Public inquiries on counterterrorism: New Zealand’s experience

References

• Abrahamsen, R., and M. C. Williams. 2010. Security Beyond the State: Private Security in International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511974441.
   Google Scholar
• Ardern, J. “Press Release: Christchurch Call to Eliminate Terrorist and Violent Extremist Online Content Adopted,” 16 May 2019a, https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/christchurch-call-eliminate-terrorist-and-violent-extremist-online-content-adopted.
   Google Scholar
• Ardern, J. “Press Release: Prime Minister’s Comments on Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch Terror Attack,” 8 December 2020, https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/prime-minister’s-comments-royal-commission-inquiry-christchurch-terror-attack.
   Google Scholar
• Ardern, J. Press Release: Supreme Court Judge to Lead Terror Attack Royal Commission, 8 April 2019b, https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/supreme-court-judge-lead-terror-attack-royal-commission.
   Google Scholar
• Azizian, R. 2019. “Welcome to the National Security Journal.” National Security Journal 1 (1): 1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Bakir, V. 2018. Intelligence Elites and Public Accountability: Relationships of Influence with Civil Society. London/New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Battersby, J. 2018. “Terrorism Where Terror is Not: Australian and New Zealand Terrorism Compared.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 41 (1): 59–76. doi:10.1080/1057610X.2017.1287501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Battersby, J., and R. Ball. 2019. “Christchurch in the Context of New Zealand Terrorism and Right Wing Extremism.” Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism 14 (3): 191–207. doi:10.1080/18335330.2019.1662077.
   Google Scholar
• Battersby, J., R. Ball, and N. Nelson. 2020. “New Zealand’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy: A Critical Assessment.” National Security Journal 2 (1): 1–18. doi:10.36878/nsj20200201.05.
   Google Scholar
• Beerli, M. J. 2018. “Saving the Saviors: Security Practices and Professional Struggles in the Humanitarian Space.” International Political Sociology 12 (1): 70–87. doi:10.1093/ips/olx023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben Jaffel, H. 2020. Anglo-European Intelligence Cooperation: Britain in Europe, Europe in Britain. London/New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429056376.
   Google Scholar
• Ben Jaffel, H., and S. Larsson (eds.). 2022. Problematising Intelligence Studies: Towards a New Research Agenda. London/New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781003205463
   Google Scholar
• Berling, T. V. 2015. The International Political Sociology of Security: Rethinking Theory and Practice. London/New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bigo, D. 2016. “Sociology of Transnational Guilds.” International Political Sociology 10 (4): 398–416. doi:10.1093/ips/olw022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blackbourn, J., F. De Londras, and L. Morgan. 2019. Accountability and Review in the Counter-Terrorist State. Cambridge: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blakeley, R. 2011. “Dirty Hands, Clean Conscience? The CIA Inspector General’s Investigation of ‘Enhanced Interrogation Techniques’ in the War on Terror and the Torture Debate.” Journal of Human Rights 10 (4): 544–561. doi:10.1080/14754835.2011.619406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boudes, T., and H. Laroche. 2009. “Taking off the Heat: Narrative Sensemaking in Post-Crisis Inquiry Reports.” Organization Studies 30 (4): 377–396. doi:10.1177/0170840608101141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, A. D. 2000. “Making Sense of Inquiry Sensemaking.” Journal of Management Studies 37 (1): 45–75. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, A. D. 2003. “Authoritative Sensemaking in a Public Inquiry Report.” Organisation Studies 25 (1): 95–112. doi:10.1177/0170840604038182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, D. “Terrorism Act ‘Unworkable,’ New Zealand Herald 9 November 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Defty, A. 2019. “Coming in from the Cold: Bringing the Intelligence and Security Committee into Parliament.” Intelligence & National Security 34 (1): 22–37. doi:10.1080/02684527.2018.1513441.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Defty, A. 2022. “‘Familiar but Not intimate’: Executive Oversight of the UK Intelligence and Security Agencies.” Intelligence & National Security 71 (1): 57–72. doi:10.1080/02684527.2021.1959697.
   Google Scholar
• De Goede, M. 2014. “Preemption Contested: Suspect Spaces and Preventability in the July 7 Inquest.” Political Geography 39: 48–57. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2013.08.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. 2017. New Zealand Cabinet Manual. https://dpmc.govt.nz/our-business-units/cabinet-office/supporting-work-cabinet/cabinet-manual
   Google Scholar
• Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. 2011. New Zealand’s National Security System. Wellington: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
   Google Scholar
• Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. 2016. National Security System Handbook. Wellington: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
   Google Scholar
• Elliott, D., and M. McGuinness. 2002. “Public Inquiry: Panacea or Placebo?” Journal of Contingency and Crisis Management 10 (1): 14–25. doi:10.1111/1468-5973.00177.
   Google Scholar
• Falkenrath, R. A. 2004. “The 9/11 Commission Report a Review Essay.” International Security 29 (3): 170–190. 2004/05. doi:10.1162/0162288043467469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farson, S., and M. Phythian. 2011. Commissions of Inquiry and National Security: Comparative Approaches. Santa Barbara, California/Denver Colorado/Oxford England: Praeger Security International.
