The new EU counter-terrorism Agenda: preemptive security through the anticipation of terrorist events

References

• Alexander, D. (2002). Principles of emergency planning and management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, D. (2015). Disaster and emergency planning for preparedness, response, and recovery. In Susan L. Cutter (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of natural hazard science (pp. 1–20). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Amoore, L. (2014). Security and the incalculable. Security Dialogue, 45(5), 423–439.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amoore, L., & De Goede, M. (2005). Governance, risk and dataveillance in the war on terror. Crime, Law and Social Change, 43(2–3), 149–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amoore, L., & De Goede, M. (2012). Introduction: Data and the war by other means. Journal of Cultural Economy, 5(1), 3–8.
   Google Scholar
• Amoore, L., & Hall, A. (2009). Taking people apart: Digitised dissection and the body at the border. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 27(3), 444–464.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amoore, L., & Raley, R. (2017). Securing with algorithms: Knowledge, decision, sovereignty. Security Dialogue, 48(1), 3–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, B. (2010). Preemption, precaution, preparedness: Anticipatory action and future geographies. Progress in Human Geography, 34(6), 777–798.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrew, J., & Baker, M. (2021). The general data protection regulation in the age of surveillance capitalism. Journal of Business Ethics, 168, 565–578.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aradau, C., & Blanke, T. (2015). The (big) data-security assemblage: Knowledge and critique. Security Dialogue, 2(2), 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Aradau, C., & Munster, R. (2011). Politics of catastrophe: Genealogies of the unknown. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Argomaniz, J. (2011). Post-9/11 European counter-terrorism politics. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ashley, R. (1988). Untying the sovereign state: A double reading of the anarchy problematique. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 17(2), 227–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker-Beall, C. (2013). Writing the threat of terrorism in Western Europe and the European Union: An interpretive analysis. In M. Bevir, I. Hall, & O. Daddow (Eds.), Interpreting global security (pp. 142–159). Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Baker-Beall, C. (2016). The European Union’s fight against terrorism. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baker-Beall, C. (2019). The threat of the ‘returning foreign fighter’: The securitization of EU migration and border control policy. Security Dialogue, 50(5), 437–453.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakker, E. (2006). Difference in terrorist threat perceptions in Europe. In D. Mahncke & J. Monar (Eds.), International terrorism. A European response to a global threat? (pp. 47–62). Brussels: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Balzacq, T. (2015). The essence of securitisation: Theory, ideal type, and a sociological science of security. International Relations, 29(1), 103–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. (2016). Big data’s disparate impact. California Law Review, 104(3), 671–732.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellanova, R., & de Goede, M. (2020). The algorithmic regulation of security: An infrastructural perspective. Regulation and Governance, 1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellanova, R., Irion, K., Jacobsen, K. L., Ragazzi, F., Saugmann, R., & Suchman, L. (2021). Toward a critique of algorithmic violence. International Political Sociology, 15, 121–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bevir, M., Daddow, O., & Hall, I. (2013). Introduction: Interpreting British foreign policy. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 15(2), 163–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bigo, D. (2008). Globalized (in)security: The field and the ban-opticon. In D. Bigo & A. Tsoukala (Eds.), Terror, insecurity and liberty: Illiberal practices of liberal regimes after 9/11 (pp. 10–48). Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bossong, R. (2008). The action plan on combating terrorism: A flawed instrument of EU security governance. Journal of Common Market Studies, 46(1), 7–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bossong, R. (2012). The evolution of EU counter-terrorism: European security policy after 9/11. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication and Society, 15(5), 662–679.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandimarte, L., & Acquisti, A. (2012). The economics of privacy. In M. Peitz & J. Waldfogel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the digital economy (pp. 547–571). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brattberg, E., & Rhinard, M. (2012). The EU as a global counter-terrorism actor in the making. European Security, 21(4), 557–577.
   Google Scholar
• Bretherton, C., & Vogler, J. (2005). The European Union as a global actor. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bures, O. (2011). EU counterterrorism policy: Terrorist threats and the European Union’s responses. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bures, O. (2020). EU’s response to foreign fighters: New threat, old challenges? Terrorism and Political Violence, 32(4), 789–806.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corry, O. (2012). Securitisation and riskification: Second-order security and the politics of climate change. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 40(2), 235–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Council of the European Union. (2005, November 30). The European Union counter-terrorism strategy. Brussels. 14469/4/05.
