Browsing by Author "Rogers D"

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Public Inquiries on Counterterrorism: An Independent Appraisal of New Zealand's Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch Terrorist Attack
    Rogers D; Nelson N; Battersby J
    Even though elected leaders of liberal democracies respond to major terrorist attacks by commissioning public inquiries, scholars have not yet fully explored these inquiries as a practice of the War on Terror. By undertaking an independent appraisal of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques on 15 March 2019 we seek to introduce empirical evidence of an important case of investigatory oversight to the more critical terrorism studies literature. Specifically, we examine how the Royal Commissioners interpreted their Terms of Reference, explore the ways in which they engaged with New Zealand’s security agencies as well as with various individuals, groups and communities beyond the public sector, and assess the quality of their recommendations. We argue that the Commissioners positioned themselves publicly as undertaking a remedial intervention in New Zealand’s counterterrorism effort, but their inquiry was, in fact, designed to reassure the public that the current security dispensation is largely fit for purpose and does not need major reform. The inquiry did little more than enable two carefully chosen Commissioners, imbued with a veneer of professional detachment but lacking in subject-matter expertise, to call for a strengthening of state security institutions, entrenching the hierarchies that already prevail within the national security system while shielding parliamentarians from accusations of disinterest, negligence or acts of omission. Consequently, New Zealand is no better off when it comes to its ability to understand the nature and scale of the threat posed by terrorism or to respond to an array of routine, as well as novel and surprise, security challenges.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Reconfiguring the Relationship Between Intelligence Professionals and the Public: A First Step Towards Democratising New Zealand’s National Security?
    (Centre for Defence and Security Studies, Massey University, 2021-09-29) Rogers D; Mawdsley S
    The secrecy surrounding intelligence work has meant the relationship between New Zealand intelligence professionals and the public they serve has always been somewhat problematic. Over the past decade, leaks, scandals and a deadly act of terrorism have certainly not improved the public’s trust and confidence in the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Security Bureau. While the Government has undertaken several measures to strengthen the credibility of those agencies, including initiating public inqui-ries and bolstering governance arrangements, its current approach is rather limited, has reached those limits and could now be counterproductive. In light of the recommendations made by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques on 15 March 2019 to increase public involvement in New Zealand’s counterterrorism effort, we argue that it is time for this problematic relationship between intelligence professionals and the public to be rethought and reconfigured. To that end, we identify several concrete actions that parliamentarians and university leaders could consider taking to actively support intelligence professionals as they foster a society of informed citizens and create new opportunities to bring national security matters into the heart of democracy’s deliberative processes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Restoring Public Trust and Confidence in New Zealand’s Intelligence and Security Agencies: Is a Parliamentary Commissioner for Security the missing key?
    (Victoria University of Wellington, 2022-02-15) Rogers D; Mawdsley S
    New Zealand’s two intelligence and security agencies play crucial roles in preserving our democracy and protecting the public from various harms associated with political violence. Scandals involving intelligence professionals likely diminish public trust and confidence in these agencies, which appears to be very low among some marginalised communities and minority groups. While official secrecy is required for sound strategic and operational reasons, it hampers meaningful articulation of the value proposition underpinning these agencies and their work. Reassuring the public is vital for the intelligence and security agencies, given their highly intrusive powers. Rather than more reviews of, increased transparency by, or stronger accountability over the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Security Bureau, we suggest that a parliamentary commissioner for security is needed to help foster a level of public awareness and build the understanding required for trust and confidence to be restored in these agencies.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Special Forum on intelligence and theory
    (Taylor and Francis Group, 2024-03-19) de Werd P; Coulthart S; Pili G; Gaspard J; Ivan C; Ben Jaffel H; Larsson S; Rogers D; Bean H; Orden H; Kaunert C; Newbery S
    The literature on intelligence and theory has developed considerably in recent years. This Special Forum takes as its point of departure four recent publications that have made a particular contribution to the developing literature and build on earlier contributions, such as the 2009 volume Intelligence Theory: Key Questions and Debates and, the 2018 special issue of Intelligence and National Security on ‘Developing Intelligence Theory: New Challenges and Competing Perspectives’.Footnote1 Since then, Intelligence Studies has seen a further growth of theoretical contributions that explore new approaches and directions. Various research agendas have been proposed, emphasizing the need for pluralistic evidence-based intelligence research, or introducing labels such as a new Philosophy of Intelligence (PHILINT), Critical Intelligence Studies (CIS) or New Intelligence Studies (NIS). At the same time, (meta)theoretical skepticism remains among some intelligence scholars and practitioners, with questions about the innovativeness or need to articulate subfields or schools of thought.Footnote2 This Forum arises from debates at panels of the Intelligence Studies Section of the International Studies Association (ISA) at the 2023 ISA annual conference.Footnote3 A range of scholars studying intelligence were invited by the editor, Peter de Werd, to share their views in autonomous statements. They were asked what they see as the most important issue(s), trend, challenge or controversy in intelligence research. Although the format does not allow for in depth elaborations, it is particularly valuable in providing an overview of contemporary academic perspectives and their interpretations. Bringing these together, comparing and contrasting them, contributes to mapping the field and hence can further a constructive academic debate. As a means to channel the discussion – recognizing the