSDRC is a partnership of research institutes, think-tanks and consultancy organisations with expertise in governance, social development, humanitarian and conflict issues. We provide applied knowledge services on demand and online. Our specialist research team supports a range of international development agencies, synthesising the latest evidence and expert thinking to inform policy and practice.

GSDRC Topic Guides aim to provide a clear, concise and objective report on findings from rigorous research on critical areas of development policy. Rather than provide policy guidance or recommendations, their purpose is to signpost policymakers and practitioners to the key debates and evidence on the topic of focus, to support informed decision-making.

This paper examines the key limitations of youth empowerment interventions in preventing and countering violent extremism, and identifies potential solutions to overcome these.

Age is frequently identified as a risk factor or a predictor for engagement in violent extremism. Indeed, certain factors associated with youth – such as changes in social identity, weakened social control and the intensified influence of peer groups – can make individuals more susceptible to violent extremist influences. Yet, using age as a predictor for engagement in such behaviour does not account for the vast majority of young people who do not engage in violent extremism. It also does little for identifying the minority who do engage in it.

Youth programmes are often based on a simplistic understanding of the reasons why some young people engage in violent extremism. Consequently, they struggle with targeting their activities and fail to address the complex factors that drive young people to violent extremism. The programmatic focus on youth as a potential extremist threat and the lack of clear criteria to decide which young people to focus the attention of P/CVE work on can lead to the securitisation of everyday, youth-related activities and the framing of youth as a ‘suspect community’.

This paper has been prepared in the context of the JUD-IT (Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters and Electronic IT Data in the EU: Ensuring Efficient Cross-Border Cooperation and Mutual Trust) Project, with financial support from the Justice Programme of the European Union (JUST-AG-2016-01). The opinions expressed in this report are attributable solely to the authors in a personal capacity and not to any institution with which they are associated, nor can they be taken in any way to reflect the views of the European Commission. CEPS Papers in Liberty and Security in Europe offer the views and critical reflections of CEPS researchers and external collaborators on key policy discussions surrounding the construction of the EU's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. The series encompasses policy-oriented and interdisciplinary academic studies and comment on the implications of Justice and Home Affairs policies within Europe and elsewhere in the world. This publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form for non-profit purposes only and on the condition that the source is fully acknowledged.

Over the last decades, the European Union (EU) has been developing its external 'borders' through a double axis. Firstly, it has encouraged the creation of EU-wide databases that, because they primarily target the movements of third-country nationals, have come to be known as the ' ...

This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee, aims to provide background information concerning police ethics, accountability, and oversight across the EU. The study shows that existing EU tools and instruments can contribute to enhance police accountability. The study also identifies some gaps and weaknesses. Recommendations are provided in order to remedy the gaps and weaknesses identified.

The purpose of this study is to comprehend the approaches and manifestations of de-radicalization programs of the Islamabadbased civil society PAIMAN Alumni Trust, also, to evaluate the role of gender in this process. Radicalization that ultimately leads to extremism and terrorism has become the potent threat to harmony of Pakistani society. Pakistan responded to this menace with de-radicalization programs, one of the significant strategies of countering radicalization. The failure of the male-dominated security strategies of the state created room for the gender and civil societies. This study is methodologically qualitative, while descriptive and interpretive approaches have also been utilized to deal with the research queries. The interviews, personal observation and archival data are utilized for data collection. It is argued that PAIMAN has made the women and deradicalization process visible, but it did not make the resilient changes in the social structure because of the challenges of deficiency of funds, traditionalism, harassment and restrictive regimes for civil societies. It is suggested that it should develop the better relations with media, make the alliance of local civil societies and effectively utilize the international donor agencies and advocacy groups for overcoming the challenges.

