The European Union as a Global Counter-Terrorism Actor is the third book in a series on “European Security and Justice Critiques” written by Christian Kauner, Alex MacKenzie, and Sarah Leonard. The book consists of an introduction and seven chapters. This book claims to contribute to the academic literature in two ways, one of which is namely the topic of EU counter-terrorism and the other is EU integration and actorness (p. 13). The book analyses the EU’s collective securitization of terrorism after September 11 through a model improved by Sperling and Webber (p. 13). Furthermore, a version of Brattberg and Rhinards’ actorness criteria –context, coherence, and capability– is applied referring to the “actor” term in the title of the book. In the following chapters, counter-terrorism in Transatlantic, South Asian, Iraqi and Syrian relationships are examined. This study is not only primarily relevant to students, but also to academics in the field of law, politics, international relations, sociology, and history.
This study reveals how much the EU has developed as a counter-terrorism actor since 9/11 and examines the reasons for this growth. The explanations are based on many theories of international relations, from realism to liberalism, and help in discussing and understanding the subject at the conceptual level. This ensures that the reader gains a deep and lasting understanding of the subject.
The introduction starts at the theoretical plane and then moves to the empirical. The legal journey of the EU counter-terrorism chronology is clearly laid out. Developments and references are connected to each other and they are appropriate, allowing the reader to understand the arguments put forward in the book. However, some determinations such as the EU’s heavy engagement with the U.S. and lack of a common threat perception by member states jeopardize the arguments of the book.
Two main stages of chapter one are worth mentioning. The first one analyses the EU involvement in the area of counter-terrorism by asking how and why. The collective securitization framework is the tool for determining the situation. The second stage assesses the EU as a counter-terrorism actor on the global stage simply using the actorness analytical framework. A significant point made in this chapter is the EU’s lack of counter-terrorism policy until 9/11. More information on member states’ pre-9/11 policies would be a better reference for comparing EU counter-terrorism efforts. That the concept of collective securitization, which has 6 stages, is reduced to 5 by the writers of this book is a daring action. The securitizing move and the response of the audience are combined, but these actions do not happen at the same time. So, combining these stages leads to a misjudgement the situations.
EU counter-terrorism efforts are displayed in a well-designed cascade of chronology. One way or another counter-terrorism effort of the EU are proved, but it is hard to say the same for the EU integration and actorness. Apart from the theoretical plane, the actorness of the EU has yet to be proven; it can more accurately be called co-actorness. The claim an criticism of the influence of the U.S. on EU counter-terrorism policies are important allegations of the book (p. 128).
Can the EU become a global counter-terrorism actor in the shadow of its member states insufficient capabilities? This is the core question of this book. It is a controversial claim that a regional organization is a global actor despite the lack of capacity of its constituent members. Ideally, states or organizations that claim to be global actors, in the fight against terrorism, should also have deterrence supported by their military power.
It would be appropriate to provide more arguments to support the book’s claim that the EU is a global actor in the fight against terrorism. The cooperation limited to South Asia and the Middle East is not enough to prove the claim of the book. That the global struggle should not be just South Asia and the Middle East is what one should perceive from the content. Mentioning counter-terrorism efforts with the rest of the world supports the book’s claim.
The allegation of a common terrorism definition in the book (p. 4) (Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA) is not totally true, because the decision avoids giving an inclusive general definition and gives examples of what constitutes terrorism. What would be the reaction in the event that any example apart from these is encountered? In particular, the different decisions that will result from the differences in the domestic law of the member states will prevent the formation of a common policy. Also, the unwillingness of the member states that are not exposed to terrorism to participate in common policies is one of the biggest obstacles to the EU in becoming a global power in the fight against terrorism.
That missing part of the book is internal terrorism, which arises from member states and threatens other parts of the world. On behalf of human rights, freedom of speech, etc. member states cannot ignore the security concerns of other states.
Sharing of the EU’s actorness in counter-terrorism with the member states is an appropriate comment as the EU’s lack of political influence when compared with some member states is a well-known common statement. It is not surprising that some member states go beyond the limits of the EU policies. Britain, which was an important member of the EU in the fight against terrorism, is a great loss to the EU’s claim to be a global actor after Brexit. In this context, examining the EU’s post-Brexit counter-terrorism efforts would make a better contribution to the literature. Another explanation regarding the effectiveness of the EU in maintaining the general order in conflicts in the lack of military power determines the EU’s position as it should be. In fact, the subject of the book is entirely about the security of the EU and the U.S. as well. All the measures taken by the EU in the axis of the U.S. are to secure Europe more and more. In view of this, efforts such as cooperation with the U.S., having agreements with third parties (Middle East and South Asia), and humanitarian aid to those who are eligible to create terrorism are aimed to ensure the security of Europe. As a result of these determinations, this book is written with a vision of European needs, without dealing with other parts of the world’s security concerns.
After all the determinations mentioned, the book meets most of the arguments mentioned in the title, except the EU actorness. Lack of military power in action, unwillingness of some member states, loss of the most powerful member in counter-terrorism (UK) and close engagement with the U.S. make the EU a co-actor more than an actor in counter-terrorism. It should be admitted that the arguments in the book are put forward in a cascade of logic, the chapters are well connected to each other and the theoretical plane is well analyzed. An important plus for the non-field reader is that descriptive summary information is provided where the concepts are complicated. The book is a useful source for scholars, students, and especially field researchers.
