domain: spi.other info math

text:
Michael Marxer
email: michael.marxer@ntb.ch

Luis Rocha

Nabil Anwer

Enrico Savio

New development and distribution concepts for Education in Coordinate Metrology

Keywords: GPS, Specification, Verification, Training, Coordinate metrology

A key enabler for innovation in manufacturing is the competent use of advanced measuring equipment. As reported [1, 2], operators with their decisions are frequently the most relevant error sources in Coordinate Metrology, especially when dealing with new measuring technologies supporting Digital Manufacturing. In this article, new concepts for structuring of learning material as well as development and distribution of learning material for training in Coordinate Metrology are presented. A 10-steps model is used to structure training material and new tools are presented for a global collaboration in development, updating and distribution of learning material. With the methods used, fast and efficient learning material update and distribution is made available to meet the ongoing development of measuring equipment and international standards and bridge the world of Education and Industry 4.0.

Introduction

Manufacturing in a globalized world is based on multiple suppliers located in different countries and continents. These partners are intensively using automation, data exchange and advanced manufacturing technologies embedded in the digital era.

New opportunities to advance manufacturing are based on the so-called "Industry 4.0" concept that emerges as a key enabler for the integration of the virtual world and the physical world. This opens new challenges and development of advanced design and manufacturing principles, including: interoperability, virtualization, decentralization, real-time capability, service orientation and modularity.

In this context, there is a need of training and education services considering the requirements of the new labour market.

Measuring technologies and in particular Coordinate

Metrology are essential tools for the implementation of these activities in modern product engineering and process control; to operate, program and manage the most advanced measuring systems, highly competent and skilled personnel is required that are up-to-date with the actual technology and newest standards.

Innovative learning content development and distribution are needed to allow the adaptation to individual preferences and featuring modern tutor-learner interaction.

Coordinate metrology training today

Coordinate Metrology is a subject that is relevant to a number of sectors of industry throughout the EU, as e.g. for the automotive with its sub-contractors and the aeronautical industry.

Currently, there is still no coherent EU-wide provision of manufacturer-independent vocational education and training on new measuring technologies and standards.

Several inititatives exist side by side for training in coordinate metrology today. Some of the intiatives are AUKOM [START_REF] Aukom E | [END_REF] (Ausbildung für Koordinatemesstechnik) initiative with its basis on a national project run in Germany 1998-2001 or the CMTrain (Coordinate Metrology Training) association [START_REF] Cmtrain E | cmt-train[END_REF] that is a body founded on the basis of the EU project EUKOM (European Training for Coordinate Metrology) with the aim to harmonise CMM training over Europe.

New high quality learning opportunities for lifelong education on innovative measuring technologies (including: industrial computed tomography, fringe-projection and reverse engineering) as well as enriched, updated content from already existing training activities is needed in several languages.

Demands in coordinate metrology training

The ongoing fast development in standards in the context of the Geometric Product Specification (GPS) activities lead to the need of a continuous learning material update and the adaptation of learners' competences to be able to speak "one language of specification and verification" in terms of geometric specification and verification.

Namely, the lately published standards as e.g. the ISO 1101:2017 [START_REF]ISO 1101: Geometrical product specifications (GPS) --Geometrical tolerancing --Tolerances of form, orientation, location and run-out[END_REF] and the ISO 1660:2017 [START_REF]ISO 1660: Geometrical product specifications (GPS) --Geometrical tolerancing --Profile tolerancing[END_REF] are of big impact on the interpretation of specification and offer availability of new tools for specification. Other important standards are not widely covered in the training of metrologists up to now as e.g. the ISO 17450-1 [START_REF]Geometrical product specifications (GPS) --General concepts --Part 1: Model for geometrical specification and verification[END_REF] and other ISO 17450 series. These global standards provide explanations for non-ambiguous GPS language to be used in design, manufacturing and verification, to identify features, characteristics and rules to provide the basis for specifications, as well as consistent rules for verification.

Beside the inclusion of newest standards, the analysis of course feedbacks over the last ten years, covering a number of over 900 participants out of industry and universities, show that there is a big demand in learning material to include:  Interactivity in learning material using media such as videos, animations, quizzes etc.  Including comprehension questions in the learning material with immediate feedback  Fast update of learning material with newest technology  Having the possibility to choose an efficient learning path (taking pre-knowledge into account)  Having the possibility to choose an effective learning path (learn only the topics of interest)

Furthermore, the availability of new technologies such as computed tomography (CT), new optical sensors that can be used on CMSs such as chromatic white light sensors, lasersensors, processing of massive cloud of points, optical coordinate metrology need an update of competences and an overview about possibilities, requirements and restrictions in the application of such systems.

Learning material structuring -A ten-step approach

To be able to take the pre-knowledge of the individual learners into account, a fundamental two-level approach to structure the learning modules was chosen. On the basis of this two-level approach further expert modules are developed to meet the topics of the users.

In the two fundamental levels, the learning content is structured in ten sections. These sections are structured in a way that the natural workflow of the metrologists is taken into account. The basis of the concepts is the GPS matrix that structures the standards to be taken into account and as well meets the workflow of the designers as well as the metrologist to a certain extent.

With taking the target group "metrologists" in focus, the outcoming of the design section, with the respective columns A…C in the GPS-matrix, see Fig. 1, is a drawing with geometrical specifications. The approach described here, takes therefore the technical drawing as the starting point for the metrologist.

Fig. 1. GPS matrix based on [START_REF]ISO 14638: Geometrical product specifications (GPS) --Matrix model[END_REF] for overview about standards for specification and verification of workpieces Based on the technical drawing, the metrologist performs a number of actions where the standards in the respective columns E…G in the GPS-matrix, see Fig. 1, have to be taken into account.

These actions are structured in the approach described in this paper in ten sections. Each of these sections contain a number of chapters with learning units that deliver the content to the learner.

Section 1: Identification of measurement requirements

The first section covers the interface to the specification. With information out of the technical drawing and other information sources, the requirements for planning and performing the measurement tasks are gained.

Consequently, the learning material covers content for the identification of measurement requirements. Important points and fundamentals for the metrologists are pointed out. These points cover e.g. the GPS system concept, geometric tolerances, drawing indications, dimensions and CAD models.

Section 2: Measuring strategy definition

Based on the measurement requirements, the points for the measurement strategy are discussed. These steps cover points as e.g. datums and datum systems, coordinate systems, probing strategy as well as the influence of modifiers found in the specification such as e.g. indications for filter settings.

Section 3: Equipment selection

In section 3, the needs towards the equipment are discussed. This section covers points as e.g. measuring system architecture and measuring system components to be able to choose suitable equipment for performing the measuring procedure.

Important indicators for performance specification of measuring systems and their application as well as restrictions are explained to be able to compare different measuring systems.

Section 4: Workpiece preparation

Based on the findings in the measurement requirements, important points for the workpiece preparation are pointed out in this section.

In this part, fixturing requirements and constraints are demonstrated, but as well special procedures for surface treatment are covered that are needed e.g. when using certain optical sensors for the use at glossy workpieces.

Section 5: Measuring system preparation

Section 5 explains the preparation of the measuring systems that covers qualification procedures with its verification in particular. Different probing systems and their needs and procedures together with the artefacts available are discussed in this part.

Section 6: Measuring process execution

Section 6 covers the important points for measuring process execution such as acquisition of measuring points and measuring conditions based on the findings of the needed measuring requirements.

Section 7: Evaluation strategy definition

In this section, the association criteria, data processing as well as data analyses and evaluation and data representation are covered.

Beside these topics, this section covers reverse engineering needs and possibilities in particular.

Section 8: Measurement uncertainty

To be able to apply the decision rules [START_REF]Geometrical product specifications (GPS) --Inspection by measurement of workpieces and measuring equipment --Part 1: Decision rules for verifying conformity or nonconformity with specifications[END_REF], the rules for verifying the conformity or nonconformity with a given tolerance for a characteristic of a workpiece, the metrologists have to be aware of the role of measurement uncertainty and its estimation. In this section, topics as decision rules, relation between tolerance and uncertainty, error sources as well as statistical parameters are covered.

Section 9: Documentation

In section 9, different forms of measurement result documentation with respect to the target group are covered. The required content of a measurement report is explained as well as the way, how to generate them are discussed.

