Vol. 13 No. 8 (August 2003)

POLICING WORLD SOCIETY. HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL POLICE COOPERATION by Mathieu Deflem. Clarendon Studies in Criminology. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.  301pp. $80.00 Cloth.  ISBN: 0-19-925962-3.

Reviewed by András Sajó, Legal Studies, Central European University, Budapest.

Mathieu Deflem’s book on the Historical Foundations of International Police Cooperation is a provocative contribution to the fundamental debate among the leading schools in sociology. Notwithstanding its primarily sociological perspective and historical subject matter, it is of considerable value to scholars interested in police organizations and in international sub-governmental relations. Deflem’s main line of argument regarding the driving force behind bureaucratic organizations fits well into the political science debate about “new institutionalism” in the sense that it offers an alternative to state-centered theories of institution building and international relations. It is also a notable contribution to the ongoing debate regarding the nature and origins of globalization, claiming that the phenomenon of social controls reaching across borders is not completely new and has historical roots.  The writing is very rich in important details and can also be read as a parallel history of German and US police institutions.

The book offers a sociological analysis of the early history of international police cooperation. In fact, for methodological reasons the author does not focus on the actual international operative interactions among various national police forces (e.g. sharing files, offering training, and the like), but rather looks at the documents produced by the international police organizations. These documents enable the author to describe international police relations as organizational behavior. The time span covered is more than a hundred years, beginning at the middle of the nineteenth century and ending during the early years of the cold war. In particular, Deflem discusses the relations between the emerging international police organizations and the German police and police bodies in the US, respectively. The choice of these countries may seem surprising given the lack of a national police in the United States coupled with the notorious difficulties in developing police cooperation at the national level. However, for the purposes of building a theory, the US police offer a kind of counterexample to the institutional interest that exists in Germany and which is a catalyst for international co-operation.

The “Introduction” looks at the historical foundations of international police cooperation. It is here that the author briefly summarizes the emergence of a national police in Germany, and the formation of the American police as a set of municipal police forces. More importantly, it is in the “Introduction” where the author defines the scope of his research and outlines the theory that he plans to corroborate with empirical historical data. Deflem considers a number of competing theories applicable to international police cooperation, though at the moment “it is clear that not only is international policing a relatively new and unexplored field of scholarly attention, many of its discussions are void of theoretical explorations” (p.28). In particular, the author considers three—state-centered, the economic-deterministic, and a Weberian (bureaucratic) approach--arguing in favor of the Weberian model of international policing as having the best explanatory power. Deflem, however, conceives police bureaucratization and police professionalization as two complimentary processes. (Professional concerns include disregard of legal formalism in extradition and other efficiency driven considerations.) These two concerns put together determine the need for international police cooperation. Bureaucratization and professionalization result in a level of institutional independence that enables and requires international cooperation. “The greater the extent to which national police institutions have gained a position of institutional independence from their respective political centres, the greater is the chance that those institutions are in a position to engage in international cooperation” (p.21).

The state-centered “perspective holds that the dynamics of policing and international policing are to be accounted for with reference to the political ideological debates and interest of the national states” (p.15). The economic deterministic theories suggest that police (both nationally and internationally) follow the dictates of “those classes that control the free market” (p.29).  Deflem concedes to this approach by modifying his bureaucracy based theory with a Third Proposition: “National interests remain paramount in the planning and execution of international police activities and organizations” (p.27). This correction will become particularly relevant in the case of the Nazification of German police after 1933 and its impacts on international policing.

In two of his paragraphs Deflem bluntly rejects the functionalist models of police cooperation that argue that international police cooperation is a response to international crime phenomena. In his view such claims of causality are not supported by evidence. Accepting the functionalist explanation would simply equal subscribing to the legitimation theories (and myths) developed by police to rationalize international cooperation. “[T]he rationalizations of the participants cannot be confused with the conditions of their behavior” (p.29). The evidence discussed in the book suggests that gradual internationalization has been more grasping of the opportunity for police interaction offered by specific events of international crime (e.g. anarchist attempts against heads of state), rather than arising from an actual internationalization of crime and crime investigation. Even where there was an important international element in crime that bothered national authorities (e.g., international prostitution, illegal and politically unacceptable migration), investigation did not really depend on international cooperation. It remains to be seen if this is still true today. “International crime” is certainly an organizational social construction—i.e., the vision of crime that prevails among law enforcement officers is dictated by police culture and institutional interests. Today, however, there seems to be more obvious need for international cooperation regarding matters that constitute the “heart” of criminality and, therefore, the constructs must reflect realities, at least to some extent.

