Impact of JHA Context on Political Opportunity Structures
The preceding, albeit oversimplified, account of the institutional context of JHA points to
shifting opportunity structures within JHA, and these have consequences for subsequent
NGO activity in the field. Until the Maastricht Treaty, there was formally no EU-policy
space for these issues, despite the ad hoc developments highlighted above. Furthermore,
when JHA was Europeanized, the institutional context that resulted in Maastricht and was
maintained, to some extent, by Amsterdam reflected a decision-making environment that
privileged certain institutional actors such as the Council with its erstwhile shared right of
initiative and unanimity-driven process over others, such as the Commission which was
relegated to a secondary role and in particular the Parliament which was initially
sidelined in the consultation procedures. With Amsterdam and Nice, the Commission and
Parliament experienced a solidification of their standing: the Commission eventually
gained its ordinary exclusive right of initiative in immigration and asylum, and the
Parliament gained increasing co-decision right (Uçarer, 2001a). From 1 May 2004,
unanimity was replaced by qualified majority voting, itself seen as a relative
normalization of the decision-making arena in what is otherwise a doggedly
intergovernmental field. Nonetheless, the “institutional culture” of the field continues to
be, especially in the JHA Council, secretive and heavily favored with sovereign
This institutional culture, which has persisted despite various changes in
political alignments in the Council over the last two decades, significantly disciplined
political opportunity structures for the other actors including NGOs, especially when
unanimity continued as the decision-making rule.
This post-Amsterdam transformation of the institutional framework not only
meant opening of political opportunity structures for the Commission and Parliament, but
also signaled the same for NGOs. Soon after migrants started arriving in a number of
West European countries in the 1960s, NGOs began forming at the national level to
4
One interviewee observed “[i]f you want it or not, and they [the Council] represent their national
constituencies or governments and that’s the biggest challenge for us in our advocacy work.” Interview 23
November 2005.
5
One might think that this has to do with the erstwhile pillar structure that was created in Maastricht,
whereby Pillars Two and Three (Common Foreign and Security Policy and Justice and Home Affairs
respectively) were created in an intergovernmental image might explain the institutional culture of the field.
Interestingly, however, CFSP (where Foreign Ministers gather) has demonstrated, according to Amnesty
International, significant more openness to the civil society than could be said of JHA.
11
Convention