This paper examines the EU's counter-terrorism policies responding to the Paris attacks of 13 November 2015. It argues that these events call for a rethink of the current information-sharing and preventive-justice model guiding the EU's counter-terrorism tools, along with security agencies such as Europol and Eurojust. Priority should be given to independently evaluating 'what has worked' and 'what has not' when it comes to police and criminal justice cooperation in the Union. Current EU counter-terrorism policies face two challenges: one is related to their efficiency and other concerns their legality. 'More data' without the necessary human resources, more effective cross-border operational cooperation and more trust between the law enforcement authorities of EU member states is not an efficient policy response. Large-scale surveillance and preventive justice techniques are also incompatible with the legal and judicial standards developed by the Court of Justice of the EU. The EU can bring further added value first, by boosting traditional policing and criminal justice cooperation to fight terrorism; second, by redirecting EU agencies' competences towards more coordination and support in cross-border operational cooperation and joint investigations, subject to greater accountability checks (Europol and Eurojust +); and third, by improving the use of policy measures following a criminal justice-led cooperation model focused on improving cross-border joint investigations and the use of information that meets the quality standards of 'evidence' in criminal judicial proceedings. Any EU and national counter-terrorism policies must not undermine democratic rule of law, fundamental rights or the EU's founding constitutional principles, such as the free movement of persons and the Schengen system. Otherwise, these policies will defeat their purpose by generating more insecurity, instability, mistrust and legal uncertainty for all. CEPS Papers in Liberty and Security in Europe offer the views and critical reflections of CEPS researchers and external collaborators on key policy discussions surrounding the construction of the EU's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. The series encompasses policy-oriented and interdisciplinary academic studies and comment on the implications of Justice and Home Affairs policies inside Europe and elsewhere in the world. Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed are attributable only to the authors in a personal capacity and not to any institution with which they are associated. This publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form for non-profit purposes only and on the condition that the source is fully acknowledged.

This paper examines the EU's counter-terrorism policies responding to the Paris attacks of 13 November 2015. It argues that these events call for a rethink of the current information-sharing and preventive-justice model guiding the EU's counter-terrorism tools, along with security agencies such as Europol and Eurojust. Priority should be given to independently evaluating 'what has worked' and 'what has not' when it comes to police and criminal justice cooperation in the Union. Current EU counter-terrorism policies face two challenges: one is related to their efficiency and other concerns their legality. 'More data' without the necessary human resources, more effective cross-border operational cooperation and more trust between the law enforcement authorities of EU member states is not an efficient policy response. Large-scale surveillance and preventive justice techniques are also incompatible with the legal and judicial standards developed by the Court of Justice of the EU. The EU can bring further added value first, by boosting traditional policing and criminal justice cooperation to fight terrorism; second, by redirecting EU agencies' competences towards more coordination and support in cross-border operational cooperation and joint investigations, subject to greater accountability checks (Europol and Eurojust +); and third, by improving the use of policy measures following a criminal justice-led cooperation model focused on improving cross-border joint investigations and the use of information that meets the quality standards of 'evidence' in criminal judicial proceedings. Any EU and national counter-terrorism policies must not undermine democratic rule of law, fundamental rights or the EU's founding constitutional principles, such as the free movement of persons and the Schengen system. Otherwise, these policies will defeat their purpose by generating more insecurity, instability, mistrust and legal uncertainty for all. CEPS Papers in Liberty and Security in Europe offer the views and critical reflections of CEPS researchers and external collaborators on key policy discussions surrounding the construction of the EU's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. The series encompasses policy-oriented and interdisciplinary academic studies and comment on the implications of Justice and Home Affairs policies inside Europe and elsewhere in the world. Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed are attributable only to the authors in a personal capacity and not to any institution with which they are associated. This publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form for non-profit purposes only and on the condition that the source is fully acknowledged.

This article interrogates the images of justice produced by justice indicators, which tend formally to become truths about the nature of justice and injustice in jurisdictions worldwide. However, what are these indicators really constructing? Underlying the construction of indicators and indicatorology may be forms of discipline and power implicated in what Mitchell terms 'rule by experts'. 1 This article analyses the 'sea of indicators' of justice, and consider ways in which they construct these new forms of discipline and power. The article then suggests that more qualitative approaches to measuring justice, which have been recently favoured by the World Bank and the UNDP, among others, may not necessarily provide a solution as they ignore the wider realities of global injustice. The article then argues that it is necessary to interrogate the internal dynamics of indicatorology with the wider alternative frameworks of global (in)justice as indicated in the work of Pogge, Baxi, Santos and Sen.

There has now been more than a decade of conceptual work, policy development, and operational activity in the field of security sector reform (SSR). To what extent has its original aim, to support and facilitate development, been met? The various contributions to this book address this question, offering a range of insights on the theoretical and practical relevance of the security-development nexus in SSR. They examine claims of how and whether SSR effectively contributes to achieving both security and development objectives. In particular, the analyses presented in the book provide a salutary lesson that development and security communities need to take each other's concerns into account when planning, implementing, and evaluating their activities. The book offers academics, policy-makers, and practitioners within the development and security communities relevant lessons, suggestions, and practical advice for approaching SSR as an instrument that serves both security and devel...