   Google Scholar
• Fenster, M. 2008. “Designing Transparency: The 9/11 Commission and Institutional Form.” Washington and Lee Law Review 65 (4): 1239–1321.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, D. “Pm’s Terrorism, Extremism Expert Prof Richard Jackson Hired Then Dropped,” New Zealand Herald, 10 July 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. 1988. “Practising Criticism.” In Michel Foucault: Politics, Philosophy, Culture. Interviews and Other Writings, 1977-1984, edited by L. D. Kritzman. 152–157. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gjørv, A. B. 2012. Report of the 22 of July Commission. 2012:14. Office of the Prime Minister. [ Preliminary English version of selected chapters]. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/bb3dc76229c64735b4f6eb4dbfcdbfe8/en-gb/pdfs/nou2012_14_eng.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Guild, E., D. Bigo, and M. Gibney, eds. 2018. Extraordinary Rendition: Addressing the Challenges of Accountability. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hallett, H. C. 2011. Coroner’s Inquest into the London Bombing of 7 July 2005. H.M. Coroner. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20110825120227mp_/. http://7julyinquests.independent.gov.uk/docs/orders/rule43-report.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hillebrand, C. 2019. “Placebo Scrutiny? Far-Right Extremism and Intelligence Accountability in Germany.” Intelligence & National Security 34 (1): 38–61. doi:10.1080/02684527.2018.1540175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoverd, W. J. 2019. “The Changing New Zealand National Security Environment: New Threats, New Structures, and New Research.” National Security Journal 1 (1): 17–34. doi:10.36878/NSJ201901.17.
   Google Scholar
• Hoverd, W., N. Nelson, and C. Bradley. 2017. New Zealand National Security: Challenges, Trends and Issues. Auckland: Massey University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Howe, G. 1999. “The Management of Public Inquiries.” The Political Quarterly 70 (3): 294–304. doi:10.1111/1467-923X.00232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutter, B. M. 1992. “Public Accident Inquiries: The Case of the Railway Inspectorate.” Public Administration 70 (2): 177–192. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.1992.tb00933.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ireton, E. 2016. “The Ministerial Power to Set Up a Public Inquiry: Issues of Transparency and Accountability.” Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 67 (2): 209–229. doi:10.53386/nilq.v67i2.109.
   Google Scholar
• Ireton, E. 2018. “How Public is a Public Inquiry?” Public Law 2 (April): 277–298.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, R., and D. Rogers. 2023. “Trans-Disciplinary Dialogue on New Zealand’s Counter Terrorism Approach: A Call to Action for Researchers.” National Security Journal 5 (1): published online first 19 March. doi:10.36878/nsj20230319.01.
   Google Scholar
• Jervis, R. 2006. “Reports, Politics, and Intelligence Failures: The Case of Iraq.” Journal of Strategic Studies 29 (1): 3–52. doi:10.1080/01402390600566282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston, L. K. 2015. A Season of Inquiry Revisited: The Church Committee Confronts America’s Spy Agencies. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
   Google Scholar
• Jusué, I. R. 2022. “Counter-Terrorism Training “At Your Kitchen table”: The Promotion of “CT citizens” and the Securitisation of Everyday Life in the UK.” Critical Studies on Terrorism 15 (5): 290–310. doi:10.1080/17539153.2021.2013014.
   Google Scholar
• Kaleem, A. 2022. “The Hegemony of Prevent: Turning Counter-Terrorism Policing into Common Sense.” Critical Studies on Terrorism 15 (2): 267–289. doi:10.1080/17539153.2021.2013016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kean, T. H., and L. H. Hamilton. 2004. The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Vol. 3. Government Printing Office. https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kenny, K., and N. Ó Dochartaigh. 2021. “Power and Politics in Public Inquiries: Bloody Sunday 1972.” Journal of Political Power 14 (3): 383–408. doi:10.1080/2158379X.2021.1890316.
   Google Scholar
• Little, A. 2021. Proactive Release: Government Response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Masjidain – First Report Back. https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2021-04/rcoi-first-report-back.pdf
   Google Scholar
• R. A. Miller (eds.). 2008. US National Security, Intelligence and Democracy: From the Church Committee to the War on Terror. London/New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203894965.ch1.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, J. 2019. The Discursive Construction of Blame. New York/London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-50722-8.
   Google Scholar
• Neal, A. 2019. Security as Politics: Beyond the State of Exception. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• New Zealand Law Commission. “The Role of Public Inquiries, Issues Paper 1.” Wellington: The Law Commission, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. “Security Intelligence Report: Faith-Motivated Violent Extremist Ahamed Aathil Mohamed Samsudeen Potential Release into the Community.” Report DM56-15-1146, NZSIS, released by Official Information Act request 15 November 2021. dated I June 2021.
   Google Scholar
• O’Farrell, T. 2022. ““Islamic terrorism” in New Zealand? The John Key Government, Counterterrorism, and the “Islamic terrorism” Narrative.” Critical Studies on Terrorism 15 (4): 1–24. doi:10.1080/17539153.2022.2096079.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parliamentary Counsel Office. 2019. Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques on 15 March 2019 Order 2019. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2019/0072/latest/LMS183988.html
   Google Scholar
• Pillar, P. R. 2006. “Good Literature and Bad History: The 9/11 Commission’s Tale of Strategic Intelligence.” Intelligence & National Security 21 (6): 1022–1044. doi:10.1080/02684520601046366.
