Transnational Police Cooperation in Europe - Research Paper Example

Transnational Police Cooperation in Europe Introduction Crimes, in particular transnational crimes, are escalating in scope and rapidly becoming a transnational phenomenon. This makes it difficult for national security forces to prosper in dealing with this rising threat by solely relying on their own resources. For that reason, law enforcement agencies are formulating new approaches, and in particular finding ways to cooperate in tackling transnational criminality. Advanced communication technologies and new policing techniques increasingly reveal the trans-border links of organized criminal groups, thereby heightening the international community‘s awareness of the need for more cooperation (Ors, 2011, p.13). The post-cold war period has seen considerable review of the transnational security agenda. Traditionally, the concepts of transnational security in the twentieth century were largely state centered. Moreover, the state has historically been considered as the primary custodian of security, both of its territory as well as the citizens, from any external threat. As a result, until recently, international security agenda was mainly centered on matters of military security. However the culmination of the Cold-War was followed by the new non-military threat in the form of transnational crime (Shanty & Mishra, 2008, p.294). In the past era, security was traditionally perceived in military terms and even frequently as a rivalry between nations. However, political instability in weak states, economic collapse and environmental issues has joined with global crime to change our views of security challenges. Non-military threats are now high on the agenda in the near future. Following the recent financial crisis shows, countries have become much more vulnerable to the cascading effects of instability encountered anywhere in the world. This new era, on the other hand, has also encouraged international cooperation as a way of confronting the new transnational security landscape. International security cooperation is no longer associated with Cold War concepts like balance of power, deterrence, containment or hegemonic stability. In its place, security has been redefined as the collective security of the international community. It is now viewed as requiring broader international cooperation, as well as multilateralism has become a major instrument for government actions. This has helped re-define the roles international organizations in assuring global security (Ors, 2011, p.20). Additionally, the modern world has become heavily interconnected and interdependent as a result of noteworthy advances in communication systems and transportation facilities. This global reach had indisputable impacts on traditional security views. Security concept has been shifted from state security to global security. This has transformed security into an international public good for all states rather than being just a national concern of nation states. This enables policymakers to address transnational criminal groups who operate like international entrepreneurs in the modern world, threatening the security of all (Ors, 2011, p.18). It is also noteworthy that in a contrasting perception, global proximity does not enhance cooperation as well as security, but increases the possibility of conflict. It can undermine human rights as well as labor standards, and generate environmental dangers. More pointedly, it can provide fruitful conditions for the increase of transnational criminal groups. Consequently, it causes frustration as well as insecurity all over the world. No matter how these notions cohere or contrast, globalization affords increasingly intricate channels through which international actors exercise power. Therefore, there is a close correlation between globalization as well as global security (Ors, 2011, p.21). Besides, transnational crimes are illegal act(s) which occur in multiple countries but their consequences considerably affecting other countries. Transnational crime also against more than one country national law, however, it does not need to be founded in international law as such. Although, either international agreements or treaty as well as custom can be applicable to the issues concerning jurisdiction, enforcement, judicial cooperation, due process, the serving of sentences. For instance: money laundering, human smuggling, terrorism, sea piracy, trafficking in illegal arms as well as drugs. What is more, the Convention on Transnational Organized Crime 2000, categorizes a criminal act a transnational if, firstly, it is occurs in more than one country, secondly, it is takes place in one state but a sizable part of its planning, control or direction, takes place in another country, thirdly, if crime occurs in one country but has considerable effects in another country, finally, it is committed in one country but involves a criminal gang that engages in illegal activities in a number countries (Ditulis, 2010, n.p). Even so, there is no single conventionally accepted definition of transnational crime. The term transnational crime was coined by the United Nations (UN) Crime and Criminal Justice Branch in 1974 at one of the UN crime conference. Transnational crime was as a criminological term, with no claim to providing a juridical concept, and consisted simply of a list of five activities: (a) crime as business: white collar crime, organized crime, as well as corruption (b) offences attendant works of art and other cultural property (c) criminality related with alcoholism as well as drug abuse (d) violence of transnational