In this section the possibilities for specific measurement reports such as colour coded deviation illustrations e.g. coming from comparisons of CAD and workpiece deviations or from master workpieces to objects under test are pointed out.

Section 10: Infrastructure and environment

In an additional step, the need for infrastructure maintenance as well as verification and performance checking and its procedures are explained. Additionally, the need for verification and documentation of other circumstances such as environment conditions are discussed.

Learning material design and development

For the learning content development in an international context and environment, a new collaboration form using online sharing of documents for collecting and structuring learning aims was used.

The approach allowed an efficient exchange and collecting of ideas in real time and a collaboration in an efficient and structured way. It turned out that using sharing of documents functionality the group generated a master document for the management and structuring of learning aims that was installed as the basis for the further development process of the whole learning system in different languages.

The experience with shared documents using Excel Online functionality for development process like this was new to the expert group in this field. It turned out that this approach was successful and can be recommended for similar projects. The group will continue to use the approach for the ongoing enlargement of the learning units and for the indication of optimization needs e.g. for harmonizing different languages when need of changes in a certain language have been detected.

By dividing the substantial amount of learning material into manageable parts by defining learning units it was possible to have a fast and efficient way of learning material update over several language versions in an efficient and fast way.

Concept of delivery method and didactical approach

The concept of the didactical approach consists of delivering the learning content in a combination of theory and practice.

Before starting the learning process, the learner is being assessed to find the individual needs of trainings. Given this information to the learner, the theoretical background is being elaborated from the learner by using learning material that is made accessible in different forms. The learner can access the learning material by using:

 Tablets  Smartphones  Readers  Computers / Laptops
With the new approach, the learning material is made available over the internet but can be made offline as well e.g. for companies that have restrictions in internet access for their employees.

The already described ten sections, consist of chapters that collect a number of learning units, see Fig. 3. The learning structure consists of over 400 learning aims that cover the learning needs of metrologists for the first two levels. The learning aims are adjusted in discussions and collaboration in an international expert group of metrologists and expert group of designers. The definition of the learning aims, and the adjustment procedure is being done using real time cooperation with the use of online sharing of learning aim collection. The learning aims are the heart of the development because they:

 help define the course  help to keep the planning of strategies on track  help to be in line in the development group  help to define the course assessment  tell the learner, the tutor and the developer exactly what is expected

Introduction

The introduction section of a learning unit gives an overview about the relation to other learning units and gives motivation to the participants for the learning unit.

Explanation

In the explanation part, the learning content is delivered to the learning. The new tools used to develop and distribute the learning content allow the integration of conventional text, new media to deliver learning content and with that to enrich the learning experience.

In the learning material, new media is used such as:

 Videos  Animations  Interactive comprehension questions  Quizzes  Fill-in-the-blank text  Matching exercises

Examples

In the examples section, each learning unit covers practical examples to demonstrate the application of the learning content. Experience with learning material including such parts show that the learner's motivation can be increased to a high amount.

Exercises

Easy understandable elaboration examples illustrate the delivered learning content and let the learner elaborate the theory.

Comprehension questions

Experience with other courses showed that a possibility that allow an immediate verification whether learning content was understood is highly appreciated by students.

Taking this into account, comprehension questions are integrated in the learning content in an interactive way. With this, the learning success can be validated in a self-directed way with immediate feedback. This feedback is for the learner only, if further assistance is needed, the learner can turn to its colleagues or the tutor that coaches the course.

Workshop

Equipped with the learnings out of the basic part the learner participates a workshop in groups typically 3 to 6 participants. With this setting, it is possible to perform measurement tasks directly on coordinate metrology systems which leads to important experience in metrology by practical work coached by expert tutors.

In these workshop groups discussions can be made that allow to fill participants' knowledge gaps in an individual way. Furthermore, the experience of individual learners can be shared within the workshop groups and further knowledge is created by the participants.

Examination

In the end, the participants are taking part in an examination. The examination questions are based on the description of the action-oriented learning aims.

Conclusion

The international collaboration in an expert group consisting of designers and metrologists for structuring and developing a learning system at the example of coordinate metrology showed that the use of shared online documents that allow real time cooperation in development is a promising way to work together and share ideas.

The structured approach to develop learning material on the basis of action oriented learning aims formulations lead to an effective procedure that supported the harmonization of learning content. Based on the common understanding of learning aims it was possible to install the development of learning material in a parallel procedure that enable higher development speed than in conventional procedures used.

Fig. 2 .

 2 Fig. 2. Sharing online documents for collection and structuring of learning aims for coordinate metrology training in the cloud

Fig. 3 .

 3 Fig. 3. Learning aims as basis for the development and their relation to learning units, chapters, sections and levels Each learning unit is structured considering the following points:  Description of the learning aim  Introduction to the learning unit  Explanation of the learning content  Application examples of the learning content  Exercises  Comprehension questions6.1. Learning aimsEach learning unit starts with an action oriented learning aim description. This learning aim description is the basis for the whole learning unit. Based on this definition all the other information in the learning units are developed.The learning structure consists of over 400 learning aims that cover the learning needs of metrologists for the first two levels. The learning aims are adjusted in discussions and collaboration in an international expert group of metrologists and expert group of designers. The definition of the learning aims, and the adjustment procedure is being done using real time cooperation with the use of online sharing of learning aim collection. The learning aims are the heart of the development because they:

Table 1 .

 1 Overview about a ten-section approach for metrologists

	Section Section title
	1	Identification of measurement requirements
	2	Measuring strategy definition
	3	Equipment selection
	4	Workpiece preparation
	5	Measuring system preparation
	6	Measuring process execution
	7	Evaluation strategy definition
	8	Measurement uncertainty
	9	Documentation
	10	Infrastructure and environment

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the members of CMTrain association [4] and gratefully appreciate the feedback of the manufacturing companies, and university students that have participated in the field tests, and training editions, for their important contributions. The authors also wish to acknowledge the support of the European Union in the Programme Erasmus+ through the project COMET4.0: European Training for Coordinate Metrology 4.0, agreement n° 2016-1-IT01-KA202-005441.


Antoine Me

The origin of EU authority in criminal matters: a sociology of legal experts in European policy-making

Keywords: Criminal matters, Eurojust, European Arrest Warrant, legal experts, judicial co-operation, policy-making

This article aims to show how experts in European law shaped the direction and content of European public policy in the area of criminal justice. Putting policy experts at the core of our analysis allows us to examine the meso level of policy-making processes directly, where we can study the actors that played a concrete role in providing political and technical solutions during the drafting and adoption of European decisions. Our research focuses specifically on magistrates and senior civil servants who were actively involved in formulating and adopting the instruments of judicial co-operation (the Eurojust unit and the European Arrest Warrant). Through a sociological analysis of individual and collective actions of these legal professionals, we can explain how this branch of the EU was institutionalized and achieved its current form.

INTORDUCTION

Since the early 1990s, judicial co-operation has come to represent a distinctive institutional branch of European integration. In 1992, the Maastricht Treaty created the third pillar of the European Union (EU) devoted exclusively to co-operation in the field of 'justice and home affairs', thereby delimiting a new area of intergovernmental European intervention (Walker 2004). Criminal law -by definition one of the fundamental elements of state sovereignty (Kratochwil and Rohrlich 1985) -was henceforth negotiated among national government authorities within the framework of the EU. The European judicial area was institutionalized primarily through the adoption of criminal procedures, which opened up a broader new vantage point for observing social and institutional dynamics, which radically transformed judicial authority as an object of study [START_REF] Shapiro | On Law, Politics, and Judicialization[END_REF].

Studying the policy-making process that resulted in EU judicial co-operation offers the key to understanding how this new European sector of public action was constructed (Wallace and Wallace 2000). The aim of this article is therefore to examine how the two main mechanisms of mutual legal assistance -Eurojust and the European Arrest Warrant -came to be formulated and adopted (Me ´gie 2010). 1 Most analyses and books on European judicial co-operation, which have multiplied since the late 1990s, use a formal approach to describe present and future trends in 'legal policy'2 on criminal matters (Blextoon 2005;De Kerchove and Weyembergh 2000;[START_REF] Delmas-Marty | L'harmonisation des sanctions pe ´nales en Europe[END_REF][START_REF] Mitsilegas | The European Union and Internal Security. Guardian of the People[END_REF]). In the main, these works concentrate on the various legal and policy instruments of European mutual assistance or on the models of transnational co-operation used to reach formal agreement and/or harmonize criminal procedures. The most relevant legal analyses tend to present these issues in terms of their legal framework and normativity [START_REF] Guild | Liberty vs Security? Police and Judicial Cooperation in the European Union[END_REF]. While such analyses are necessary to understand the legal architecture of European judicial co-operation, they need to be supplemented by a study of how doctrine was used to legitimize the system. To grasp the policy dimension of the law [START_REF] Alter | Law, political Science and EU legal studies[END_REF], we must ask questions such as: Why did judicial co-operation become a central topic on the European policy agenda starting in 1990s? How can we explain the form in which European judicial co-operation and its instruments, the Eurojust unit and the European arrest warrant, were institutionalized?