   Google Scholar
• Rena, H., and J. Christensen. 2020. “Learning from Crisis: The Role of Enquiry Commissions.” Journal of Contingencies & Crisis Management 28 (1): 41–49. doi:10.1111/1468-5973.12269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roach, K. 2007. “Review and Oversight of National Security Activities with Some Reflections on Canada’s Arar Inquiry.” Cardozo Law Review 29 (1): 53.
   Google Scholar
• Roach, K. 2016. “Review and Oversight of Intelligence in Canada: Expanding Accountability Gaps.” In Global Intelligence Oversight: Governing Security in the Twenty-First Century, edited by K. G. Zachary and J. R. Samuel. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190458072.003.0008.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, D. 2009. Postinternationalism and Small Arms Control: Theory, Politics, Security. Farnham, Surry: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, D., and S. Mawdsley. 2021. “Reconfiguring the Relationship Between Intelligence Professionals and the Public: A First Step Towards Democratising New Zealand’s National Security?” National Security Journal 23: Doi 10.36878/nsj20210929.02. doi:10.36878/20210928.02.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, D., and S. Mawdsley. 2022. “Restoring Public Trust and Confidence in New Zealand’s Intelligence and Security Agencies: Is a Parliamentary Commissioner for Security the Missing Key?” Policy Quarterly 18 (1): 59–66. doi:10.26686/pq.v18i1.7504.
   Google Scholar
• Rovner, J., and A. Long. 2005. “The Perils of Shallow Theory: Intelligence Reform and the 9/11 Commission.” International Journal of Intelligence & CounterIntelligence 18 (4): 609–637. doi:10.1080/08850600500177119.
   Google Scholar
• Saunders, J. 2021. Report of the Public Inquiry into the Attack on Manchester Arena on 22nd May 2017. Vol. 1. House of Commons. https://files.manchesterarenainquiry.org.uk/live/uploads/2021/06/17164904/CCS0321126370-002_MAI-Report-Volume-ONE_WebAccessible.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Sedley, S. 1989. “Public Inquiries: A Cure or a Disease.” Modern Law Review 52 (4): 469–497. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.1989.tb02609.x.
   Google Scholar
• Stark, A., and S. Yates. 2021. “Public Inquiries as Procedural Policy Tools.” Policy and Society 40 (3): 345–361. doi:10.1080/14494035.2021.1955485.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sulitzeanu-Kenan, R. 2010. “Reflection in the Shadow of Blame: When Do Politicians Appoint Commissions of Inquiry?” British Journal of Political Science 40 (3): 613–634. doi:10.1017/S0007123410000049.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, O. D. 2020. “Security in the Balance: How Britain Tried to Keep Its Iraq War Secrets.” Security Dialogue 51 (1): 77–95. doi:10.1177/0967010619839544.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, O. T., and S. Cooper. 2020. “Understanding Issue Salience, Social Inequality and the (Non) Appointment of UK Public Inquiries: A New Research Agenda.” Public Money & Management 40 (6): 457–467. doi:10.1080/09540962.2019.1689635.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorp, T. 1997. Review of Firearms Control in New Zealand: Report of an Independent Inquiry Commissioned by the Minister of Police. Wellington, New Zealand: GP Print.
   Google Scholar
• Torok, R. 2011. “The 9/11 Commission Report and the Reframing of the ‘War on terror’ as a New Type of Warfare.” Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism 6 (2): 137–150. doi:10.1080/18335330.2011.605215.
   Google Scholar
• Townley, D. 2021. The Year of Intelligence in the United States: Public Opinion, National Security, and the 1975 Church Committee. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-67646-9.
   Google Scholar
• Wallace, D. A., and L. Stuchell. 2011. “Understanding the 9/11 Commission Archive: Control, Access, and the Politics of Manipulation.” Archival Studies 11 (1–2): 125–168. doi:10.1007/s10502-011-9139-0.
   Google Scholar
• Walsh, P. F. 2022. “Australian Intelligence Oversight and Accountability: Efficacy and Contemporary Challenges.” Intelligence & National Security 37 (7): 968–984. doi:10.1080/02684527.2022.2095602.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walters, W. 2021. State Secrecy and Security: Reconfiguring the Covert Imaginary. New York/London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Young, W., and J. Caine. 2020a. Ko tō tātou kāinga tēnei [This is our home]: Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch masjidain on 15 March 2019. https://christchurchattack.royalcommission.nz/the-report/.
   Google Scholar
• Young, W., and J. Caine. 2020b. Summary of Submissions. https://christchurchattack.royalcommission.nz/assets/Publications/Summary-of-submissions.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Young, W., and J. Caine. 2020c. What we heard from affected whanau, survivors and witnesses. https://christchurchattack.royalcommission.nz/assets/Publications/Affected-Whanau.pdf.
   Google Scholar