as well as proportional international importance (e) criminality associated with migration and flight from natural disaster and hostilities. Two decades later, a single term was coined the UN in which defines transnational crime as: offense whose inception, deterrence as well as/or direct effect or indirect effect encompassed multiple countries (UN, 1951). Such crimes must be distinguished from international crimes, which are identified by and can consequently be prosecuted under international law as well as domestic crimes that fall under one national jurisdiction. So as to be considered as transnational crime, a crime must involve the crossing of jurisdictions or borders. As a result the UN has identified 18 dissimilar categories of transnational crime. These are (a) Terrorist activities (b) Money laundering (c) Theft of art and cultural objects (d) Illicit traffic in arms (e) Theft of intellectual property (f) sea piracy (g) Insurance fraud (h) Hijacking on land (i) Computer (j) Trafficking in persons crime (k) Environmental crime (l) Trade human body parts (m) Fraud bankruptcy (n) Illicit drug trafficking, (o) Infiltration of legal business and other offences committed by organized criminal gangs (Loader,& Walker, 2007, n.p) (Ditulis, 2010, n.p). Moreover, owing to these newly arising cross-border security concerns, security concepts have been changing and states are required to work together for their common protection. They are challenged to maximize the benefits of globalization in cooperative fighting against transnational criminality. As a result, new international regional policing organizations emerged and many of them have proven to be highly promising in promoting transnational policing. On the other hand, bilateral policing treaties continued to be used as states instruments for confronting cross-border criminality (Ors, 2011, p.1). Additionally, increasing globalization has led to a broadening and deepening of the twenty first century security agenda, which has necessitated a shift toward a more collective transnational policing cooperation approach and has thus placed this narrow, state eccentric concept of security under increasing scrutiny (Shanty & Mishra, 2008, p.294). What is more, transnational crime threatens international security in a number of ways and on a number of different levels. Firstly, it undermines the sovereignty and autonomy of the nation-state; transnational crime displays no respect for state borders, and the large scale illegal movement of goods and people across state borders in recent years weakens border control (Collins 2013, p.357)(Lemieux, 2013, P.1) (Shanty& Mishra, 2008 p.296). Moreover, the increase in globalization and the opening of state borders in recent years have fuelled transnational criminal operations than ever before. For example, the opening up of internal borders in countries of the European Union has made cross border links between criminal syndicates operating in Europe easier (Shanty& Mishra, 2008, p.295). In addition, the 1993 North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA) opened borders between Canada. The U.S. and Mexico was also accompanied by increased transnational links between criminal groups in the region (Shanty& Mishra, 2008, p.296). Finally, since the elevation of transnational crime onto the international security agenda, there has been a clear collaboration between nation-states in their efforts to fight the phenomenon. However, much of this collaboration is limited to a bilateral basis (Shanty & Mishra, 2008p.298). Moreover, bilateral cooperation is a framework for cooperation that is usually between two parties or two countries and is formalized in legal documents such as mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) or a memorandum of understanding (MOU). Bilateral cooperation is usually also characterized by supporting domestic legislation such as mutual legal assistance act. What is more, this review analyzes the proposition that bi-lateral transnational policing cooperation approaches are more effective than multi-lateral approaches (Lewis & Baird, 2003, p.57). Literature Review To begin, the legal basis for trans-national policing is founded on bilateral or multilateral treaties. These international legal instruments may establish either operational cooperation in deterring transnational crimes or judicial procedures for bringing trans-border criminals to justice (Ors, 2011, p.36). Moreover, bilateral policing agreements are the earliest instruments regulating the mutual legal assistance between two countries. In contrast, multilateral policing agreements are ratified multiple countries and provide a greater level of cooperation to their signatories. What is more, all these agreements, while formulated basically for the needs of cooperating countries, are also compatible with provisions of universal human rights. Bilateral agreements are prepared mainly for the specific needs of cooperating parties, especially when differences between the legal systems of cooperating states need to be overcome. However, multilateral policing agreements are relatively more inclusive instruments in terms of functionality. In this manner, they may replace several bilateral agreements in benefiting their signatories. They may contribute more to territorial stability since they represent the shared intentions of cooperating states. They may be more preventive in trans-border criminal matters since they cover the entire territories of cooperating countries. On the other hand, they usually require permanent bodies in order to become operational, thus requiring greater resource investments. Bilateral