Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Intelligence Security in the European Union pp 199–225Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

External Dimensions of EU Intelligence Cooperation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: New Security Challenges ((NSECH))

Abstract

The EU intelligence community has emerged in a global context of transnational threats, external pressures and global risks. This chapter describes the partnerships, collaborative efforts and tactical deals made by the EU with actors in the international arena. It explores both opportunities and benefits, and emerging and improving patterns of international intelligence cooperation. The emphasis is on NATO and the United States as strategic partners in security policy. The external dimension of the criminal intelligence hub is presented as an area that complements EU law-enforcement cooperation. The chapter concludes with an overall assessment of third countries’ relevance for strategic intelligence in the EU.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Bibliography

  • Adam, S. (2006). Quelques réflexions sur les relations entre les procédures a priori et a posteriori d’examen de compatibilité des accords communautaires suite à l’affaire dite de l’«accord PNR». Cahiers de droit européen, 5(6), 657–696.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, R. J. (2009). US–European intelligence co-operation on counter-terrorism: Low politics and compulsion. British Journal of Politics and Intenational Relations, 11(1), 122–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argomaniz, J. (2009b). When the EU is the ‘norm-taker’: The passenger name records agreement and the EU’s internalization of US border security norms. European Integration, 31(1), 119–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, P. (Ed.). (1996). The European Union handbook. Chicago/London: Fitzroy-Dearborn Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendiek, A. (2014). Tests of partnership transatlantic cooperation in cyber security, internet governance, and data protection. SWP Research Paper RP. Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, B. (2003). The new face of war. How war will be fought in the 21st century. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bignami, F. (2015). The US legal system on data protection in the field of law enforcement. Safeguards, rights and remedies for EU citizens. Brussels: European Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bigo, D. (Ed.). (1992a). L’Europe des polices et de la sécurité intérieure. Paris: Editions Complexe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bigo, D. (1992b). L’Europe de la sécurité intérieure. In D. Bigo (Ed.), L’Europe des polices et de la sécurité intérieure. Paris: Editions Complexe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, F. (2012). Information sharing and data protection in the area of freedom, security and justice. Towards harmonised data protection principles for information exchange at EU-level.. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borchert, H. (2006). Homeland security and transformation: Why it is essential to bring together both agendas. In E. Brimmer (Ed.), Transforming homeland security: U.S. and European approaches. Washington, DC: Center for Transatlantic Relations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bossong, R. (2007). The European security Vanguard? Prüm, Heiligendamm and flexible integration theory. LSE/Challenge Working Paper. At http://www.libertysecurity.org/article2160.html. Accessed 24 Apr 2007.

  • Brown, J. M. (2014). Strategy for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Joint Force Quarterly, 72, 39–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • BTT. (2008). US and Germany to share terrorist fingerprint data. Biometric Technology Today, 16(4), 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunyan, T. (Ed.). (1993). Statewatching the new Europe. A handbook on the European state. Radford Mill: Russell Press for Statewatch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cimbala, S. J., & Forster, P. K. (2010). Multinational military intervention: NATO policy, strategy, and burden sharing. Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, J. (2004). The United States, Europe, and homeland security: Seeing soft security concerns through a counterterrorist lens. European Security, 13(1), 117–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R. A., & McCaffrey, B. R. (2004). NATO’s role in confronting international terrorism. Washington, DC: Atlantic Council of the United States.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the EU (2000, August 23). Council decision of 14 August 2000 amending decision 93/731/EC on public access to council documents and council decision 2000/23/EC on the improvement of information on the council’s legislative activities and the public register of council documents. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the EU (2003b, June 3). Security standards between the NATO Office of Security (NOS), the EU Council General Secretariat Security Office (GSCSO) and the European Commission Security Office (ECSO) for the protection of classified information exchanged between NATO and the EU, annex to document 10006/03, Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the EU (2004a, June 26). EU-U.S. declaration on combating terrorism. Dromoland Castle, 26 June 2004, doc. 10760/04, Dromoland Castle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the EU (2004b, May 20). Council Decision of 17 May 2004 on the conclusion of an agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of PNR data by air carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (2004/496/EC). Official Journal of the European Union, L 183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the EU (2006a). Guide on the security of information: September 2006. At http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/guide-on-the-security-of-information.-september-2006-pbQCX106131/downloads/QC-X1-06-131-EN-C/QCX106131ENC_001.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2013.