We want to uncover the social and political factors that shaped the way European judicial law was defined as a sector of EU public action [START_REF] Burley | Europe before the court: a political theory of legal integration[END_REF]. We are therefore seeking to analyse criminal law as a full-fledged policy area in keeping with research already carried out on the role of lawyers in European integration (Cohen and Vauchez 2007). In the case of criminal law, however, legal knowledge was more than a language for defining rules such as EU law. As a pillar of European rule of law, criminal law was also a policy matter.

Our study is based on the hypothesis that European policy-making was produced through the representations, choices and everyday practices of meso-level actors who embodied this sector and entered into intergovernmental negotiations alongside national and European political representatives. In the area of security, the 9/11 attacks in 2001 stepped up political decision-making to strengthen European mutual assistance in criminal matters. But those events should be seen above all as a 'policy window' [START_REF] Kingdon | Agendas, Alternatives and Publics Policies[END_REF] that prompted national political authorities to agree to negotiate the adoption of new mechanisms of judicial co-operation. This view of the 9/11 terrorist attacks opens up the black box of the meso-level actors who were actively involved in European decision-making. Thanks to their special positioning, they were able -at that critical moment -to sell and impose their public policy solutions and hence influence the content of the decisions (Me ´rand 2008).

Our analysis will concentrate on some 20 French, British, Belgian, Dutch, Spanish and Italian legal professionals who held positions in national administrations or departments of the Council of the EU and the European Commission. 3 Through their acquired special status as experts, these professionals participated directly, notably through ad hoc European groups [START_REF] De Maillard | Technical or political? The working groups of the EU Council of Ministers[END_REF], in managing the policy agenda and formulating proposals for public action together with national authorities. In this instance, we are presenting a sociological study of the way European criminal law was produced during the 1990s, in line with the effort to promote a sociological approach to the definition of European law as a field of its own (Jettinghoff and Schepel 2005;[START_REF] Vauchez | The force of a weak field: law and lawyers in the government of the European Union (for a renewed research agenda)[END_REF]). We interviewed these actors, some of them several times, between March 2001 and early 2006. While most of the actors were magistrates, the specificity of each national institution in charge of legal questions implies the presence of other types of actors that we have described as senior civil servants. In this way, we propose to round out the study of the members of the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union (GSCEU) [START_REF] Mangenot | European games and institutional innovation. the making of Eurojust[END_REF]) and the legal experts who took part in institutionalizing European judicial co-operation. By including the representatives of the GSCEU in our analysis, we will also be looking at other jurists working at the national or European level.

The article, which is divided into three parts, examines the content of the actors' expertise and the way in which they constructed and succeeded in legitimizing their solutions for public action. In the first part, we will demonstrate how an analysis of the social dynamics that structured the group of legal experts on European judicial co-operation can help to explain the timing and content of European policy-making. In the second part, we will take a closer look at who the professionals working in this field actually were and the resources that enabled them to take part in the decision-making processes of the Council of the European Union, national governments and EU bodies. In the third part, we will study that expertise itself. We will see how it determined the dominant approach used in the problem and policy streams during the policy-making process resulting in Eurojust and the European Arrest Warrant.

A POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY OF EUROPEAN RULE OF LAW

In his description of the various streams related to policy-making, John Kingdon defines three types of complementary streams: problem streams; policy streams; and political streams [START_REF] Kingdon | Agendas, Alternatives and Publics Policies[END_REF]. This breakdown is useful because it allows us to examine, through a close look at the actors, the political and social dynamics that determine which public problems are put on the agenda and how the proposed solutions are formulated. From this point of view, the actors play a fundamental role as 'policy entrepreneurs'. Their long-term investment in a particular policy sector allows them to define a set of solutions (policy stream) even before a political window of opportunity opens up. While these solutions may not necessarily be the best response to the problems raised by political events, the fact that they are technically feasible and correspond to the dominant standards of the policy community allows their promoters to impose them on the decision-making agenda. In the case of European judicial co-operation, as we will see specifically later on, a genuine narrative of public policy developed during the 1990s [START_REF] Radaelli | Logiques de pouvoirs et re ´cits dans les politiques de l'Union Europe ´enne[END_REF], correlating the A. Me ´gie: The origin of EU authority in criminal matters 3 dominant representations of 'organized transnational crime' with a political and judicial interpretation in favour of European co-operation.

At the heart of the mechanisms for making policy changes [START_REF] Radaelli | Policy change and discourse in Europe: conceptual and methodological issues[END_REF], the discursive representations and norms promoted by 'policy entrepreneurs' took on a life of their own and became the dominant representations because their promoters had succeeded in acquiring the status of 'European experts'. To understand this process, we must undertake a specific analysis of the 'policy entrepreneurs' and their ability, as European sector actors, to determine which representations and solutions would define the content of the problem stream and the policy stream.

In approaching this topic from the standpoint of a political sociology of the European process [START_REF] Saurruger | Mainstreaming sociology in EU studies[END_REF], we propose to put sector actors at the core of our study in order to understand how these legal experts turned themselves into 'policy entrepreneurs' capable of influencing the content of European policies. This approach brings us back to some of the issues surrounding the constitution of European e ´lites and their role in the Europeanization process (Fligstein 2008). The particular feature of our contribution, however, lies in considering actors that are all too often left aside in favour of analyses centred on the most visible actors at the European level. Pursuing the line of inquiry opened up by Adrian Favell and Virginie [START_REF] Favell | The sociology of the European Union. An agenda[END_REF], our methodological approach offers the advantage of being able to study the collective as well as individual participation of meso-level actors in European political processes [START_REF] Georgakakis | From above and from below: a political sociology of European actors[END_REF].

These sector actors were real intermediaries, serving as brokers between different fields [START_REF] Dezalay | The Internationalization of Palace Wars: Lawyers, Economists and the Contest for Latin American States[END_REF]. A similar approach to legal experts and their role in internationalization and Europeanization processes can also be found in research on the sources of the international and European political order [START_REF] Alter | The European Court's Political Power: Selected Essays[END_REF][START_REF] Cohen | Sociologie politique de l'Europe du droit[END_REF][START_REF] Schepel | Professorenrecht? Le champ du droit prive ´europe ´en[END_REF]. Through their ability to introduce legal know-how into the policy sphere, these actors were able to build up and legitimize their own positions as European experts at the intersection of national and transnational dynamics. The meso-level actors effectively became translators of sector problems, capable of providing a set of analyses and solutions to meet the multiple national interests of the member states. Understanding the social processes that turned these actors first into experts and then into 'policy entrepreneurs' explains the content of the public policies that were adopted. To do this, we have to grasp the problems that arose and the orientations of public action imposed as solutions during the decision-making processes [START_REF] Nay | Le gouvernement du compromis: courtiers et ge ´ne ´ralistes dans l'action politique[END_REF].

This sociological approach reveals that there were different types of intermediaries [START_REF] Georgakakis | The historical and political sociology of the EU: a uniquely French methodological approach?[END_REF] within different spaces [START_REF] Kauppi | A Political Sociology of Transnational Europe[END_REF]. This community of specialists was in fact fragmented into a multitude of positions of expertise [START_REF] Robert | Who are the European experts and on what grounds? Profiles, trajectories and expert "careers" of the European Commission[END_REF].

BECOMING 'POLICY ENTREPRENEURS': THE PATHS TO SPECIALIZATION IN EUROPEAN CRIMINAL LAW

The institutionalization of the European area of criminal law during the 1990s resulted in a sharp increase in the number of posts in charge of these issues at the national and European levels. The aim of this section is to understand the trajectories and resources used by national experts on criminal matters to build up transnational policy capital and thereby develop their knowledge and win recognition as European policy-makers. From this point of view, the ability of certain actors to circulate between the various national and European judicial and political areas proved to be a path of specialization, socialization, and above all, indispensable legitimation.