   Google Scholar
• Council of the European Union. (2020, May 14). Terrorism in times of corona: The development of the terrorist threat as a result of the Covid-19 crisis. Brussels. 7838/1/20.
   Google Scholar
• Court of Justice of the European Union. (2020, October 6). Press Release No.123/20, Judgements in Case C-623/17, Privacy International, and in Joined Cases C-511/18, La Quadrature du Net and Others, C-512/18, French Data Network and Others, and C-520/18, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germaphone and Others. Luxembourg.
   Google Scholar
• Crampton, J. (2015). Collect it all: National security, big data and governance. GeoJournal, 80, 519–531.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawford, K., & Schultz, J. (2013). Big data and due process: Toward a framework to redress predictive privacy harms. Boston College Law Review, 55(1), 93–128.
   Google Scholar
• De Goede, M. (2008a). Beyond risk: Premediation and the post-9/11 security imagination. Security Dialogue, 39(2-3), 155–176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Goede, M. (2008b). The politics of preemption and the war on terror in Europe. European Journal of International Relations, 14(1), 161–185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Goede, M. (2011). European security culture: Preemption and precaution in European security. Amsterdam: Vossiuspers UvA.
   Google Scholar
• De Goede, M. (2012). Speculative security: The politics of pursuing terrorist monies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• De Goede, M., & Simon, S. (2013). Governing future radicals in Europe. Antipode, 45(2), 315–335.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Den Boer, M. (2015). Counter-terrorism, security and intelligence in the EU: Governance challenges for collection, exchange and analysis. Intelligence and National Security, 30(2–3), 402–419.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Central Bank. (2020). Report on a digital euro. Frankfurt: ECB.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2000, February 2). Communication from the commission on the precautionary principle. Brussels. COM(2000) 1 final.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2004, October 20). Prevention, preparedness and response to terrorist attacks. Brussels. COM(2004) 698 final.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2005, September 21). Communication concerning terrorist recruitment: Addressing the factors contributing to violent radicalisation. Brussels. COM(2005)313 final.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2010, November 22). The EU Internal Security Strategy in Action: Five Steps towards a More Secure Europe. Brussels. COM (2010) 673 final.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2020a, July 24). EU security union strategy. Brussels. COM(2020) 605 final.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2020b, December 9). A counter-terrorism Agenda for the EU: Anticipate, prevent, protect, respond. Brussels. COM(2020) 795 final.
   Google Scholar
• European Council. (2003, December 12). A secure Europe in a better world: European security strategy. Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Court of Human Rights. (2021). Case of big brother watch and others vs. the United Kingdom. Rome: ECHR.
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament and European Council. (2019, October 23). Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. PE/78/2019/REV/1.
   Google Scholar
• Ewald, F. (1994). Two infinities of risk. In B. Massumi (Ed.), The politics of everyday fear (pp. 221–228). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gallagher, R. (2016, June 7). Facing data deluge, secret UK spying report warned of intelligence failure. The Intercept. Retrieved May 1, 2021, from https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/mi5-gchq-digint-surveillance-data-deluge/
   Google Scholar
• Hardy, K. (2015). Resilience in UK counter-terrorism. Theoretical Criminology, 19(1), 77–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, B., & Jones, C. (2013). Report on How the EU Assesses the Impact, Legitimacy and Effectiveness of its Counterterrorism Laws. SECILE Project: Securing Europe through Counter-Terrorism–Impact, Legitimacy and Effectiveness. Available at: https://cyberwar.nl/d/fromEUFP7/SECILE/secile-d2-3_Report-on-how-the-EU-assesses-the-impact-legitimacy-and-effectiveness-of-its-counter-terrorism-laws.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Heilweil, R. (2020, February 18). Why algorithms can be racist and sexist. Recode. Retrieved May 1, 2021, from https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/18/21121286/algorithms-bias-discrimination-facial-recognition-transparency
   Google Scholar
• Huysmans, J. (2016). Democratic curiosity in times of surveillance. European Journal of International Security, 1, 73–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaunert, C. (2010). Towards supranational governance in EU counter-terrorism? The role of the Commission and the Council secretariat’. Central European Journal of International and Security Studies, 4(1), 8–31.
   Google Scholar
• Kitchin, R. (2014). Big data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data and Society, 1(1), 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Konig, P. (2020). Dissecting the algorithmic leviathan: On the socio-political anatomy of algorithmic governance. Philosophy and Technology, 33, 467–485.
   Google Scholar
• Kosta, E. (2020). Algorithmic state surveillance: Challenging the notion of agency in human rights. Regulation and Governance, 1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen, H. (2002). The EU: A global military actor? Cooperation and Conflict, 37(3), 283–302.
   Google Scholar
• Leese, M. (2014). The new profiling: Algorithms, black boxes, and the failure of anti-discriminatory safeguards in the European Union. Security Dialogue, 45(5), 494–511.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Léonard, S. (2010). EU border security and migration into the European Union: FRONTEX and securitisation through practices. European Security, 19(2), 231–254.
   Google Scholar
• Lum, C., Kennedy, L.W., & Sherley, A. (2006). Are counter-terrorism strategies effective? The results of the Campbell systematic review on counter-terrorism evaluation research. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(4), 489–516.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, CO. (2009). International terrorism as a force of homogenization? A constructivist approach to understanding cross-national threat perceptions and responses. Camb Rev Int Aff, 22(4), 647–666.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monahan, T. (2018). Editorial: Algorithmic fetishism. Surveillance and Society, 16(1), 1–5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monar, J. (2007). Common threat and common response? The European Union’s counter-terrorism strategy and its problems. Government & Opposition, 42(3), 292–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monar, J. (2015). The EU as an international counter-terrorism actor: Progress and constraints. Intelligence and National Security, 30(2-3), 333–356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mott, G. (2019). Constructing the Cyberterrorist: Critical Reflections on the UK Case. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Muller, B. (2004). (Dis)qualified bodies: Securitisation, citizenship and ‘identity managament’. Citizenship Studies, 8(3), 279–294.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, C. (2019). EU counter-terrorism law: What kind of exemplar of transnational law? Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 21, 217–242.
   Google Scholar
• Neyland, D., & Möllers, N. (2017). Algorithic if … then rules and the conditions and consequences of power. Information, Communication and Society, 20(1), 45–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Omand, D. (2012). The terrorist threat to the UK in the post–9/11 decade. Journal of Terrorism Research, 3(1), 6–12.
   Google Scholar
• Richards, I. (2012). Intelligence dilemma? Contemporary Counter-Terrorism in a Liberal Democracy. Intelligence and National Security, 27(5), 761–780.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, S. (2019). Big data, algorithmic governmentality and the regulation of pandemic risk. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 10, 94–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shepherd, L. (2008). Gender, Violence and security: Discourse as practice. London: Zed Books.
   Google Scholar
• Spotify. (2020, November 2). Amplifying artist input in your personalised recommendations. Retrieved May 1, 2021, from https://newsroom.spotify.com/2020-11-02/amplifying-artist-input-in-your-personalized-recommendations/
   Google Scholar
• UK Government. (2004, April 1). CONTEST: A 5-year UK strategy for countering international terrorism. Sir David Omand. Security and Intelligence Coordinator. Confidential Document.
   Google Scholar
• Ulbricht, K. (2018). When big data meet securitisation: Algorithmic regulation with Passenger Name records. European Journal for Security Research, 3, 139–161.
   Google Scholar
• Wittendorp, S. (2016a). Unpacking ‘International terrorism’: Discourse, the European community and counter-terrorism, 1975–86. Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(5), 1233–1249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittendorp, S. (2016b). Conducting government: Governmentality, monitoring and EU counter-terrorism. Global Society, 30(3), 465–483.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeung, K. (2018). Algorithmic regulation: A critical interrogation. Regulation and Governance, 12(4), 505–523.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zebrowski, C. (2015). The value of resilience: Securing life in the twenty-first century. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for the future at the new frontier of power. London: Profile Books.
   Google Scholar
• Zweig, K., Wenzelburger, G., & Krafft, T. (2018). On chances and risks of security related algorithmic decision making systems. European Journal for Security Research, 3, 181–203.
   Google Scholar
• Zwolski, K. (2012). The EU as an international security actor after Lisbon: Finally a Green light for a holistic approach? Cooperation and Conflict, 47(1), 8–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar