Abstract

Building on an assessment of Norwegian policy documents from 1994 to 2012, this article provides a critical analysis of the process leading up to the Norwegian agreements with EU, primarily those concerning police cooperation. The purpose is to discuss the Norwegian Government’s justifications for entering into the agreements throughout this period. The Norwegian Government firstly argued that the pertinent agreements were imperative to maintain the free travel-arrangements already existing between the Nordic countries. This justification was shortly after moderated, and had a few years later disappeared completely. It was replaced by a former secondary argument; the pressing need for enhanced police cooperation. This article presents some of the changes the EU agreements involved for the Norwegian police. It shows a discrepancy between the policiary needs and purposes as these were presented fluctuating throughout a relatively short period of time. Further, it reveals the lack of debate concerning what may be seen as fundamental changes in the way a sovereign nation state interacts with other states and their citizens. The article discusses what it may imply when justifications turn out to be flawed due to weak foundational premises, or because of later developments, but are still repeated or circumvented, or even used tautologically, to promote a certain outcome. It finds that this may be but one example of a general tendency where governmental justifications slide as a reaction to a dynamic supranational development. This is problematic in a democratic state because citizens are left unable to consider the development in the area of policing and border control, an area where justification of the state actions is perhaps of most importance.