shortcoming of any selection – this Forum is organized around four different collective initiatives that have appeared since 2018. The first of these, Researching National Security Intelligence: Multidisciplinary Approaches (2019) advocates a pluralistic approach to intelligence research.Footnote4 This initiative recognizes the challenge of gaining access to the world of intelligence and makes the case for research and practice to mutually inform and have impact. The focus is on relevant approaches and practices to collect data, such as interviewing, structured behavioral observation, and ethnography, adding to a ‘conceptual, empirical, an methodological toolkit’ for evidence-based research.Footnote5 The book explores how Political Science, Public Administration and Organization Theory, Communication Studies and Cognitive Psychology can inform a future research agenda in Intelligence Studies. In particular (ethical) academic challenges for grasping insider experiences are discussed; dealing with confidentiality and cooperating with governments or possibly investigative journalists. Perhaps in contrast, the second of these, the Intelligence and National Security special issue, ‘Integrating Intelligence Theory with Philosophy’ (2022), seeks to challenge the ‘anti-philosophical atmosphere’ and reductive caricature of Philosophy in Intelligence Studies.Footnote6 It is problematic, for example, that ‘“normative” approaches like Philosophy are contrasted with “empirical” approaches, and have been claimed to be unhelpful to practitioners at best, and harmful as a source of politicization and perplexity at worst’.Footnote7 Exemplifying the merit of a philosophical approach, the idea of objectivity is diversified, and the concept of justified true belief for intelligence analysis is explored as ideal.Footnote8 Apart from ontology and epistemology, the importance of axiology – the study of value, ethics and aesthetics – is explicitly recognized. It is argued that value theory provides new ways to reconcile some tensions between collective security and individual rights or to appreciate the intrinsic moral value of intelligence analysis irrespective of its impact.Footnote9 The collection of articles seeks to instantiate the (indirect) benefit of Philosophy as a foundation for both the theory and practice of intelligence, as all scholars are, in fact, doing it: they implicitly or explicitly interpret and contextualize facts, make arguments, justify premises, claims, approaches and draw conclusions. The third is an initiative aimed at advancing the development of ‘Critical Intelligence Studies’ (2021).Footnote10 This diverse field seeks to critique and destabilize conventional assumptions, essentialist or functionalist images, discourses and practices of (national) intelligence and security. Intelligence is viewed as a historical creation occurring in contexts characterized by power relations, which can politicize and obscure understanding of what intelligence is or how it is practiced. A major emphasis lies with promoting ‘uncomfortable dissensus”, de-reification, positive conflict or agonizing reflexivism, and a move further away from any positivist objectivist ideal.Footnote11 Revealing power struggles, domination, marginalization, abuse or social harm does however ‘not necessarily need to come at the expense of intelligence effectiveness’.Footnote12 Moreover, it is difficult to strictly separate the study ‘of’ and ‘for intelligence, and critical reflexive research can thus (indirectly) reveal how intelligence might be configured, for example to support more ethical and democratic decision-making. Lastly, positioned explicitly as an initiative drawing from outside Intelligence Studies is the volume Problematising Intelligence Studies (2022). It advances the idea that contemporary intelligence has become ‘an inescapable dimension of the everyday’ of people and practices, not necessarily related to intelligence services per se. The aim is to understand multiple social actors and domains connected to intelligence practices by studying the human dimensions of daily practices on the ground. Research thus focuses on an expanding number of empirical sites (e.g., the police organization, prisons, local communities, or the internet). The volume proposes articulating a transdisciplinary New Intelligence Studies (NIS) stimulating a ‘reflexive break’ away from the doxa of Intelligence Studies. Contributors should refuse ‘to take for granted its ideas, assumptions and usual conclusions’ and reconstruct intelligence a posteriori based on qualitative empirically driven research ‘from below’ and by giving primacy to the social context.Footnote13 In Intelligence Studies, there has been mostly supportive acknowledgement towards these different collective initiatives. Overall, scholars view them as positive signs of deeper and wider thinking about intelligence theory, and Intelligence Studies as a discipline.Footnote14 Some see value, for example in NIS documenting the expansion of intelligence beyond state services, but also call for a more balanced perspective when reflecting on the intrinsic nature of intelligence, collaboration mechanisms, or oversight effectiveness.Footnote15 Occasionally, there is outspoken criticism, for example, about ‘critical approaches’ and their purportedly ‘destructive impact’ on Intelligence Studies.Footnote16 In the case of the latter, however, one could ask whether the particular interpretation of ‘critical’ presented is applicable to the wide variety of scholars labeled as such in the commentary. If anything, this only confirms the need for more academic debate. As mentioned, theorizing in Intelligence Studies has been more extensive than these collective works. For example, recently yet another research agenda was published, promoting interdisciplinary research, as the field becomes more international, broader and diverse.Footnote17 All in all, against these backgrounds, how do scholars reflect on the recent initiatives, situate them, or see connections? What stage of progression are we observing in the research? What can be concluded about new directions in the study of intelligence and the way(s) forward? Perhaps philosophizing on intelligence or learning from other disciplines and fields has been more extensive than assumed. Is the value of moving beyond functionalism and state-centrism increasingly recognized? In this Forum, pluralism, multi- and interdisciplinarity, functionalism, institutional influence, the meaning of critique and reflexivism are all important themes, which also inform various categorizations of intelligence practitioners, practitioner-scholars and scholars. Not everyone needs to agree, but overall the Forum expresses how engagement from different perspectives is supported and reductive labeling avoided to advance fruitful theoretical debate.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Anatomy of Political Impunity in New Zealand
    (2024) Rogers D; Bigo D; McCluskey E; Treguer F
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item