Chapter One, “The Rise of International Policing,” points out that police cooperation as a professional collaboration became possible after some institutional professionalization took place at the national level. The early forms of mutual aid emerged within the realm of bilateral investigations, and mostly on an ad hoc basis, as required by the particulars of a given problem. Most of the bilateral and international cooperation in the 19th century was related to efforts to consolidate conservative political regimes and were thus related to political crimes. Technological developments (new telecommunication and mechanized transportation opportunities) increased the possibility for cooperation. It is in this context that the Police Union, the international union of German speaking police organizations was formed in 1851. This first professional organization did manage to offer intensive exchange of information, particularly in matters of political policing. Cooperation was made possible and contributed to the growing professionalization of national police organizations. Nevertheless, the Police Union could not survive the new political tensions that emerged with Imperial Germany. International police activities in the 19th century remained subject to issues of national sovereignty. Gradually, however, the European states moved away from the model of cooperation centered on political crime to a more open vision of dealing with “ordinary” crime. This is exemplified with the failure of the legalistic international anti-anarchist conferences and treaties, which did not result in any practical action and by the relative success of cooperation over White Slave Trafficking (international prostitution). During this period the United States was absent from most forms of cooperation, as it did not have a national police system. In fact, the prevailing mood in Congress was strongly against federalization of law enforcement, as centralized policing was seen as a tool of oppressive European political regimes (Chapter 2). Nevertheless, some cooperation can be seen in the Americas, but under Latin-American leadership. There, Juan Vucetich of La Plata, Argentina, the driving force behind professionalization in Latin America, took the initiative.

Notwithstanding the American SONDERWEG, the international processes of the 19th century did have a gradual impact on police work all over the world, leading to increasing harmonization, due primarily to various technological advances beyond the development of infrastructure. Uniform handling of criminal data, such as the standardization of some methods of crime scene investigation, was particularly important once relevant scientific knowledge (like the fingerprinting system of identification) was developed. However, technology and expansion of knowledge could not automatically resolve all problems—the degree of international teamwork remained a function of institutional choice, as indicated, for example, by the French insistence on maintaining their outdated bertillonage system for nationalistic reasons. This system was based on a domestically-developed anthropometry system, and its local support resulted in the French police agency being isolated for more than a decade.

European law enforcement finally approximated bona-fide professional international cooperation during the years leading up to World War One, though even at the peak of this movement, at the First Congress of International Criminal Police (1914), most participants were not policemen.  At the end of World War One there were attempts to revitalize international investigative efforts against political organizations and activists, primarily due to the perceived Bolshevik threat. When the political danger did not materialize, professional considerations continued to prevail resulting in the International Police Congress of Vienna in 1923. It was there that the International Criminal Police Commission was established. The Commission, with forty-six nations represented, including the United States which joined in 1938, is considered to be the origin of Interpol. This formation was clearly based on the initiative of police chiefs (mostly of large metropolitan areas) and not on that of governments. It is in fact the activities of this Commission that Deflem believes can serve to substantiate the theoretical arguments of his book (p.128). The Vienna headquarters acted as the nerve-center for cooperation (mostly technical), and, in order to maintain communication with this center, national police agencies had to dedicate resources (a specialized office and personnel to interact with the center), through which other participating national bodies could be reached. The professional perception of an increase in crime rates was one of the reasons why the founders of the Commission asked for international cooperation. “The … statistics provided by officials at the [Vienna, 1923] meeting confirmed the necessity of an adequate police response and the commonality of the task among European police.” They were particularly concerned about the increased mobility of criminals (p.143).

Notwithstanding these developments, Deflem still dismisses the functionalist claim that international cooperation is a reaction to the internalization of crime, and sees it rather as a matter of professionalization and crime construction dictated by professional considerations. His final conclusion is that “international crime functioned as a professionally defined construct that was real in its consequences of expanding international police organizations and facilities” (p.222). International police cooperation was initially enabled by conditions of relative international tranquility, but it was later carried on by bureaucratic autonomy of national police organizations. The book offers a detailed analysis of the professional elements that dictated the cooperation (Chapter 5). This level of national professionalism was just emerging in the United States, especially with the creation of the FBI. The international dimension of crime was not considered particularly important in the U.S. at a time when the main concern was over inter-state crimes.

Chapter 6 considers the collapse of the Commission system with the coming to power of Hitler and the eventual Anschluss that gave the nazified German police the opportunity to take over leadership of the Vienna-based organization. (The Nazification of politics under ”Proposition 3” is discussed in Chapter 7). Once again, the Americans joined the organization after the political change occurred indicating this time that professional-bureaucratic consideration may prevail against a political one –  at least for a short while. Deflem offers an interesting description of the mutual understanding the police organizations had of each other in the two respective countries.

The historical survey ends with the reconstruction of the original system,”on the same basis as before,” beginning in 1946. Once again, this was a police chief’s initiative, and much like after World War One, it was left to politically less compromised policemen. Nevertheless, many former Nazi collaborators continued as professionals in the national and international organizations, resulting in major political scandals. Moreover, even the police officers of member states that became communist continued membership, asking to extradite refugees. (For this reason, Hoover discontinued membership).

In the concluding chapter Deflem reconsiders his original neo-Weberian theory as refined in view that the police function is relatively autonomous from the state, and it might be dominated by political forces (the theory of relative autonomy). In view of his presentation of the facts, it is not surprising that he finds his assumptions confirmed—institutions have their own dynamics, and these will determine, under favorable circumstances, the formation of international cooperation that will reinforce and reshape the national institution.

*********************************************************************
Copyright 2003 by the author, András Saj