Specialization resulting from institutional or judicial experience

When we compare the career paths of the various interviewees, there appear to have been two main avenues to becoming a specialist in European judicial matters and later on to being appointed to a post of responsibility in the field. Jurists entered the area of judicial co-operation either by occupying a post in an institution with national jurisdiction over these issues or through experience in the field. Typical trajectories took shape, leading civil servants and magistrates to invest in European criminal matters.

In the case of specialization via the institutional route, the actors began building their expertise within various central political institutions with jurisdiction over criminal matters by helping to formulate criminal justice rules for transnational co-operation and ensuring their legal implementation. In some member states, these legal experts were not necessarily magistrates. One example was the person in charge of judicial co-operation issues at the Belgian Ministry of Justice, who played an active role in formulating the Eurojust project and the framework decision that created the European Arrest Warrant. The work of these actors in chancelleries or ministries in charge of European issues focused primarily on the technical and diplomatic dimensions of mutual assistance.

The other main avenue to specialization, which could be described as access via the uses of criminal matters, also deserves some discussion. Indeed, many judges in member states had no exposure to the area of European judicial cooperation, despite the growing number of offences qualified as transnational. In practice, these cases represented a minority of the caseload handled by national judicial authorities. The possibility of specializing in the area of mutual assistance in criminal matters depended on the judges' ability to acquire further experience in this type of litigation and build a track record in the field based on the number of cases they handled. Experience in combating 'transnational organized crime' (TOC) phenomena was one of the main common denominators of a large percentage of magistrates who became involved in European cases during the 1990s. The fact that judicial co-operation was defined as a European political challenge through the fight against TOC [START_REF] Mitsilegas | Defining organised crime in the EU[END_REF]) is certainly linked to this process of redeployment. Finally, the institutionalization of systems of co-operation such as the Schengen magistrates or the European Judicial Network (EJN) in the early 1990s meant that certain magistrates were constantly working on European mutual assistance procedures.

Trajectories of specialization

The various types of entry points to European judicial co-operation influenced the way these professionals defined themselves individually and collectively later on. These career development opportunities explain how some of the experts accumulated practical and/or diplomatic experience that allowed them to build up their expertise and legitimacy. To make their trajectories easier to follow, we will present them here based on three levels of observation: the Council of the European Union; national authorities; and EU bodies.

The Council of the European Union level

The persons recruited in 1994, when the 'Justice and Home Affairs' (JHA) department was set up in the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union, are exemplary in this regard. As Michel [START_REF] Mangenot | European games and institutional innovation. the making of Eurojust[END_REF] has shown, the career paths of these individuals, mainly senior civil servants, are of particular interest because they were to become central actors in formulating the legal and policy aspects of Eurojust and the European Arrest Warrant:

. The person in charge of criminal co-operation issues at the Luxembourg ministry for 30 years and co-founder of the TREVI group was named director general. . The post of senior legal officer was occupied by a civil servant with 20 years of experience on these issues at the Dutch Ministry of Justice. With close ties to political authorities, this Dutch senior civil servant was also among the drafters of the Schengen Agreement. . Within this department, a 'Judicial and Police Co-operation' section was set up, headed by the former chief of staff of the Belgian Ministry of Justice since 1989. Like his Dutch colleague, this senor official also took part in drafting the Schengen Agreement. In 2007, he was appointed European co-ordinator of the fight against terrorism. . Finally, the head of the 'Judicial Co-operation' division is a Swedish magistrate who worked on these issues for 10 years at the Council of Europe.

National government level

In the 1990s and at the beginning of the 2000s, several magistrates were employed at the level of national central government, where they played an important role in the policy-making and legal processes that resulted in the creation of Eurojust and the European Arrest Warrant:

. This was the case of a magistrate who, after working for the European Affairs

The level of EU bodies

Finally, circulation among various posts in charge of European issues also led some magistrates or senior civil servants to pursue careers outside their national administration (within DG JLS of the European Commission or the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)):

. Thus, a French magistrate who, after working on international and European issues at the E ´cole de la magistrature franc ¸aise, took part in drafting the European Arrest Warrant project in his capacity as a French expert seconded to the European Commission, and was ultimately hired by the 'Criminal Co-operation' department of the JHA. . Another example is a Dutch prosecutor who, after assuming a post in Rotterdam, was appointed as a national expert to various European groups in charge of fighting financial crime. As he himself points out, it was thanks to his experience at the national and European levels that he succeeded in being recruited by the criminal investigative services at OLAF in the early 2000s.

For some professionals, owing to the way recruitment took place, obtaining a post in an EU institution was a way of circumventing the obstacles they encountered at the national administrative level. A typical example of such a configuration is the case of a magistrate who helped to draft the Eurojust project and later joined OLAF services after being rejected for the post of national representative.

Asserting expertise: resources

Certain types of experience enabled these actors to stake out positions for themselves in European law and turn the field into a full-fledged specialty, but not all of them participated to the same extent in developing systems of co-operation.

Their diverse national origins and career paths made them a heterogeneous group. Understanding this dimension brings us directly back to the problem of legitimacy and the reasons why some of them succeeded in establishing their authority as 'policy entrepreneurs' in a rapidly evolving area of European policy. The organizational changes that took place in national and European administrations beginning in the mid-1990s enhanced the institutional and symbolic value of a European specialization in the area of criminal justice [START_REF] Roussel | Les magistrats franc ¸ais, des cause lawyers malgre ´eux ?[END_REF]. To assert their authority on European issues, experts in judicial co-operation had to marshal certain resources specific to this area that would give weight later on to their proposals during negotiations. The variety of these resources, owing to their individual career paths and the national frameworks in which they developed, appears to have been an important factor. Experts who failed to demonstrate good language skills were soon relegated to the rank of 'amateurs' by the other actors. Fluency in a particular language was the main reason for being appointed to certain positions in certain countries.

Another resource, closely connected to issuing statements and making speeches, was decisive in the case of European co-operation: the chance for experts to publish texts on EU issues. The exponential multiplication of institutional literature on European security during the decade was crucial in giving legitimacy to experts on criminal co-operation. Virtually all the actors that contributed to the construction of Eurojust and the European Arrest Warrant published works during this period. The most emblematic examples were unquestionably the members of the General Secretariat of the Council of the EU. Publishing texts gave the authors an opportunity to propose and promote their own ideas about the rules of co-operation to be introduced. Official reports and books were the preferred vehicles for expressing the opposing views of the advocates of the Corpus Juris project to harmonize national criminal laws, the magistrates behind the Geneva Appeal who wanted to strengthen legal co-operation and the independence of the courts [START_REF] Paris | Magistrats en re ´seaux contre la criminalite ´organise ´e[END_REF], and the magistrates and senior civil servants promoting the introduction of minimum rules of co-operation for reasons of concrete, practical efficiency. The ability to produce and circulate multiple publications in national chancelleries was a clear advantage in this context.

Jurists often combined publications with other resources to reinforce their expert status, particularly teaching and lecturing in universities or specialized schools (European institutes or magistrate training schools). These activities enabled professionals to develop academic programmes on European expertise that were financed by national or EU authorities. As we shall see, the very fact of participating in these activities allowed the legal professionals to recognize each other and confirm their legitimacy as experts.

Owing to the importance of the national frameworks in individual career paths, other resources also played a central role. In some cases, belonging to a political party and/or a trade union seems to have been an essential factor in receiving a European-level appointment. The time spent by GSCEU members in ministerial cabinets is a good example. Similarly, one of the first French liaison magistrates who actively participated in creating Eurojust was closely associated with the Socialist party and an adviser at the Ministry of Justice during the French Presidency of the EU in 2000. In Italy, trade union and political party connections also appear to have been indispensable, given the importance of this dimension in the country's judicial system [START_REF] Vauchez | L'institution judiciaire remotive ´e : le processus d'institutionnalisation d'une "nouvelle justice" en Italie : 1960 -2000[END_REF]). An Italian magistrate who became one of the country's first and principal representatives in the area of European judicial co-operation had previously earned considerable recognition for his actions in combating the mafia and terrorism, together with substantial political and trade union experience as a former trade union leader and political activist.