agreements are the basic instruments through which states express their concerns over common crimes and declare their shared commitment to combating those crimes. Criminal areas encompassed by the cooperation agreement are specifically stated in the proposals. Furthermore, common characteristics of each crime field as well as under what conditions the cooperation mechanism will work are clearly explained in the agreement texts. Finally, the burdens placed on the cooperating parties and procedures for how the treaties will be utilized for combating crimes are all explained in the cooperation agreements (Ors, 2011, p.37). Transnational policing, involves 'networks which are relatively autonomous of these states of origin or which owe authority and allegiance to other non-state 'polities'. There are various levels of bilateral cooperation in transnational policing (Chris, 2009, p.7). Firstly, is cooperation between states, and secondly is cooperation among different agencies. Besides, the agency to agency level may work well in practice as it is likely that the police agency in one country would prefer to cooperate with police agencies of other countries, intelligence agencies with their intelligence counterparts, and so on (Lewis & Baird, 2003, p.57). What is more, transnational cooperation also entails law enforcement agencies efforts directed towards aliens in the agency’s jurisdiction area or investigative efforts instigated against its own citizens as well as aliens situated overseas. Thirdly, there are other diverse forms of transnational cooperation among the law enforcement agencies of different states that result in bilateral or multilateral mergers as well as cooperative accords of short-term or long-term periods. The aims of such cooperative unions can incorporate undercover enforcement missions, such as: combined operations to hunt down intercontinental fugitives, as well as international aid in law enforcement techniques as well as organization of law enforcement operations, such as the exportation as well as importation of law enforcement practices (Deflem, 2007, n.p). Moreover, this kind of bilateral cooperation in transnational policing can be classified as formal as well as informal. In the private sector, we have non-governmental organization level of cooperation. This is an example of transnational cooperation at the industry to industry level (Lewis & Baird, 2003, p.57). Different types of assistance are available through formal versus informal bilateral cooperation in transnational policing. Formal cooperation usually complements government to government cooperation. Conversely, informal cooperation faces a number of limitations and restrictions. For example, certain types of assistance maybe available only through formal cooperation such as the execution of search warrants and cases requiring judicial process to compel production of witnesses, documents, or other evidence. The attendance of witness in foreign court proceedings obviously requires formal bilateral cooperation. Incase evidence is required for prosecution; such evidence can only be used only if it can be admissible in court and carries sufficient evidential weight. Therefore, formal procedures are required to obtain and authenticate Key evidence for admissibility in court. Formal bilateral cooperation can facilitate active defense in the sense of apprehension and extradition of fugitive offenders which is only possible through formal bilateral cooperation. Furthermore, formal bilateral cooperation may also be required to identify and confisticate the proceeds or evidence or proceeds of a crime. This brings up the confiscation of drug trafficking proceeds mandated by the various United Nations Conventions on psychotropic substances convened in Vienna (Lewis & Baird, 2003, p.58). Literature on the history of policing also recognizes the onset of official transnational police cooperation with the signature of 1923 Vienna treaty that led to the creation of Interpol (Alain 2001, p.113). Additionally, formal bilateral cooperation in transnational policing also facilitates the new legal powers applicable in cyber space, for instance, lawful access to encrypted material. This is consistent with the new OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and development) guidelines for cryptography, which ratify lawful access. In addition to that, the U.S.A. patriot Act 2001(enacted following the 9/11 terror attacks) allows for search warrants as well as interception of communications (Lewis & Baird, 2003, p.59). In light of such compelling evidence for effectiveness of bilateral cooperation approaches in transnational policing over multilateral approaches; it is wise to be realistic as well as cognizant of the fact that the digital divide amongst many nations may actually slow down multilateral cooperation approaches in transnational policing. Especially as many countries lack expertise as well as infrastructure in cyber security. Even in the highly integrated and developed European Union, the Council of Europe Cyber crime Convention took four years of negotiations to conclude. A multilateral convention at the United Nations level may well take two or three times that amount of time. Obviously, a bilateral process is a faster route to concrete results. And the bilateral cooperation framework can be implemented beginning with minimal operational requirements, for example, the establishment of 24/7/365 points of contact and graduating to more sophisticated higher levels of cooperation while combating transnational crime. In addition, the bilateral cooperation approach can avoid the dilution that results