Counterterrorism and just intelligence, an oxymoron? The ethical analysis of internment without trial in Northern Ireland

IF 1.6 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Eleanor Leah Williams
{"title":"Counterterrorism and just intelligence, an oxymoron? The ethical analysis of internment without trial in Northern Ireland","authors":"Eleanor Leah Williams","doi":"10.1080/17539153.2022.2116154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Northern Ireland is used as a case study internationally, from how to deal with terrorism to initiating peace processes. Internment was the first state action of the Troubles that was conducted throughout the whole of Northern Ireland. The general consensus surrounding internment is that it was a failure. But, was it ethical? Were there some “good” elements to internment? What specific parts of internment should the UK tell other states to avoid? Or was the whole practice, from start to finish, unethical? This article attempts to make these lessons clearer by analysing internment through an ethical lens. To do so, it uses the Just Intelligence framework proposed by Mark Phythian and David Omand. It argues that overall, internment was unethical. Whilst internment was properly authorised, it is mostly unethical because it was not proportionate, it was not necessary in the rural areas, it failed to discriminate, the intention behind it was dubious and it was ultimately unsuccessful. Internment exacerbated the conflict by fuelling the PIRA with recruits; shifted the conflict from being urban-based to a nation-wide conflict; alienated Nationalists against the security services; and tarnished the local and global reputation of the UK government.","PeriodicalId":46483,"journal":{"name":"Critical Studies on Terrorism","volume":"7 1","pages":"42 - 61"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Studies on Terrorism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17539153.2022.2116154","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Northern Ireland is used as a case study internationally, from how to deal with terrorism to initiating peace processes. Internment was the first state action of the Troubles that was conducted throughout the whole of Northern Ireland. The general consensus surrounding internment is that it was a failure. But, was it ethical? Were there some “good” elements to internment? What specific parts of internment should the UK tell other states to avoid? Or was the whole practice, from start to finish, unethical? This article attempts to make these lessons clearer by analysing internment through an ethical lens. To do so, it uses the Just Intelligence framework proposed by Mark Phythian and David Omand. It argues that overall, internment was unethical. Whilst internment was properly authorised, it is mostly unethical because it was not proportionate, it was not necessary in the rural areas, it failed to discriminate, the intention behind it was dubious and it was ultimately unsuccessful. Internment exacerbated the conflict by fuelling the PIRA with recruits; shifted the conflict from being urban-based to a nation-wide conflict; alienated Nationalists against the security services; and tarnished the local and global reputation of the UK government.
反恐和情报,矛盾吗?北爱尔兰未经审判拘留的伦理分析
从如何应对恐怖主义到启动和平进程,北爱尔兰被用作国际上的案例研究。拘留是在整个北爱尔兰进行的第一次国家行动。围绕拘留的普遍共识是,这是一次失败。但是,这合乎道德吗?拘留有“好的”因素吗?英国应该告诉其他国家避免拘留的哪些具体部分?还是说整个过程从头到尾都是不道德的?本文试图通过从伦理角度分析拘禁,使这些教训更加清晰。为此,它使用了Mark Phythian和David Omand提出的公正情报框架。它认为,总的来说,拘留是不道德的。虽然拘留得到了适当的授权,但它大多是不道德的,因为它不相称,在农村地区没有必要,它没有歧视,它背后的意图是可疑的,最终是不成功的。拘留加剧了冲突,为巴基斯坦人民解放军招募新兵提供了动力;将城市冲突转变为全国性冲突;疏远的民族主义者反对安全部门;并玷污了英国政府在当地和全球的声誉。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Critical Studies on Terrorism
Critical Studies on Terrorism POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
41.70%
发文量
62
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信