Nevertheless, in the case of a group as disparate and heterogeneous as the one we are studying, it is difficult to establish a clear-cut typology of the attributes these individuals acquired in order to be appointed and speak with an authoritative voice in the field of European judicial co-operation. It is therefore relevant to look at the question of resources more specifically by examining why certain actors succeeded in the task of formulating and implementing European criminal policies.

Legitimizing the position of policy entrepreneur

In addition to their personal investment in European legal affairs, the actors needed to develop further professional expertise and significantly transform the know-how they had previously acquired. The jurists who were most successful in making these adjustments were those who had accumulated the widest range of resources to become multi-positioned actors. The hypothesis of multiple positioning, which places these individuals at the intersection of the various fields of national authority through their involvement in different networks, is particularly instructive (Georgakakis 2002). In an area at the crossroads of politics, law and academia, the actors' ability to move easily among various circles allowed them to establish themselves as experts and above all ensure their long-term involvement in the European security field.

A. Me ´gie: The origin of EU authority in criminal matters 9

Most of the professionals who became key experts on European judicial cooperation in the mid-1990s found ways of combining institutional posts with publishing and/or teaching activities, as well as trade union or political party involvement at the European or national level. This created a closed circle, limiting even further the number of specialists assigned important roles during the process of adopting and implementing the policies behind Eurojust and the European Arrest Warrant. Those who failed to position themselves as multiple actors were eliminated from the game and kept from formulating the rules of cooperation over the long-term.

There were pronounced cleavages along national lines. Belonging to a Common Law system was often considered a 'deviation' from the idea of European integration in legal matters. The national dimension no doubt represented the primary dividing line between members of the group. The actors' legal training and culture affected the way they defined themselves.

Another distinction was also promoted by the actors to confirm their own legitimacy. Initial learning experiences influenced the way these professionals defined themselves and validated their approach to judicial co-operation by determining the resources they could engage and, later on, some of their empirical training. Being able to highlight institutional or operational knowledge lent legitimacy to the actions and position of the individuals we encountered.

Legal professionals who began their specialization by handling Europe-wide judicial cases claimed their knowledge of the field as a fundamental component of their expertise. From this perspective, they defined their added value as the ability to combine practical experience with technical knowledge. In seeking legitimacy, the actors therefore called attention to their 'practical' and/or 'policy' skills, depending on their position and work.

Thus, the community of legal professionals involved in European judicial cooperation starting in the mid-1990s defined and positioned themselves on the basis of numerous dividing lines concerning nationality, socio-professional position, path to specialization and level of intervention in public action. At the same time, despite their heterogeneity, the group was shaped by a certain number of shared representations and perceptions, particularly with regard to the issue of the legal and political form of European judicial co-operation. The social dynamics that traditionally irrigate the European process (Guiraudon and Favell 2010) help to explain the homogeneity of their categories of perceptions and representations, despite numerous divisions and the singularity of their personal trajectories.

EXPERTISE AT THE CORE OF POLICY-MAKING CONTENT

Although the national framework had a significant influence in shaping their course of action, a certain degree of social unity existed among the actors, which led them to produce and share a set of beliefs, practices and know-how regarding judicial co-operation. This cognitive approach dominated in the problem stream owing to the position of the actors as legitimate experts.

Later on, it was because these same actors also played a central role in the policy stream that their solutions prevailed during intergovernmental negotiations. In other words, the actors' ability to shape the negotiation agenda and take advantage of policy windows had a concrete affect on the content of the decisions on which Eurojust and the European Arrest Warrant were based.

Defining and sharing 'pragmatic', operational expertise on judicial co-operation

The first type of shared representation was the jointly held conviction that European co-operation is a political and institutional solution essential to European integration. All the actors we interviewed expressed a variation of this idea, including the belief that co-operation among member states is the most effective way to combat transnational organized crime. Social representations identifying organized crime and terrorism as transnational threats lie at the core of their discursive logic (Den Boer 2002). Thus, the actors played an essential role in disseminating genuine public policy discourse presenting European judicial co-operation as a full-fledged political and judicial solution to the problem of transnational organized crime.

These perceptions and beliefs embodied the dominant, legitimate representations to such an extent that they achieved a sort of autonomy and gained a solid foothold at the centre of the problem stream and the policy stream. The principle of trans-governmental co-operation did not gain general acceptance in the security field until the early 1980s, notably as a result of the first institutional experiments in police co-operation [START_REF] Bigo | Polices en re ´seaux[END_REF]. The European criminal law-enforcement area was thus developed through a discourse of legitimation that, starting in 2001, made the prevention of 'transnational organized crime' and of 'international terrorism' the principal political and judicial challenge of the EU. Imposing this narrative of public policy fundamentally altered the configuration and balance of the European penal system [START_REF] Guild | Liberty vs Security? Police and Judicial Cooperation in the European Union[END_REF]. Intergovernmental negotiations were henceforth oriented towards introducing systems that emphasized arrest and punishment, at the expense of the legal aspects of stable criminal procedures. At the same time, the actors we are studying also view stronger judicial co-operation as vital to the legitimacy of the European security sector and to supervize police force action. 4 In another register, these legal professionals all have what they describe as shared experience. Seeing themselves as 'inventors' of European co-operation in the 1990s is essential to the way the magistrates and senior civil servants define their approach to European co-operation, both individually and collectively. In their view, they built up a set of specific skills at the European level by learning different rules from the ones inculcated during their initial training. They all claimed to value 'interpersonal skills', 'diplomatic imperatives' and the ability to 'go beyond national practices'. In their opinion, this shared 'technocratic mentality' [START_REF] Radaelli | How bureaucratic elites imagine Europe: towards convergence of governance beliefs?[END_REF] enabled them to stand out clearly from the actors who remained at the national level.

Finally, the members of this group define themselves collectively as intermediaries, at the intersection of national legal interaction and transnational processes. Closely linked to this common definition of their role, the magistrates and senior civil servants share and advocate a method that they themselves describe as 'pragmatic'. This approach, which they present as the 'European method', nevertheless differs from a European Union method because it does not require prior integration of judicial authorities at the EU level. In this type of configuration, national authorities remain the principal decisionmakers. As a result, diplomatic and political experience is viewed as a fundamental asset. The example of Schengen is regularly invoked as a reference to support this view. It is therefore no coincidence that some of the senior civil servants and magistrates who contributed to the Schengen accords also intervened in the cognitive and legal construction of instruments of judicial co-operation such as Eurojust and the European Arrest Warrant. Thus, the social dynamics underlying the Schengen accords, analysed by Virginie [START_REF] Guiraudon | The constitution of a European immigration policy domain: a political sociology approach[END_REF], also influenced the way the European judicial system was set up. The rejection of recommendations in favour of a European prosecutor formulated by the Corpus Juris movement and the Geneva Appeal reflects the same thinking.

This tendency to encourage a pragmatic, operational view of judicial co-operation was at the heart of European policy-making. It had a concrete effect on how the two main instruments of mutual assistance -Eurojust and the European Arrest Warrant -were formulated.

Actors at the juncture of the problem stream and the policy stream Here, we will attempt to determine the extent to which the representations of these actors and the solutions they proposed concretely influenced the content of the decisions. From this standpoint, if the solutions formulated by the actors under study prevailed at the policy stream level, it was because those same actors participated directly in the negotiations. 5 In the case of institutionalizing judicial co-operation as a European political area, the strength of policy entrepreneurs lay, as one might expect, in their ability to take advantage of various 'policy windows'. Indeed, they seized these 'windows of opportunity' to put instruments of judicial co-operation on the decision-making agenda, at a time when the projects were still in progress and/or held up for legal and political reasons.

The policy entrepreneurs were involved in the same political and social area as members of the Council of European Ministers, particularly the Permanent Representations to the EU in Brussels. Their various professional and political interests at the time tended to converge in the Eurojust project. In the mid-1990s, the members of the GSCEU were seeking to establish their legitimacy within the third pillar, notably in relation to the European Commission departments. As for the national representatives, newly appointed to Brussels, they were eager 'to enter the European arena as quickly as possible. In other words, they wanted to engage in negotiations and tackle concrete projects'. 6 In the ensuing discussions, the GSCEU was to receive considerable support from certain national delegations, particularly from the Germans and the French. Following the murder of an Irish journalist by drug traffickers shortly before the Dublin Summit in 1997, the General Secretariat of the Council of the EU, with Irish government support, proposed to set up a European judicial unit to combat 'organized crime'. Though the draught proposal was rejected, the members of the GSCEU continued developing the initial project to put it on the agenda of the Tampere summit.