from having to compromise to achieve multilateral consensus. Most diplomats would agree that the lowest common denominator is often the point of agreement in multilateral negotiations. And that compromise may actually hinder the efficacy and workability of cooperation in transnational policing (Lewis & Baird, 2003, p.60). Besides, bilateral cooperation approaches in transnational policing are also confidential and more flexible; for example, several countries maybe hesistant to share sensitive information when they are not so comfortable with the recipient nation. Bilateral cooperation approaches are also important because of the phenomenon of convergence- both vertical and horizontal. For instance how do you characterize a certain crime as transnational? Additionally, cooperation efforts in transnational policing maybe frustrated by difficulties in characterizing which particular transnational crime falls within a multilateral framework. However, bilateral cooperation approaches offer the flexibility to fine tune classifications to cover the latest issue in transnational policing. Still, advantage of bilateral cooperation approaches over multilateral approaches is that it avoids an open ended set of potential partners. Here sovereignty is involved the interesting perspective is that the bilateral approach involves strengthening sovereignty. And a country might be hesitant to surrender its sovereignty. In addition, nations are free to choose their bilateral partners. Agreements can be concluded swiftly between ready as well as willing parties with mutual national interests. It is not only a question of trust but also a question of legal systems as well as maturity of technology (Lewis & Baird, 2003, p.60). In contrast multilateral cooperation approaches in transnational policing, have an open-ended set of partners (Lewis & Baird, 2003, p.61). Multilateralism exists when three or more states commit themselves to cooperative action in dealing with common opportunities or problems. It coordinates relations among three or more states on the basis of generalized principles of conduct: that is, principles which specify appropriate conduct for class or actions. It can be classified as an institutional structure in international relations. With this in mind, member states are supposed to follow the rules for all matters falling under the jurisdiction of multilateral institutions (Ors, 2011, p.42). In response, multilateral organizations are expected to distribute equivalent benefits to their membership. International organizations, as one specific form of multilateralism, have gained modest importance in the security field, despite being a relatively recent phenomenon in global politics. This is partly because of individual states’ inability to effectively address the emerging trans-boundary security issues. This weakness appears to be one of the underlying sources of the difficulty in combating transnational criminality. In this context, international police cooperation organizations have been demonstrating that they can be more effective in orchestrating collaborative action against trans-border organized crimes. Although the principle objective of such organizations is to maintain peace and security among nation states, they have gradually assumed new roles in a number of issues ranging from local conflicts to transnational criminality. As international organizations proved successful in addressing various international emergency situations, they increasingly assumed the roles of states in international issues. Peace building efforts after interethnic conflicts such as in Bosnia and Kosovo, reconciliation efforts in former crisis areas such as Macedonia, human relief efforts after massive natural disasters such as in Indonesia can be accounted as the recent exemplary cases in this regard (Ors, 2011, p.43). There are also few disadvantages of bilateral cooperation approaches in transnational policing. Of course, it is very difficult for every government to develop a comprehensive network of bilateral agreements with each other. Consequently, inconsistency between different bilateral agreements may occur. However, in such a scenario a bilateral cooperation approaches could complement multilateral approaches in transnational policing to combat transnational crime. A network of bilateral cooperation arrangements against a backdrop of multilateral cooperation arrangements is also feasible, for instance, free trade agreements concluded bilaterally against the framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements (Lewis & Baird, 2003, p.61). A sustained campaign against transnational crime requires a coordinated and a cooperative trans-national policing response. The trans-boundary nature of international organized crime today means that it’s no longer sufficient to attempt to tackle the problem on a unilateral basis. Thus within the international community there is a commonly recognized need for a better-integrated and more coherent approaches in fighting transnational crime. Organized crime has traditionally been seen as a law enforcement issue, but the increasingly transnational nature of criminal operations means that in many ways the traditional demarcation between national security and law enforcement has eroded to an extent. Today the most effective policy measures against transnational crime generally combine cooperation among foreign governments, law enforcement, and financial institutions. For example, while the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation has previously operated almost exclusively as a domestic agency, now there are more than 300 FBI officers