From Window-dressing to Windows of Opportunity: Civil Society Actors in the EU Security Regime—The Case of DG HOME

  • Georgios Kolliarakis
Part of the International Series on Public Policy book series (ISPP)


This chapter explores enabling and constraining conditions for CSO engagement in the EU Security Research Programme (ESRP). Security policy and, by default, research are contentious public policy fields, not easily accessible to CSOs, despite controversies regarding the effectiveness, accountability, and compliance with fundamental rights of counter-terrorism and crisis management practices in Europe. CSOs have the potential to better ground ESRP in societal realities, making it more responsive and responsible. First, the chapter documents the goal ambiguity of the institutional background; second, it lays out dominant and alternative framings of technology and innovation; third, it examines the weak position of CSOs within the stakeholder ecology of the ESRP. The chapter identifies a series of developments which are currently conducive to opening a window of opportunity for CSOs.


Civil Society Security Policy Security Technology Security Research European Security 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ackrill, R., Kay, A. & Zahariadis, N. (2013). Ambiguity, multiple streams and EU policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(6), 871–887.Google Scholar
  2. Brodersen, S., Dorland, J., & Jørgensen, M. S. (Eds.). (2014). An innovative civil society: Impact through co-creation and participation. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  3. Bureau of European Policy Advisers/European Commission (BEPA). (2011). Empowering people, driving change: Social innovation in the European Union. Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  4. Council of Europe. (2016). Freedom vs control: For a democratic response. World Forum for Democracy 2015 Final Report. Retrieved February 10, 2016, from
  5. Daviter, F. (2011). Policy framing in the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Edler, J., & James, A. D. (2015). Understanding the emergence of new science and technology policies: Policy entrepreneurship, agenda setting and the development of the European framework programme. Research Policy, 44(6), 1252–1265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eriksen, E. O. (2011). Governance between expertise and democracy: The case of European security. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(8), 1169–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. European Commission (EC). (1999). Opinion of the economic and social committee on the role and contribution of civil society organisations in the building of Europe. Brussels. CES 851/99 D/GW.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission (EC). (2004). On the implementation of the preparatory action on the enhancement of the European industrial potential in the field of security research: Towards a programme to advance European security through research and technology. Brussels, 3.2.2004. COM(2004) 72 final.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission (EC). (2009). A European security research and innovation agenda—Commission’s initial position on ESRIF’s key findings and recommendations. Brussels. COM(2009) 691 final.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission (EC). (2011). Impact assessment accompanying the communication from the Commission ‘Horizon 2020—The framework programme for research and innovation’. Brussels. SEC(2011) 1427 final.Google Scholar
  12. European Commission (EC). (2012a). Security industrial policy. Action plan for an innovative and competitive security industry. Brussels, 26/7/2012. COM(2012) 417 final.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission (EC). (2012b). The roots of democracy and sustainable development. Europe’s engagement with civil society in external relations. Brussels, 12/9/2012. COM(2012) 492 final.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission (EC). (2012c). Ethical and regulatory challenges to science and research policy at the global level. Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  15. European Commission (EC). (2012d). Report of the Societal Impact Expert Working Group. DG ENTR Report, February 2012, Brussels.Google Scholar
  16. European Commission (EC). (2013a). EU research for a secure society. Brussels.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission (EC). (2013b). Developing an indicator of innovation output. Brussels, SWD(2013) 325 final.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission (EC). (2014). Revision of the European Commission impact assessment guidelines. Public Consultation Document. Brussels.Google Scholar
  19. European Commission (EC). (2015a). Ex-post evaluation of the fp7 security research programme. Brussels.Google Scholar
  20. European Commission (EC). (2015b). The European agenda on security. COM(2015) 185 final. Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  21. European Council. (2003). A secure Europe in a better world—European security strategy. Brussels.Google Scholar
  22. European Council. (2008). Report on the implementation of the European security strategy—Providing security in a changing world. Brussels.Google Scholar
  23. European Council. (2010a). Internal security strategy for the European Union. Towards a European security model. Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  24. European Council. (2010b). The Stockholm programmeAn open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens. Brussels.Google Scholar
  25. European Council. (2012). Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing Horizon 2020. Brussels. File 2011/0401.Google Scholar
  26. European Parliament (EP). (2010). Review of security measures in the research framework programme. Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Brussels.Google Scholar