At the meetings to prepare the first European summit on internal security issues, the GSCEU was involved in organizing the agenda, together with the staff of the Finnish Presidency. The GSCEU sought to represent the judicial unit project with the help of French and German advisors who were present. Their task was to define the issues that would be discussed during the twoday European Council meeting in Tampere. As one of the GSCEU members explained:

We had to prepare the points that would help to generate a consensus on the Eurojust co-ordination unit project. However, none of the ministers mentioned the topic. So we decided to mobilise the German and French ministers of justice who, as we had learned from talking with their advisors, were in favour of the idea. They confirmed their interest in the course of the meeting, which led the rest of the ministers to approve the project. 7 The preparatory meeting convinced the increasingly reluctant Finnish Presidency to include the creation of the Eurojust unit in the future conclusions of the Tampere summit. Once the project was adopted as a policy at the summit, the pragmatic approach favoured by the policy entrepreneurs prevailed. Following the conclusions of Tampere, a small number of national chancelleries decided to participate in the Eurojust project to define the future orientation of the new system of co-operation. The delegations of the next four EU Presidencies, Portugal, France, Sweden and Belgium, agreed to collaborate on producing what was called the project of the 'four Presidencies'. The fact that the French and Belgian authorities, some of whose representatives were close to the GSCEU, were part of this coalition had a decided effect on the final form of the Eurojust project. Though the process was brought back under the control of the member states, the GSCEU remained present as a mediator between the various authorities thanks to its role in managing some of the negotiations and helping to draft the text.

There were competing implementation plans, with a German proposal on one side and the proposal of the four Presidencies on the other. 8 A consensus was reached between the members of the French delegation in charge of the negotiations on behalf of the Presidency and the GSCEU members to speed up the implementation process before the German proposal could gain support. With this in mind, a provisional judicial co-operation unit called Pro-Eurojust was set up in 2000, i.e., a year before the final adoption of the European framework decision stipulating the creation of a judicial unit [START_REF] Mangenot | European games and institutional innovation. the making of Eurojust[END_REF]. This approach was backed by the actors from the GSCEU as well as by the French delegation (one of whose members was to become the French representative in Eurojust). In their thinking, the legal foundations of the unit, i.e., the general principles of law and judicial procedures governing Eurojust, would be defined a posteriori to justify and legitimize what already existed. This dynamic of production clearly affected the way Eurojust and its activity were to develop later on amidst a constant search for legitimacy vis-a `-vis other European and national authorities (Me ´gie 2007).

The ability of our actors to take advantage of policy windows was even more crucial in the case of the European Arrest Warrant. The arrest of the leader of the Kurdistan worker's party (PKK) in Italy and the German authorities' refusal to extradite him was the underlying reason for including a project for a new European extradition procedure in the final conclusions of the Tampere summit. This decision met with considerable opposition on the part of numerous national authorities, who ultimately refused to ratify the 2000 convention on mutual judicial assistance. 9 Finally, the 9/11 terrorist attacks triggered the sudden acceleration of the process of negotiating and adopting the European arrest warrant, which came into a being only a few months later.

In the name of swiftness and 'political expediency', 10 the final framework decision was drastically reformulated. After the extraordinary summit meeting of the European Council on 12 September 2001 and the adoption of a European Arrest Warrant policy, the framework decision was rewritten by a small committee of three or four people from the GSCEU and the Belgian Chancellery in a diplomatic strategy aimed above all at promoting its rapid adoption by the member states. The desire to move quickly, in keeping with the pragmatic approach advocated by the magistrates and senior civil servants involved, resulted in setting aside whole sections of the project proposed by the European Commission, notably concerning rights of defence.

For some SGCEU members and national authorities that favoured the idea of pragmatic development, the main advantage of the Laeken decision was that it went beyond the lowest common denominator. The swift negotiations and the positioning of the actors involved in the legal formulation of the framework decision were nevertheless to have direct repercussions on the final form of the extradition system when it was implemented. Indeed, after the new European extradition procedure was transposed into national law, a number of national constitutional courts criticized their executive authorities for introducing rules contrary to domestic law (Guild 2006).

CONCLUSION

The adoption of an operational view of European judicial co-operation must therefore be understood partly as the product of the European specialization of certain legal professionals who became acknowledged policy experts through multiple institutional positions. Their shared culture of compromise oriented towards a pragmatic approach explains how and why, in a context dominated by security issues, European policy-making in judicial matters adhered to a vision focused exclusively on procedural co-operation rather than on harmonizing criminal law at the European level. These policy experts played an important role at the heart of the European institutional game, managing the policy agenda as well as writing about and promoting solutions for public action. Their impact symbolizes moreover the centrality of executive authorities in producing European criminal standards as opposed to legislative and judicial authorities.

Finally, the advantage of analysing meso-level actors to grasp the content of European policy-making also lies in the possibility of defining the main mechanisms of co-operation that structured the European process. We have seen that vertical co-operation among national governments through the Council of European Ministers was not the only mechanism supporting the institutionalization of the European judicial sector. While the member states, by definition, are not homogeneous actors, the European Union seems to have accentuated this fragmentation. As other authors have already pointed out [START_REF] Dehousse | European integration and the nation-state[END_REF], the EU has brought about the decomposition of member states, resulting in horizontal mechanisms of co-operation among the various national sector authorities (Smith and De Maillard 2007). This horizontal co-operative interaction, combined with the vertical dynamics, determined the many normative, strategic and institutional adjustments that produced the European judicial sector.

Biographical note: Antoine Me ´gie is lecturer in politics at the University of Rouen. He is editor of the review Politique europe ´enne.

Address for correspondence: Antoine Me ´gie, Universite ´de Rouen, De ´partement de Droit, 3 Avenue Pasteur, Rouen 76100, France. email: antoine.megie@univ-rouen.fr NOTES 1 Eurojust, the first European unit devoted exclusively to judicial co-operation, was a multilateral office with a prosecutor from the legal system of each EU member state. 3 To respect the anonymity frequently requested by our interviewees, we will specify only their nationality and/or function. Furthermore, while French actors make up the largest contingent, the information they provided is representative of the data gathered on the actors from other member states. 4 Article 30 of the Treaty of Amsterdam Treaty of Amsterdam modifying the treaties of the European Union, OJEC C 340, 10 November 1997. 5 For a detailed account of the intergovernmental negotiations that culminated in the adoption of the Eurojust unit and the European arrest warrant, cf. [START_REF] Bigo | The Field of the EU Internal Security Agencies[END_REF] and Me ´gie (2010). 6 Interview conducted with a French liaison magistrate, a former member of the French PR in Brussels in February 2003. Similar testimonials were obtained from other civil servants and magistrates who were present in Brussels at the time. 7 Interview with a member of the GSCEU, April 2004. 8 In total secrecy, including from the GSCEU members in charge of the negotiation schedule, the Berlin authorities filed a project in 2000, one day before the project prepared by the GSCEU and the 'four Presidencies'. In taking this position, the German authorities sought to intervene directly in a process from which they felt excluded, even though the idea of Eurojust had originally been supported by some of their representatives. In this case, the German chancellery wanted to participate concretely in defining the working framework of Eurojust to avoid having to cope later on with orientations it opposed.

A.

  Me ´gie: The origin of EU authority in criminal matters 15 Downloaded by [antoine megie] at 02:47 10 October 2013

  Department of the French Ministry of Justice (SAEI) setting up the first systems of mutual assistance (Schengen magistrates, liaison magistrates), became a liaison magistrate abroad. It is noteworthy that the same route was taken a few years later by her successor in the SAEI. The latter was head of the 'Justice and Home Affairs' Department of the French Permanent Representation (PR) in Brussels, following posts as director of continuing judicial education at the E ´cole de la magistrature, head of the SAEI and then deputy secretary general at the General Secretariat of European Affairs (SGAE);. The magistrate who inaugurated the post of 'Justice and Home Affairs' advisor at the French PR in Brussels in 1997 became a liaison magistrate after heading the 'Criminal Judicial Co-operation' group of the Council of European Ministers during the French Presidency of the European Union in 2000, at the time the Eurojust project was negotiated. . Another path of specialization that also included a period of work at the SAEI is interesting, both as an example and for the role played by this magistrate in the different systems, particularly as a Schengen magistrate. After starting his career in national jurisdictions, in the early 1990s he became head of the Justice Mission of the Department of European and International Affairs at the Central Division of the Criminal Investigation. The magistrate was then seconded from the Ministry of Justice to head the Office of European Law. In the late 1990s and the early 2000s, this French magistrate has been seconded as an 'expert' to the European Commission.