  • Council of the EU (2010h, March 3). Council decision of 25 February 2010 on setting up the Standing Committee on operational cooperation on internal security. Official Journal of the European Union, L 52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the EU (2014e, March 26). EU-US summit joint statement, 8228/14, Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, M. (2005). Beyond the west: Terrors in Transatlantia. European Journal of International Relations, 11(2), 203–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, D. (1998). Transatlantic relations in the field of justice and home affairs—Can the EU really deliver? In J. Monar (Ed.), The new transatlantic agenda and the future of EU-US relations. London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalgaard-Nielsen, A. (2004). Homeland security. American and European responses to September 11th. In J. Pilegaard (Ed.), The politics of European security. Danish Institute for International Studies: Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Hert, P. J. A., & De Schutter, B. (2008). International transfers of data in the field of JHA: The lessons of Europol, PNR and SWIFT. In S. Thiel & B. Martenczuk (Eds.), Justice, liberty, security: New challenges for EU external relations. Brussels: VUB Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Goede, M. (2012). The SWIFT affair and the global politics of European Security. Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(2), 214–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Den Boer, M. (1998). Defying a global challenge: Reflections about a joint EU-US venture against transnational organized crime. In J. Monar (Ed.), The new transatlantic agenda and the future of EU-US relations. London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Den Boer, M. (2011). Soft, smart and strategic. The international dimension of EU action in the fight against terrorism. In M. Cremona, J. Monar, & S. Poli (Eds.), The external dimension of the European Union’s area of freedom, security and justice. Brussels: P.I.E. Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deptula, D. A., & Brown, R. G. (2008). A house divided: The indivisibility of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Air & Space Power Journal, 22(2). At www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj08/sum08/deptula.html. Accessed 11 Aug 2012.

  • Duke, S. (2005). The Linchpin COPS: Assessing the workings and institutional relations of the Political and Security Committee. Working Paper 2005/W/05. Maastricht: EIPA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumbrell, J. (2009). The US–UK special relationship: Taking the 21st-century temperature. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 11(1), 68–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esterle, A. (2005). National and European information security policies. In B. Schmitt (Ed.), Information security: A new challenge for the EU. Chaillot Paper No. 76. Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU Observer (2001a, September 19). EU-US meeting to focus on anti-terrorism. EU Observer. At https://euobserver.com/news/3508. Accessed 20 Sept 2001.

  • EU Observer (2001b, December 7). Europol-US accord excludes personal data exchange. EU Observer. At https://euobserver.com/news/4467. Accessed 9 Dec 2001.

  • European Commission (2010a, September 21). Communication from the commission on the global approach to transfers of passenger name record (PNR) data to third countries, doc. COM(2010) 492 final, Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament (2006). Resolution on the interception of bank transfer data from the SWIFT system by the US secret services (P6_TA-PROV(2006)0317). At http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/res_060706/res_060706en.pdf. Accessed 26 June 2012.

  • European Union (1992, July 29). Treaty on the European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 191.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union (2003). Agreement between the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on the security of information. Official Journal of the European Union, L 80, 27 March.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union (2007). Agreement between the European Union and the government of the United States of America on the security of classified information. Official Journal of the European Union, L 115, 3 May.

    Google Scholar 

  • Europol (2015b). SIENA At https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/page/siena-1849. Accessed 14 Mar 2015.