  27. European Parliament (EP). (2014). Review of security measures in the 7th research framework programme FP7 2007–2013. Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Brussels.Google Scholar
  28. European Science Foundation (ESF). (2013). Science in society: Caring for our futures in turbulent times. Science Policy Briefing 50, Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  29. European Science Fundation (ESF). (2015). The future of security research in the social sciences and humanities. Standing Committee for the Humanities Discussion Paper. Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  30. Ferretti, M. P., & Pavone, V. (2009). What do civil society organisations expect from participation in science? Lessons from Germany and Spain on the Issue of GMOs, Science and Public Policy, 36, 287–299.Google Scholar
  31. Fondation Sciences Citoyennes. (2009). Participation of civil society organisations in research. STACS Report Science, Technology and Civil Society, Paris.Google Scholar
  32. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1990). Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gibbons, M. et al. (Eds.). (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Jasanoff, S. (2009). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. In D. M. Kaplan (Ed.), Readings in the philosophy of technology (pp. 570–583). MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  35. Jobert, B., & Kohler-Koch, B. (2008). Changing images of civil society: From protest to governance. Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Kohler-Koch, B. et al. (Eds.). (2013). De-mystification of participatory democracy: EU governance and civil society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kolliarakis, G. (2013a). Der Umgang mit Ungewissheit in der Politik Ziviler Sicherheit (Coping with uncertainty in civil security research). In S. Jeschke, et al. (Eds.), Exploring Uncertainty. Ungewissheit und Unsicherheit im interdisziplinären Diskurs (Uncertainty and insecurity in interdisciplinary discourse) (pp. 313–332). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Kolliarakis, G. (2013b). Resilience as an innovation policy objective: Blind spots and untapped potential for security research. In M. Lauster (Ed.), 8th future security research conference—Proceedings (pp. 107–116). Stuttgart: Fraunhofer VVS.Google Scholar
  39. Kolliarakis, G. (2014a). Of wolves and sheep: CSO participation as a responsible research and innovation mechanism in European Security Research. In S. Brodersen, J. Dorland, & M. S. Jørgensen (Eds.), An innovative civil society: Impact through co-creation and participation. 6th Living Knowledge Conference, 274–296. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  40. Kolliarakis, G. (2014b). Sicherheitsforschung und ihre Schnittstelle zur Sicherheitspolitik: Intendierte und nicht-intendierte Konsequenzen der Wissenschaftsförderung (Security Research and its Interface with Security Policy). In C. Daase et al. (Eds.), Politik und Unsicherheit (Poltics and insecurity). Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
  41. Kolliarakis, G. (2016). ‘Acceptance’ and ‘acceptability’ of security-related technologies. SecurePART Policy Brief #2. Retrieved February 10, 2016, from
  42. Kolliarakis, G. (2016a). In quest of reflexivity: Towards an anticipatory governance regime for security. In M. Friedewald, et al. (Eds.), Discourses of privacy and security. Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Liberatore, A., & Funtowicz, S. (Eds.). (2003). Introduction to the special issue “democratising” expertise, “expertising” democracy: What does this mean, and why bother? Science and Public Policy, 30(1): 146–150.Google Scholar
  44. Marchetti, R. (2015). The conditions for civil society participation in international decision making. In D. Della Porta & M. Diani (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social movements (pp. 753–766). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Monitoring Activities of Science in Society/European Commission (MASIS). (2009). Challenging futures of science in societyEmerging trends and cutting-edge issues. Report of the MASIS Expert Group, Brussels.Google Scholar
  46. Nowotny, H. et al. (Eds.). (2001). Rethinking science: Knowledge in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  47. Rainey, H. G., & Jung, C. S. (2015). A conceptual framework for analysis of goal ambiguity in public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 71–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ritchey, T. (2011). Wicked problemsSocial messes. Decision Support Modelling with Morphological Analysis. Berlin.Google Scholar
  49. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Planning, 4, 155–169.Google Scholar
  50. Ruzza, C. (2007). Europe and civil society: Movement coalitions and European governance. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Statewatch. (2009). NeoConOpticon: The EU security-industrial complex. London. Retrieved February 10, 2016, from
  52. Steffek, J., Kissling, C., & Nanz, P. (Eds.). (2007). Civil society participation in European and Global governance. A cure for the democratic deficit? Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  53. Zahariadis, N. (2008). Ambiguity and choice in European public policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(4), 514–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zahariadis, N. (2013). Building better theoretical frameworks to the European Union’s policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(6), 807–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georgios Kolliarakis
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Political Science & Cluster of ExcellenceGoethe UniversityFrankfurtGermany

Personalised recommendations