posted abroad in U.S. embassies, while operatives in the U.S. have established direct cooperation with domestic police forces in more than 30 countries (Shanty, & Mishra, 2008, p.297). Despite these successes, however, collaboration among law enforcement agencies has proven highly problematic. Huge differences of interest remain among national law enforcement agencies. This is particularly true in developing countries where the competition for state funding is fierce, thus exacerbating rivalry. In many cases, law enforcement agencies are reluctant to liaise across national borders, and certainly not with the same ease and fluidity that the criminals do (Shanty, & Mishra, 2008, p.298). Conclusion At the moment, states have gradually recognized the gravity of transnational criminality and, simultaneously, the importance of cooperation in battling the phenomenon. The current approaches in transnational policing cooperation are extremely promising, but they are still obscured by slow-moving political concerns, bureaucracies, as well as by internal problems of state institutions. Information as well as intelligence sharing is customarily considered a sensitive area in transnational policing cooperation, chiefly because of political, national, as well as ideological concerns. While such cooperation always needs extra caution and ought to be coupled with mutual trust, state officials often try to overcome this barrier by forming private networking channels that bypass government institutions. In light of this, globalization of criminal markets and the development of transnational crime syndicates clearly require a more coordinated transnational response. The growth in transnational crime proves a clear threat to international security, and demonstrates that it’s now more important that a comprehensive, coordinated approach on an international level is made to tackle the growing challenge posed by transnational organized crime in the 21st century. There is also need for more advanced bilateral transnational legal harmonization as many nations do not share a commonly accepted definition of crime which makes coordinated efforts problematic. There is also a recognized need to improve the effectiveness of international organizations, such as Interpol, in response to the increasingly transnational nature of crime. Financial and economic measures against transnational crime also need to be taken on a transnational level, as this would immensely reduce the possibilities for transnational criminals to process proceeds from their activities and disguise the illegal origins of their wealth e.g. by money laundering. Furthermore measures need to be taken to prevent the penetration of the banking industry and the financial sector by organized crime. Unfortunately, many of those countries most at risk are attractive to transnational criminal elements e.g. the Caribbean offshore banking centers To conclude there are numerous cooperation approaches in transnational policing, for instances: Letter of Rogatory (the traditional approach), International Criminal Police Cooperation (INTERPOL), Extradition, Transferred Sentenced Person (TSP), European Law Enforcement Organization (EUROPOL), Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) in Criminal Matters, ASEAN Police Cooperation (ASEANPOL). For transnational policing to convey an effective effect to the states; they have to engage to the agreement bilaterally or multilaterally. However, the most important step is States shall ratify them into national domestic law at the first place. Overall, referring to the last progress of the international judicial cooperation experienced by states revealed that bilateral cooperation approaches are more preferential in transnational policing than multilateral approaches. Despite of the dissimilarity of legal system between states concerned, also, it is with the purpose that the bilateral cooperation approaches maintain certain state agendas, interests, as well as no commitment to disburse compensation as annually member’s contributions which compulsory conditional for many international agreements. Bibliography Alain, M. (2001). Transnational police cooperation in Europe and in North America: revisiting the traditional border between internal and external security matters, or how policing is being globalized. Eur. J. Crime Crim. L. & Crim Just., 9, 113. Chris A. W. (2009). Transnational policing. pdf. http://www.open.ac.uk/Arts/history/downloads/pdfs/Williams_Transnational_policing.pdf COLLINS, A. (2013). Contemporary security studies. Deflem, Mathieu. (2007). International Policing. Pp. 701-705 in The Encyclopedia of Police Science, Third Edition, edited by Jack R. Greene. New York: Routledge. Ditulis oleh Harniati, S.H, L.L.M. (2010). An Overview: Transnational Crime Issues In International Criminal Law Associated With MLA Regim. http://ditjenpp.kemenkumham.go.id/hukum-pidana/258-an-overview-transnational-crime-issues-in-international-criminal-law-associated-with-mla-regim.html Lemieux, F, 2013. International Police Cooperation: Emerging Issues, Theory and Practice. 1st ed. U.K.: Routledge. LEWIS, J. A., & BAIRD, Z. (2003). Cyber security. Washington, D.C., CSIS Press, Center for Strategic and International Studies. Loader, I., & Walker, N. (2007). Locating the public interest in transnational policing. Ors, Huseyin. What are the lessons that can be learned from Turkey's transnational operational police cooperation experiences?. Diss. Rutgers University-Graduate School-Newark, 2011. SHANTY, F., & MISHRA, P. P. (2008). Organized crime: from trafficking to terrorism. Santa Barbara, Calif, ABC-CLIO. Read More