These trajectories show how a 'stream of specialization' developed in France. This type of circulation was not specific to France. Other similar trajectories could be mentioned: the Dutch liaison magistrate, present in France until 2006, formerly worked on these issues in his chancellery, followed by two years at the SGCE in the late 1990s, where he took part in drafting the Eurojust project.

  Council of the European Union, Decision 187/JAI setting up Eurojust to reinforce the fight against serious organised crime, OJEC C 063, 6 March 2002. The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is a specific procedure for extradition between EU member states. The EAW marked the implementation of the European principle of mutual recognition of legal decisions in a new field of law. Council of the European Union, 'Framework decision of the European Council 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member states',OJEC L 190, 18 July 2002. 2 By the term 'legal policy' we mean how the member states and legal doctrine shape and view trends in court decisions.

Journal of European Public Policy Downloaded by [antoine megie] at 02:47 10 October 2013

Downloaded by [antoine megie] at 02:47 10 October 2013

Journal of European Public Policy Downloaded by [antoine megie] at 02:47 10 October 2013

A. Me ´gie: The origin of EU authority in criminal matters 5 Downloaded by [antoine megie] at 02:47 10 October 2013

Journal of European Public Policy Downloaded by [antoine megie] at 02:47 10 October 2013

A. Me ´gie: The origin of EU authority in criminal matters 11 Downloaded by [antoine megie] at 02:47 10 October 2013

Journal of European Public Policy Downloaded by [antoine megie] at 02:47 10 October 2013

A. Me ´gie: The origin of EU authority in criminal matters 13 Downloaded by [antoine megie] at 02:47 10 October 2013

European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, OJEC C 197, 12 July 2000.

European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, OJEC C 197, 12 July 2000.

Journal of European Public Policy Downloaded by [antoine megie] at 02:47 10 October 2013

Journal of European Public Policy Downloaded by [antoine megie] at 02:47 10 October 2013


Segrestin Blanche

Cgs

Andrew Johnston

Armand Hatchuel

THE SEPARATION OF DIRECTORS AND MANAGERS: A HISTORICAL EXAMINATION OF THE STATUS OF MANAGERS

While management emerged as a distinctive function at the turn of the 20 th century, managers have no particular status in law compared to directors. This article examines how technological and innovation concerns motivated the rise of management; but shows that they have been largely overlooked by company law since 1945.

INTRODUCTION

The emergence of management as a distinctive "social stratum" (Child, 1969: 14) around the turn of the 20 th century is recognized as a major breakthrough for industrial relationships and organizations. But paradoxically, the role and duties of managers are hardly distinct in law from those of directors. Corporate law seems to suggest "as patently is not the casethat the institutional function and legal roles within the corporation [of officers and directors] are the same" (Johnson et al., 2005(Johnson et al., : 1601)).

While past research have extensively discussed the relative position of shareholders and directors, the aim of our article is to shed light on the separation of ownership and control by documenting by examining the rationale for the distinction between managers and directors and the way it was received by law.

To do so, our study confronts management history and legal history. It makes two methodological choices: As legislation varies between countries, and in order to have consistent data, we examine the evolution of law in a single country, even though we anticipate that the general movements we observed are probably also followed in the other Western European countries (some evidences are available from France, Belgium, Germany and Italy but would need further investigation). We chose to examine the UK because the UK showed itself to be among the most willing to make radical changes to the relationship between shareholders and directors, and has exercised a significant influence on global corporate governance through its practice of issuing soft law codes that increase accountability of managers to shareholders. Similarly, we do not study all the factors, sociological, political or financial, that drove the emergence of management. Rather, we specifically focus on the role of innovation. At the end of the 19 th century, as technological and scientific progress sped up, the rise of science-based industry urged new roles for management. Management's role was not (only) to rationalize production and to reduce costs but it was also to devise innovative strategies and develop new organizational capabilities. Although limited, this focus on innovation allows us to identify some fundamental reasons of the distinction between the role of directors and that of managers.

SEPARATION OF OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL: ECONOMIC AND LEGAL VIEWS

Since the seminal book of Berles & Means (Berle & Means, 1932), the separation between ownership and control has continuously been a matter of lively debates. Beyond the discussions on when and how this separation took place in the different countries (Cheffins, 2001(Cheffins, , 2008;;Coffee, 2001), the foundations and reality of the separation are critical both for management and corporate governance. They delineate the sphere of intervention of shareholders in the management of the corporations. The separation of ownership and control thus shapes the conditions for managerial discretion (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990;Hambrick & Finkelstein, 1987;Phillips, Berman, Elms & Johnson-Cramer, 2010;Wangrow, Schepker & Barker, 2015). Different perspectives have been put forward. On the one hand, the economic literature has focused on the agency relationship between shareholders who bear the risks and those in the position of running the companies. It suggested that there is a need for more accountability of "principals" to their "agents", either through supervision by the principals or through other mechanisms that align their interests. On the other hand, accounts from law emphasize that directors, on the contrary, are not agents of the shareholders, and that the separation between shareholders and directors is legally grounded and economically sound because it supports specific investments of the different constituencies (Blair, 1995;Blair & Kruse, 1999). Besides, the separation between ownership and control is seen as a condition for stakeholder management (Johnson & Millon, 2005;Lipton & Rowe, 2007). As noted by Dai & Helfrich (Dai & Helfrich, 2016):

"Despite the necessary tensions intrinsic in this relationship, there are substantial benefits to this separation as well, namely creating a more efficient capital market system in which investors are able to use their time to invest rather than govern, but more significantly, allowing corporations to be more than pure profit maximizers and simultaneously prioritize stakeholder interests and corporate social responsibility."

Yet, many authors have observed that in practice, shareholders have great influence on management (Zeitlin, 1974). This influence is all the more important with the rise of institutional investors in the past decades. And it is obviously not prevented by law: in law, directors are appointed by shareholders, with the latter given an exclusive and ultimate right of control (Kaufman & Englander, 2005;Millon, 2013;Yosifon, 2014).

In these debates, the absence of an explicit legal mandate for manager appear crucial. Where management was strongly transferred by board to directors to managing directors in the early 20 th century, the historical emergence of management was accommodated within existing legal structures, rather than supported by a positive legal regime. Managers were viewed as employees, and were never endowed with any special authority. Their function was never separated conceptually and clear from that of the directors.

The effect was that the managers below board level, whilst treated as representatives of the employer in labour law, were simply viewed as employees from the perspective of company law, capable of being dismissed and restrained from divulging trade secrets, but not viewed as having any other special status.

Yet, there were strong rationale for the emergence of management as a distinctive function and for managerial discretion.

THE ROLE OF INNOVATION IN THE RISE OF MANAGERIAL AUTHORITY

The rise of managerial authority is often associated with the emergence, at the end of the nineteenth century, of mass production, (Hounsell, 1984), the increasing size and administrative complexity of industrial organization, as well as intensive capital requirements. Yet, the increased pace of technological and scientific progress, and the rise of a science-based industry lead to the rise of a new managerial authority both at the shop level and at the board level.

The new function of labour management

Around the turn of the twentieth century, labour law recognised that employees were subordinated to employers, with a an "open-ended duty of obedience" on the part of employee (Deakin, 2009). This was a drastic change.

Until then, workers had been independent and organized their work in their own ways. With the progress of mechanization, it became clear however that the more complex or innovative were the products, the less the classical labour market could work: the workers were no longer able to produce the pieces with the know-how and tools they had. Frederic Taylor was among the first to conceptualize the need for business organizations to specialize experts in the development of new knowledge and the design of innovative working processes (Hatchuel, 1996).

Subsequently, workers' know-how was substituted by managerial prescriptions. The consequence was that workers no longer simply exchanged their labour for a salary. Instead, they saw their capabilities transformed as they were integrated into complex production systems. While Taylorism is often denigrated as de-skilling workers, the management was first and foremost a function to renew and develop workers' capabilities. Progressive thinkers such as Commons, grasped this shift from a theory of the man "as a commodity" to a theory of the man as "a mechanism of unknown possibilities" (Commons, 1919).

