Julien Jeandesboz

Questioning security devices: Performativity, resistance, politics

Algorithms, biometrics and body scanners, computers and databases, infrastructures of various kinds, ranging from what is commonly referred to as ‘hi-tech’ to ‘low-tech’ items such as walls or paper files, have garnered increased attention in critical approaches to (in)security. This article introduces a special issue whose contributions aim to further these approaches by questioning the role and political effects of security devices. It proposes an analytics of devices to examine the configuration and reconfiguration of security practices by attending to the equipment or instrumentation that make these practices possible and temporally stabilize them. The aim here is not to advance devices as a new unit of analysis, but to open new forays in ongoing debates about security politics and practices, by asking different research questions and developing new research angles. We start by outlining what is at stake when thinking of and analysing security practices through devices, or shifting from the language of technology and ‘technologies of security’ to security devices. The remainder of the article then specifies how an analytics of devices involves a more varied vocabulary of performativity, on the one hand, and agency, on the other.

Crisis, routine, consolidation: the politics of the Mediterranean migration crisis

Abstract The current ‘migration crisis’ is framed as a moment of reckoning in the EU’s dealings with its Mediterranean neighbourhood. Yet to what extent is crisis the most useful tool to account for migration and European border control practices in the current context? An exclusive focus on crisis, we argue, is misleading. To a large extent, the current crisis management builds on pre-existing practices and enables their consolidation. For us this is an invitation to discuss the relation between crisis, routine and consolidation in Euro-Mediterranean migration policies and practices. This intervention shows how ‘crises’ are spatio-temporally limited and used to further pre-existing migration control practices and techniques of governing. As such we interrogate what it means to talk of crisis versus routine in the field of Mediterranean security practices.

Smartening border security in the European Union: An associational inquiry

This contribution asks how the reliance on mass dataveillance of travellers is sustained as a central policy option in the governance of EU border security. It examines this question by analysing a recent initiative of the European Commission proposing the establishment of EU ‘smart borders’. The analysis draws from a set of thinking tools developed by the sociology of association in the field of science and technology studies. The contribution argues that in order to grasp policy outcomes such as smart borders, security studies would benefit from adopting a compositional outlook on agency, where action is seen as the effect of associated entities. Looking at the smartening of EU borders, the article finds that this process is held together by multiple translations and enrolments through which the technical side of dataveillance – platforms, automated gates, matching systems, and so forth – has become associated with the processes of policymaking on border security and sustains the furtherance of mass dataveillance.

Intervention and Subversion: The EU Border Assistance Mission to Moldova and Ukraine

By way of an inquiry into the European Unions border assistance mission to Moldova and Ukraine (EUBAM), this paper articulates two moves. Firstly, deploying intervention to study the relations of the European Union with its self-designated neighbours is heuristically relevant because such a move draws attention to the deployment of a patronizing rationale towards ‘intervened populations’. This is captured in the paper by the notion of tutelage. Secondly, analyses in terms of intervention remain unsatisfying in how they account for the linkage between the planning and ‘programming’ of intervention and its effects. While they work with the idea that intervention like any other practice of rule is a perpetually failing activity, they have yet to articulate this observation analytically. This paper advances the discussion by arguing that the notion of subversion may provide such an articulation.

National Programmes for Mass Surveillance of Personal Data in EU Member States and their Compatibility with EU Law

In the wake of the disclosures surrounding PRISM and other US surveillance programmes, this study makes an assessment of the large-scale surveillance practices by a selection of EU member states: the UK, Sweden, France, Germany and the Netherlands. Given the large-scale nature of surveillance practices at stake, which represent a reconfiguration of traditional intelligence gathering, the study contends that an analysis of European surveillance programmes cannot be reduced to a question of balance between data protection versus national security, but has to be framed in terms of collective freedoms and democracy. It finds that four of the five EU member states selected for in-depth examination are engaging in some form of large-scale interception and surveillance of communication data, and identifies parallels and discrepancies between these programmes and the NSA-run operations. The study argues that these surveillance programmes do not stand outside the realm of EU intervention but can be engaged from an EU law perspective via (i) an understanding of national security in a democratic rule of law framework where fundamental human rights standards and judicial oversight constitute key standards; (ii) the risks presented to the internal security of the Union as a whole as well as the privacy of EU citizens as data owners, and (iii) the potential spillover into the activities and responsibilities of EU agencies. The study then presents a set of policy recommendations to the European Parliament.

