Terrorism and government: Between history and criminology

Abstract

Incontestably the decade since 9/11 has been the pre-eminent age of terrorism. Or has it? In this lecture we consider terrorism as an object of government and of academic research. In arguing that law and criminology have been the pre-eminent disciplines attending to governmental responses to terrorism we note that their interventions have been significant in both their critical stance and in their impact in shaping discourse about the tactics and limits of counter-terrorism, particularly legislation and its uses. But what understanding of the broader role of government in responding to terrorism emerges from such a literature? And what histories are available to inform such an understanding? Existing historical accounts of Australian security and intelligence as a response to political violence and terrorism are for the most part dominated by Cold War politics and ideology, especially through their preoccupation with the politics of intelligence organisations. Increasing availability of security archives, together with a more international view of the context of Australian counter-terrorism histories, provide a sounder base for assessing the emergence of terrorism as an object of government attention since the 1970s.

Whither Criminology: Its Global Futures?

“…The first 15 years of the twenty-first century have undoubtedly been marked by the impact of international terrorism (Finnane 2013). That which Roach (2011) has called the '9/11 effect' has tentacles that have reached out into the far corners of the world (Howie 2012).…”

‘Drug dogs unleashed’: An historical and political account of drug detection dogs for street-level policing of illicit drugs in New South Wales, Australia

“…Our approach builds upon a body of criminological and drug policy literature, which has examined the history of crime policies in Australia including counter-terrorism responses (Finnane, 2013;Hogg, 2007), state responses to Aboriginal violence (Finnane & Richards, 2010), and rape legislation (Brereton, 1994), as well as the historical development of drug policies including drug trafficking thresholds (Hughes, Ritter, & Cowdery, 2014) and drug diversion (Hughes, 2009). By taking an historical view, each of these studies has revealed the complexities of crime policy development, thus challenging assumptions that counter-terrorism responses are 'new' or that drug trafficking thresholds were 'evidence-informed', for example.…”