In May 2018, the new Dutch Intelligence and Security Services Act 2017 (Wet op de Inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten, Wiv) will enter into force. It replaces the previous 2002 Act and incorporates many reforms to the information gathering powers of the two intelligence and security services as well as to the accountability and oversight mechanisms. Due to the technologyneutral approach, both the civil and the military intelligence services are now authorized to, for example, intercept communications in bulk, hack third parties, decrypt files, store DNA or use any other future innovative technology. Also, the national security legislation extends the possibilities for the indiscriminate collection of data, and for the processing, storage and analysis thereof. The process leading to the law includes substantial criticism from the various stakeholders involved. Upon publication of this report, an official consultative referendum is being organized on the new act. The aim of this policy brief is to provide an international audience with a comprehensive overview of the most relevant aspects of the act and its context. In addition, there is considerable focus on the checks and balances as well as the bottlenecks of the Dutch intelligence gathering reform. The selection of topics is based on the core issues addressed during the parliamentary debate and on the authors’ insights.
Dit artikel stelt dat beleidsverandering binnen de Europese Unie (EU) ook voortkomt uit besluitvorming op dagelijks niveau. Om veranderingen aan te kunnen wijzen en te verklaren dient de traditionele rationele keuzetheorie en de oriëntatie op instrumenteel-strategisch handelen te worden aangevuld met een constructivistische zienswijze op discours als bron van verandering. Met de inzichten van constructivisten en communicatiewetenschappers wordt in dit artikel gekeken naar de voorwaarden en het zich voordoen van deliberatie als discursief proces dat beleidsverandering op dagelijks niveau bevordert. In dat verband is onderzoek verricht naar een tweetal besluitvormingsprocessen op het gebied van EU-justitiesamenwerking. De ene betreft een casestudie omtrent de onderhandelingen over de totstandkoming van het Europees Bewijsverkrijgingsbevel van 2008. De ander gaat over de onderhandelingen over een Raadsbesluit betreffende de toegang van politie tot het Visa Informatie Systeem. Uit beide casestudies blijkt dat onder bepaalde omstandigheden deliberatie uitmondend in beleidsverandering zich feitelijk heeft voorgedaan. ABSTRACT This paper argues that, in addition to the practice of strategic bargaining, one may very well find in the day-to-day running of the EU decision-making instances where changes in policy outcome result from occurrences of deliberation. Occurrences have indeed been signalled in both the 'EEW' and 'VIS' cases where negotiating parties engaged in reasoned exchanges of views that resulted in position shifts and even agreements on certain issues. Analysis of both cases demonstrates that in settings where the conditions of 'insulation','intensity' or 'access of non-state actors' were prominently present, deliberation and ensuing progress towards a more reasoned understanding of the issue concerned was more likely to occur. Furthermore, a certain detachment from technical detail, yet sufficient proximity to subject matter, absence of agenda constraints and small-group dynamics made it more likely that discussants were inclined to engage in more open-minded exchanges of views based on reason and argument. On balance, clearly identifiable occurrences of deliberation-promoting progress in decisionmaking have been found in the institutionally quite diversified and multifaceted environment of the EU. They can certainly be regarded as representative of other decision-making processes operating under similar conditions, processes of which the institutionally dense EU is particularly rich. In a way, the occurrences of deliberation identified constitute a path of progressive understanding that is bound to extend beyond the temporal boundaries of a specific decision-making procedure. Reasoned understandings on certain issues achieved in either the EEW or VIS process were likely to provide a fertile basis on which further reasoned discussion can evolve into other, future decision-making processes. As such the deliberative instances found in the EEW and the VIS cases are of all periods, including the post-Lisbon period, and should be examined as alternative sources of policy change in the EU, irrespective of the timeframe.
This article focuses on the recent judgment of the Court of Justice, Aranyosi and Caldararu. After conducting a legal analysis on this case, three issues are identified and they are separately discussed in three sections. The aim of this paper is to show the impact of this judgment on public order and public security in Europe on the one hand and on the individual’s fundamental rights, on the other hand. It is going to be argued that even though there are limits to the principle of mutual recognition, this new exception based on fundamental rights establishes a new procedure for non-surrender. Therefore, the Court of Justice creates a non-execution ground which the EU legislator did not intend to include in the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant. This is explained by looking at the three interconnected notions of Freedom, Security and Justice.