Europe, Knowledge, Politics — Engaging with the Limits: The c.a.s.e. collective Responds

HAVING ONE’S WORK closely read and critically debated is a rare pleasure. It was thus with great joy that we saw that our collective article ‘Critical Approaches to Security in Europe: A Networked Manifesto’ (c.a.s.e. collective, 2006) provoked several thoughtful responses to the theoretical premises of the manifesto and its intellectual and political ramifications. The replies to the manifesto created a new space of selfinterrogation in which the c.a.s.e. collective grappled with some of the limits that our critics addressed. Before we address some of these more directly, it may be useful to restate the original objective of the collective manifesto. First, the authors that were part of the collective had a desire to push critical innovations in security studies beyond the framing of critical security studies in terms of schools. The aim of working and writing as a collective, as a network of scholars who do not agree on everything yet share a common perspective, was based on a desire to break with the competitive dynamics of individualist research agendas. Alluding to the emancipatory connotations of the word ‘manifesto’, the aim of the article was to carve out and open up an intellectual space for critical thinking – both in the disciplinary sense of formulating an alternative space to mainstream security studies and in the political sense of thinking through the ethico-political implications of security and securitizationHAVING ONE’S WORK closely read and critically debated is a rare pleasure. It was thus with great joy that we saw that our collective article ‘Critical Approaches to Security in Europe: A Networked Manifesto’ (c.a.s.e. collective, 2006) provoked several thoughtful responses to the theoretical premises of the manifesto and its intellectual and political ramifications. The replies to the manifesto created a new space of selfinterrogation in which the c.a.s.e. collective grappled with some of the limits that our critics addressed. Before we address some of these more directly, it may be useful to restate the original objective of the collective manifesto. First, the authors that were part of the collective had a desire to push critical innovations in security studies beyond the framing of critical security studies in terms of schools. The aim of working and writing as a collective, as a network of scholars who do not agree on everything yet share a common perspective, was based on a desire to break with the competitive dynamics of individualist research agendas. Alluding to the emancipatory connotations of the word ‘manifesto’,1 the aim of the article was to carve out and open up an intellectual space for critical thinking – both in the disciplinary sense of formulating an alternative space to mainstream security studies and in the political sense of thinking through the ethico-political implications of security and securitization. If, in this sense, the article can be read as a manifesto (with, we should note, the important prefix ‘networked’), we did not assert, as Andreas Behnke Rejoinder

Review of Security Measures in the 7th Research Framework Programme FP7 2007-2013

Upon request by the LIBE Committee, this study analyses how the public-private dialogue has been framed and shaped and examines the priorities set up in calls and projects that have received funding from the European Commission under the security theme of the 7th Research Framework Programme (FP7 20072013). In particular, this study addresses two main questions: to what extent is security research placed at the service of citizens? To what extent does it contribute to the development of a single area of fundamental rights and freedoms? The study finds that security research has only partly addressed the concerns of EU citizens and that security research has been mainly put at the service of industry rather than society.

The Commission’s legislative proposals on Smart Borders: their feasibility and costs

This study examines the technical feasibility and financial soundness of the Commission legislative proposals to establish a EU Entry/Exit System (EES) and EU Registered Traveller Programme (RTP) for the external borders of the Union. It puts the impact assessment documents accompanying the proposals in comparative perspectives with likeminded initiatives in third countries (USVIST), at the national level in the EU (UK border checks and e-Borders), and with past European initiatives (SIS II, VIS). It finds that it is not reasonable to consider that the measures envisaged in the smart borders package are technically feasible and financially sounds, and formulates recommendations to the LIBE Committee and the European Parliament in this regard.

Politics and 'the digital': From singularity to specificity

The relationship between politics and the digital has largely been characterized as one of epochal change. The respective theories understand the digital as external to politics and society, as an autonomous driver for global, unilateral transformation. Rather than supporting such singular accounts of the relationship between politics and the digital, this article argues for its specificity: the digital is best examined in terms of folds within existing socio-technical configurations, and as an artefact with a set of affordances that are shaped and filled with meaning by social practice. In conceptualizing the digital as numeric, countable, computable, material, storable, searchable, transferable, networkable and traceable, fabricated and interpreted, it becomes clear that the digital cannot be divorced from the social. These affordances of the digital are discussed in relation to specific political, digital practices that are further developed in the different contributions in this special issue, such as predictive policing (Aradau and Blanke, this issue), data protection (Bellanova, this issue), extremist recruitment videos (Leander, this issue), political acclamation (Dean, this issue), and pandemic simulations (Opitz, this issue).

Justifying Control: EU Border Security and the Shifting Boundaries of Political Arrangement

In recent years, EU border control activities have experienced a double condition of being constantly on trial and perpetually under scrutiny. Controversies unfold over the costs, feasibility and priorities of border control, the necessity and proportionality of existing, planned or proposed measures, the deadliness and challenges to fundamental rights and freedoms of border control practices. A constant flow of opinions, impact assessments, feasibility studies, activity reports and hearings address concerns related to budgetary discipline, practicality, political opportunity or fit with the core principles and values of the spirit and letter of EU law. While it is always possible to engage with these controversies by adopting an evaluative gaze, that is assessing the extent to which measures, initiatives or plans are reliably assessed and/or live up to their expected outcomes, this chapter argues that much can be gained by examining this double condition in terms of justification. Asking how, rather than whether, a given measure is justified shifts the discussion on EU borders and security more generally in two ways. First, it highlights the political work that mundane and proliferating policy practices such as impact assessments or feasibility studies do. It draws attention to the efforts put into building equivalence between a specific measure and broader practical repertoires of justification and legitimacy. Second, thinking with justification highlights the ways in which EU border control is not only about adopting the ‘right’ measure—the efficient, proportionate or acceptable measure—but also involves shifting the boundaries of what is considered justifiable.