  • Fahey, E. (2014). Towards a transatlantic community of law? The use of law between the EU and US legal orders: Questions of legal form and characterisation. In E. Fahey & D. Curtin (Eds.), A transatlantic community of law: Legal perspectives on the relationship between the EU and US legal orders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, M. T., & Flynn, Ch. A. (2012). Integrating intelligence and information: Ten points for the commander. Military Review, XCII(1), 4–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, L. (1998). The revolution in strategic affairs. Adelphi Paper, 38(318), 5−10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebhard, C., & Smith, S. J. (2015). The two faces of EU–NATO cooperation: Counter-piracy operations off the Somali coast. Cooperation and Conflict, 50(1), 107–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgopoulos, T. (2005). What kind of treaty making power for the EU? Constitutional problems related to the conclusion of the EU-US agreements on extradition and mutual legal assistance. European Law Review, 30(2), 198–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg, R. H., & Penksa, S. A. (2012). The European Union in global security. The politics of impact. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goldfarb, R. (Ed.). (2015). After Snowden. Privacy, secrecy, and security in the information age. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, G. (2014). No place to hide. Edward Snowden, the NSA and the surveillance state. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurnow, M. (2014). The Edward Snowden affair. Exposing the politics and media behind the NSA Scandal. Indianapolis: Blue River Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D. (2003). Three strategic challenges for a global transatlantic partnership. European Foreign Affairs Review, 8(4), 543–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, L. (2014). The Snowden files. The inside story of the world’s most wanted man. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heisbourg, F. (2000). European defence: Making it work. Chaillot Paper no. 42. Paris: Institute for Security Studies of WEU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbing, P. (2010). Tracing terrorists. The European Union–Canada agreement on passenger name record (PNR) matters. In M. B. Salter (Ed.), Mapping transatlantic security relations. The EU, Canada, and the war on terror. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • IMPETUS (2009). EUFOR ALTHEA. Successful contribution to stabilisation. Impetus. Bulletin of the EU Military Staff, 7, 21–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ischinger, W. (2004). Fighting Terrorism – International Cooperation as a Strategy of Prevention. IHS Journal of Homeland Security, April, 22−30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, M.T. (2005b). Britain and Transatlantic Security: Negotiating Two Bridges Far Apart. In T. Lansford & B. Tashev (Eds.), Old Europe, new Europe and the US: renegotiating transatlantic security in the post 9/11 era. Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kammel, A., & Zyla, B. (2011). Looking for a ‘Berlin-Plus in reverse’? NATO in search of a new strategic concept. Orbis, 55(4), 648–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kierkegaard, S. (2011). US war on terror EU SWIFT(ly) signs blank cheque on EU data. Computer Law & Security Review, 27(5), 451–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koutrakos, P. (2015). EU international relations law (2nd ed.). London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krieger, W. (2011). German–American intelligence relations, 1945–1956: New evidence on the origins of the BND. Diplomacy and Statecraft, 22(1), 28–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LCI (2005, July 4). Antiterrorisme—Nom de code: Alliance Base. LCI.fr. At http://tf1.lci.fr/infos/france/2005/0,,3229765,00-nom-code-alliance-base-.html. Accessed 2 Sept 2008.

  • Le Monde (2006, September 13). La France abrite une cellule antiterroriste secrète en plein Paris. Le Monde. At http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3224,36-812394@51-812238,0.html. Accessed 15 Sept 2006.

  • Lindley-French, J. (2002). Terms of engagement. The paradox of American power and the transatlantic dilemma post-11 September. Chaillot Paper no. 52. Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindstrom, G. (2003). Terrorism: European myths and realities. In G. Lindstrom (Ed.), Shift or rift. Assessing EU-US relations after Iraq. Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindstrom, G. (2006). The EU’s approach to homeland security: Balancing safety and European ideals. In E. Brimmer (Ed.), Transforming homeland security: U.S. and European approaches. Washington, DC: Center for Transatlantic Relations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matlary, J. H. (2009). European Union security dynamics in the new national interest. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Miko, F. T., & Froehlich, Ch. (2004). Germany’s role in fighting terrorism: Implications for U.S. policy. CRS Report for Congress, RL32710. At http://fas.org/irp/crs/RL32710.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2014.

  • Mitsilegas, V. (2003). The new EU–USA cooperation on extradition, mutual legal assistance and the exchange of police data. European Foreign Affairs Review, 8(4), 515–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monar, J. (2010). The rejection of the EU-US SWIFT interim agreement by the European Parliament: A historic vote and its implications. European Foreign Affairs Review, 15(2), 143–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monar, J. (2011). The outcomes of the external dimension of the AFSJ. Forms, effectiveness, prospects and specificity. In M. Cremona, J. Monar, & S. Poli (Eds.), The external dimension of the European Union’s area of freedom, security and justice. Brussels: P.I.E. Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monet, J.-C. (1993). Polices et sociétés en Europe. Paris: La Documentation française.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, C. C. (2012). EU counter-terrorism law: Pre-emption and the rule of law. London: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naftali, T. (2004). Berlin to Baghdad: The pitfalls of hiring enemy intelligence. Foreign Affairs, 83(4), 126–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NIEUWS Bank (2005, November 7). US Secret Service and Europol partners in fighting organised crime. At http://www.nieuwsbank.nl/en/2005/11/07/R038.htm. Accessed 11 Nov 2005.

  • Norheim-Martinsen, P. M. (2010). Managing the civil-military interface in the EU: Creating an organisation fit for purpose. In S. Vanhoonacker, H. Dijkstra, & H. Maurer (Eds.), Understanding the role of bureaucracy in the European security and defence policy. European Integration Online Papers (EIoP), 14(1). At http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2010-010a.htm. Accessed 19 Sept 2014.

