| 000 | 01500cam a2200253 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 46662 | ||
| 003 | OSt | ||
| 005 | 20240201133646.0 | ||
| 008 | 240131b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 040 | _c0 | ||
| 100 | 1 | _aROGERS Damien | |
| 245 |
_aPublic inquiries on counterterrorism: _bNew Zealand's experience/ _cDamien Rogers, Nick Nelson and John Battersby |
||
| 260 | _c2023 | ||
| 520 | _aIn the aftermath of major terrorist attacks, governments create public inquiries to establish the facts of the matter, expose those facts to public scrutiny, find fault, allocate blame, ensure accountability, and restore public confidence. Yet few studies pay close attention to these responses as a practice of remedial intervention into official counterterrorism efforts. Based on our examination of New Zealand’s Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques on 15 March 2019, we argue that two contending approaches to national security shaped the inquiry’s design and informed its conduct. | ||
| 598 | _aCOUNTERTERRORISM, NEW ZEALAND NATIONAL SECURITY, NEWARTICLS | ||
| 650 |
_aPUBLIC ENQUIRIES _xCOUNTERTERRORISM |
||
| 650 | _aNEW ZEALAND NATIONAL SECURITY | ||
| 700 | _aNELSON Nick | ||
| 700 | _aBATTERSBY John | ||
| 773 |
_aCritical Studies On Terrorism: _gVol. 16, No 3, September 2023, page: 452-474 |
||
| 856 |
_uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17539153.2023.2221551 _zClick here for full text |
||
| 942 |
_2ddc _cARTICLE |
||
| 945 |
_rY _sY |
||
| 999 |
_c46662 _d46662 |
||