The transfer of control from directors to "executives"

The second change concerned the rise of the role of "chief executives" or "general management", which became progressively more critical when salaried managers, outsiders to the company, were progressively appointed to run the businesses.

While owner families often kept control of their companies (via their control of the board), they progressively but massively recruited managers to run their companies (or sent their sons to the high schools that would make them knowledgeable themselves) (Joly, 2013). In the UK, the founding families maintained their representatives on the board of directors for an exceptionally long time (Keeble, 1992), but the same handover of "control" of the business to professional managers, with the appointment of professional managers, started from the 1870s (Wilson et al., 2006). Whilst this was a slow process (Lewis, Lloyd-Jones, Maltby & Matthews, 2011), from the 1930s, the numbers of managers employed in British businesses began to grow rapidly. And by the middle of the twentieth century, professional managers were increasingly being appointed to boards (e.g. up to three quarters in the steel industry in 1947 (Erickson, 1986)).

Instead of relying on their directors, companies tended to recruit men from the field from "outside" the company, because the context and the nature of the activities have deeply changed. In particular, the need for scientific investigation became a pressing matter in a number of industries. From the chemical industry to telecommunications, via glass and electricity, historians have well described the rise of industrial research laboratories at the end of the nineteenth century. A new "science-based" industry was beginning to emerge, transforming the enterprise from a productive to an innovative organisation. But introducing science in industry was not imposing a definite scheme of production or product solutions: quite on the contrary, science drove business organizations into the unknown, and so created a demand for radically new competencies to devise innovative but sustainable strategies. Hence the new role of executives and the need for managerial discretion.

THE RATIONALES FOR SEPARATING DIRECTORS AND MANAGEMENT AS A BLIND SPOT FOR COMPANY LAW

Understanding the nature of the new management function sheds light on some grounds of the separation between ownership and control. We characterize three fundamental rationales for this distinction: a new economic model based on innovation, the need for specific competencies and new social responsibilities. Our study shows that these rationales have been overlooked by company law. The lack of conceptualization of the managerial function in law allowed reforms in the second half of the twentieth century that weakened managerial discretion, reducing the scope for innovation and corporate social responsibilities.

Innovation-based economy and the way back to ownership-based economy

With the rise of science-based industry, the economy has moved from a traditional capital-based economy to an innovation-oriented one: the value of the enterprise doesn't derive so much from the ownership of production means or finance than from the capacity to organize collective endeavors, i.e. from the management. Contrary to the conventional economic view of the firm in which where the role of management is to reduce transaction costs, management appeared to design previously unseen strategies and to produce new goods and to renew the means of production (Goyder, 1987;Segrestin & Hatchuel, 2011).

Yet, this view was eclipsed in UK by company law. A Company Law Amendment Committee, known as the Cohen Committee, was appointed in 1943 and reported in 1945. The Committee was given the mandate 'to consider and report what major amendments are desirable in the Companies Act, 1929, and, in particular, to review the requirements prescribed in regard to the formation and affairs of companies and the safeguards afforded for investors and for the public interest.' But considering shareholders as 'owners' and 'those on whom the first loss falls', the Committee focused its attention almost exclusively on strengthening the position of shareholders in relation to directors. It concluded that it was "desirable to give shareholders greater powers to remove directors" (Cohen, 1945). The most important change was the Committee's recommendation that "any director (…) should be removable by an ordinary resolution, without prejudice to any contractual right for compensation." (Cohen Committee, para 130) This mandatory power was introduced by section 148 of the Companies Act 1948. And this rule fundamentally changed the balance of power within companies, as it allowed hostile takeovers to emerge as a means of dislodging managers. It restores the view that the wealth is due to ownership of capital providers rather than to the collective innovation processes, organized by management. And it basically allows to see managers as agents of shareholders, rather than "technocrats" or stewards of the enterprise, and with real managerial discretion (Veldman & Willmott, 2016).

The Need for distinctive Competencies and the way back to Non-Executive Directors

Managerial authority is inseparable from scientific approaches and the development of new corpuses of competencies. Traditional accounting methods and schools, and traditional economy were no more sufficient to address the modern innovation challenges. Management was called upon "to develop a steadily increasing technique and a more and more specialized vocational training of its own" (Webb, 1918: 6). There was therefore considerable effort to conceptualize the new function of "business administration", which departed fundamentally from classical accounting, engineering and political economy.

Yet, a second fundamental change began during the 1970s, as policy-makers began to call for greater numbers of non-executive directors (NEDs) on boards. After different attempts (cf. the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) published a report known as the Watkinson Report), the Bank of England began to push for more NEDs, culminating in the establishment in 1982 of an agency for the Promotion of Non-Executive Directors (known as PRO NED) (Bank of England 1983), chaired by Sir Adrian Cadbury from 1984, before the Cadbury Report formalised these developments in 1992. These efforts bore fruit: by 1988, 75 per cent of directors were independent in the sense of having no previous or present relationship with the company (Bank of England 1988).

The rise of NEDs reverses the earlier transfer of control from "directors" to executive managers. Although we have little evidence as to the information on which NEDs base their decisions (see for example Higgs Report 2003), it has been shown that that NEDs' control over management is based mainly on financial metrics (Baysinger & Hoskisson, 1990). Since the role of management and the related competencies was never recognized, this reform pushed corporate governance back to the pre-managerial period.

From "Common Purpose" back to Private Control

Beyond the promise of scientific progress to deliver goods of great social utility for the people, managers were often putting forward their social responsibilities and the public or quasi-public services they were delivering with their businesses (Marens, 2008). The rise of management was also likely to alleviate the social conflicts between capitalists and workers: scientific managers played also the role of a "neutral technocracy" (Berle & Means, 1932), likely to pacify the relationships between owners and workers (Savino, 2009). This role had a broader purpose than the economic profit of the company: the aim was to develop workers' and organizational capabilities. As Child analysed, "the new management's 'wider outlook and deeper sensitiveness' made possible the fulfilment of social functions for employees over and above the pursuit of production" (Child, 1969).

But these social responsibilities of managers were not explicitly recognized by law. And our analysis of the reforms in UK shows how the rise of institutional shareholder engagement brought from "common purpose" back to private control. Policy makers saw engagement by these new institutional investors as a complement or alternative to the market for corporate control in terms of ensuring accountability of management to shareholders. In 1972, the Institutional Shareholders' Committee (ISC) was created, with the support of the Bank of England. In 1991, the ISC issued a statement on the 'Responsibilities of Institutional Shareholders in the UK', and the 1992 Cadbury Report on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance endorsed this, encouraging 'regular systematic contact at senior executive level to exchange views and information on strategy, performance, board membership and quality of management' (Cadbury, 1992).

From this point on, institutional investor activism became a progressively more important part of corporate governance policy. Company law allowed institutional investors to have significant influence on strategy and without bearing responsibilities to employees or to the wider society and environment.

CONCLUSION AND FURTHER RESEARCH: TOWARDS A NEW STATUS FOR MANAGERS?

In this article, we contrast the historical rise of professional managers with the law's silence on their function. Focusing on the increased role of science and technological innovation in business, we highlight how the rise of a distinctive management function engrained some important foundations for separating ownership and control. We identify three basic rationales: the shift of the source of wealth from ownership to management, the need for specific skill-set, and the rise of new social responsibilities. While corporate law clearly distinguished between directors and shareholders, the manager remained either an employee (with no autonomy) or a director. And progressively, reformoverlooking the historical emergence and justifications of management -gave back control to shareholders and limited the scope of managerial discretion.

Taken together, these changes were crucial because the overall mission of management to develop new capabilities and to organize innovation processes has progressively become secondary to the purpose of maximizing shareholder value. Yet, more and more authors consider today that the innovative strategies are essential for the creation of value in the long term, for a balanced stakeholder management and for a sustainable economic development.

Our analysis adds then to the body of research on the separation of ownership and control by adding new light on the historical status of managers. It also suggests that the law has overlooked some fundamental changes in business organizations. It therefore calls for further research to make the distinctive role of management more visible in law. The historical grounds of management can inform new proposals of reform and a better conceptualization of management in law could probably fuel a new law of the enterprise. Shouldn't the law recognise the role of management in ensuring companies' survival and prosperity?

REFERENCES AVAILABLE FROM THE AUTHORS