  • Papakonstantinou, V., & De Hert, P. (2009). The PNR agreement and transatlantic anti-terrorism cooperation: No firm human rights framework on either side of the Atlantic. Common Market Law Review, 46(3), 885–919.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauly, R. J., Jr. (2005). French security agenda in the post-9/11 world. In T. Lansford & B. Tashev (Eds.), Old Europe, new Europe and the US: Renegotiating transatlantic security in the post 9/11 era. Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pawlak, P. (2009). Network politics in transatlantic homeland security cooperation. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 10(4), 560–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pawlak, P. (2010a). Transatlantic homeland security cooperation: The promise of new modes of governance in global affairs. Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 8(2), 139–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pawlak, P. (2010b). Made in the USA? The impact of transatlantic networks on the European Union’s data protection regime. In M. B. Salter (Ed.), Mapping transatlantic security relations. The EU, Canada, and the war on terror. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pop, V. (2010, June 25). Breakthrough in EU-US data sharing deal. EU Observer. At http://euobserver.com/22/30363?print=1. Accessed 26 June 2010.

  • Rees, W. (2006). Transatlantic counter-terrorism cooperation. The new imperative. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees, W. (2011). EU-US cooperation on counter-terrorism and the internationalisation of law enforcement. In M. Cremona, J. Monar, & S. Poli (Eds.), The external dimension of the European Union’s area of freedom, security and justice. Brussels: P.I.E. Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richelson, J. T., & Ball, D. (1985). The ties that bind: Intelligence cooperation between the UKUSA countries, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. New York: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripoll Servent, A., & Mackenzie, A. (2012). The European Parliament as a ‘norm taker’? EU-US relations after the SWIFT agreement. European Foreign Affairs Review, 17(2), 71–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, A. (2003). Entangling alliances: NATO’s security of information policy and the entrenchment of state secrecy. Cornell International Law Journal, 36(2), 332–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salter, M. B. (2010). The North Atlantic field of aviation security. In M. B. Salter (Ed.), Mapping transatlantic security relations. The EU, Canada, and the war on terror. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santamato, S., & Beumler, M.-T. (2015). The new NATO policy guidelines on counterterrorism. Analysis, assessment, and actions. In Y. Alexander & R. Prosen (Eds.), NATO: From regional to global security provider. Lanham/London: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simón, L. (2010). Command and control? Planning for EU military operations. Occasional Paper no. 81. Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S.J. (2013). The European Union and NATO. Beyond Berlin Plus: the institutionalisation of informal cooperation. A Doctoral Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy of Loughborough University, 23 April 2013. At https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/14341. Accessed 19 Sep 2014.

  • Spiegel (2014, June 18). Spying together. Germany’s Deep Cooperation with the NSA. Spiegel Online. At http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-german-bnd-and-american-nsa-cooperate-more-closely-than-thought-a-975445-druck.html. Accessed 20 June 2014.

  • Stafford, D., & Jeffreys-Jones, R. (2000). American-British-Canadian intelligence relations 1939–2000. London/Portland: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statewatch (2009, March 24). G6 Meeting (Berlin). Home Department. Written answers and statements. At http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/sep/g6-meetings-hoc-answer.pdf. Accessed Oct 30, 2009.

  • Suda, Y. (2013). Transatlantic politics of data transfer: Extraterritoriality, counter-extraterritoriality and counter-terrorism. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(4), 772–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svendsen, A. D. M. (2008a). The globalization of intelligence since 9/11: Frameworks and operational parameters. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21(1), 129–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svendsen, A. D. M. (2010). Intelligence cooperation and the war on terror. Anglo-American security relations after 9/11. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • SWIFT (2012). SWIFT Safe Harbor Policy. At http://www.swift.com/about_swift/legal/compliance/data_protection_policies/swift_safe_harbor_policy.page. Accessed 28 June 2012.

  • Tardy, T. (2015). CSDP in action—What contribution to international security?. Chaillot Paper no. 134. Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trifunovic, D. (2014). European intelligence cooperation and the Balkan states. Journal of Mediterranean and Balkan Intelligence, 4(2), 29–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermaat, E. (2007, October 8). Homegrown terrorism in Germany: The case of Christian Ganczarski. Militant Islam Monitor. At http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3204. Accessed 19 Sept 2008.

  • White House (2001, September 20). The White House Press Statement, Washington, DC. At http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/sept_11.htm. Accessed 8 Jan 2002.

  • Zaiotti, R. (2012). Practising homeland security across the Atlantic: Practical learning and policy convergence in Europe and North America. European Security, 21(3), 328–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland

    Artur Gruszczak

Authors
  1. Artur Gruszczak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gruszczak, A. (2016). External Dimensions of EU Intelligence Cooperation. In: Intelligence Security in the European Union. New Security Challenges. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-45512-3_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation