The European Union (EU)’s efforts to counter terrorism have been influenced by various security and geopolitical events. In the beginning of the 21st century, the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States revolutionized approaches to addressing terrorism, putting it at the forefront of security agendas across the Western world. As an immediate response to these attacks, securitized and hard-power measures were reflected in legal documents within the EU. The terrorist attacks in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2007 further transformed political and security discussions around this topic, urging more concrete steps to effectively counter it. This is the first in a three-part blog series on the evolving counter terrorism strategies of the EU and will explore the similarities between various approaches across the continent.

The 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris and Copenhagen put terrorism at the forefront of political and public debates in Europe once again. These coincided with the departure of European individuals to join groups like ISIS, which was considered a pressing issue by both the United Nations Security Council as well as the Council of Europe. In addition, the contemporaneous surge in refugees reaching the EU led to early discussions concerning limiting freedom of movement through border control, which led to significant legal changes.

However, over time, the shortcomings of securitized measures became increasingly obvious. Thus, in 2015, a greater emphasis was placed on preventive efforts, understanding the need to tackle phenomena potentially conducive to terrorism instead of focusing solely on mitigating the threat posed by radicalized individuals and networks. Consequently, addressing root causes of radicalization and extremism, removing online content that promoted violent extremist views and terrorist actions, and proactive multilateral cooperation became core issues of the discussion. 

In this sense, EU counterterrorism has evolved since 2015, having come a long way from the ‘war on terror’-inspired, securitized approach to a more holistic perspective that recognizes the complexity of terrorism by addressing its adjacent phenomena through a preventive whole-of-society approach. 

Similarities between National Counterterrorism Strategies

Within the EU, national security remains primarily the responsibility of member states. Consequently, each EU government implements its own national security measures and addresses issues such as terrorism based on its own assessments of risks and threats. The EU’s role is to support these efforts, facilitating the establishment of common priorities, funds allocation, and know-how sharing.

Current national counterterrorism strategies of EU member states share the following key similarities:

• Prevent, protect, respond, and anticipate: In December 2020, an updated EU counterterrorism agenda was adopted, outlining four key pillars: prevent, protect, respond, and anticipate. Since member states have committed to reflecting the EU’s principles in their national policies, all EU countries have issued national legal documents that follow these same principles. Although not all enunciate these pillars verbatim, they are often similarly structured.

• Cooperation, information sharing, and intelligence: National strategies include multi-agency approaches, involving not only law enforcement agencies, but also relevant actors at the civil society level. Member states commit to doing so within their borders, but also to being available for cooperation with other countries and entities to identify risks and enhance the effectiveness of investigations.

• Online environment: Tackling the role of online actors and platforms in disseminating extremist content, facilitating recruitment, and financing and supporting violent extremism and terrorism became a core priority for the EU in 2016. Faced with everchanging online landscapes and the growing digitalization of everyday life, national strategies have reflected this accordingly.

• Adjacent phenomena: An understanding of the complex and individual nature of radicalization processes led to the employment of holistic approaches in response. Vulnerability factors such as social alienation, discrimination, and low income are addressed in national counterterrorism strategies as a key pre-emptive measure within counterterrorism.

Ultimately, the similarities between counterterrorism strategies in EU member states stem from key areas prioritised at the EU level and, thus, reflected nationally. Although these resemblances exist in the respective national legal and administrative frameworks, it is worth considering difficulties in their practical implementation. These are regularly shaped by national specificities and priorities. For example, countries directly impacted by terrorism often allocate higher budgets and resources to counterterrorism and are generally quicker to enact policies to showcase efforts in ensuring national security. Measures enacted by member states with an elevated terrorism threat level tend to focus more on securitized approaches and actors.

Shortcomings in the implementation of preventive measures

A special report conducted in 2018 by the European Court of Auditors examined the EU’s efforts to tackle radicalization in its member states. Despite positive outcomes, the report identified some limitations, particularly in the practical implementation of such efforts.

A significant focus of the EU’s support is on funding projects through its Horizon funding stream or the Internal Security Fund, which was set up in line with common needs identified by the member states. However, these projects have a limited duration, which is a challenge when it comes to the long-term implementation of their outcomes. Indeed, regular activities are not continued after a respective project’s lifespan since, often, national governments do not provide the funding that would allow their continuation. Hence, it is difficult to achieve sustainable solutions.

Proper evaluation and follow-up actions of policy objectives continue to be a weakness both at the EU and member states’ levels. Normally, evaluation is based primarily on the number of actions taken (e.g., meetings held, documents produced), rather than actual impact. Regarding the transposition of policies on the national level, no performance indicators or tangible goals are set, making it more difficult to assess progress, especially in practical terms. It is thus difficult to assess how effective the EU and member states’ efforts to prevent radicalization are, to identify promising practices, or to determine areas that require more investment in distinct national contexts.

Effective counterterrorism efforts – both preventive and reactive – can only be achieved if the discussions held at the political level and their transposition to policy and legal documents are reflected at the national levels via holistic and conscious actions that have at their core a respect for human rights and democratic values. Thus, member states could work towards adopting a more transparent and critical viewpoint when implementing national counterterrorism strategies, ensuring the hands-on support of local stakeholders, and emphasizing sustainable efforts in enacting initiatives promoted by the EU.