Dr Marine Gueguin

Research of parliaments regularly focuses on larger, well-known parliaments. Practices of parliaments of small jurisdictions are often overlooked. This paper investigates public engagement by parliaments in small island states and seeks to answer: how effective public engagement is built by parliaments? What are the opportunities for meaningful engagement? Can public engagement be possible despite serious resource challenges and other barriers? For effective public engagement to happen, parliamentary administrations in these locations need to consider a number of issues and overcome some barriers. Therefore, the paper analyses common contextual themes, like institutional barriers and sociological issues. The paper presents successful approaches applied by parliaments, as well as tools and practices that can be effective in leading to tangible results. The authors argue that effective public engagement by parliaments in small island states is in fact possible and concludes by providing some significant lessons for legislators, parliamentary staff, and civil society.

This article explores the crystallisation of counterterrorism emergency powers and the normalisation of the “exceptional” in the French context. It scrutinises the framing of the terrorist threat within political discourse in the aftermath of the attacks of 13 November 2015, to the enactment of the Strengthening Homeland Security and Fight against Terrorism (SILT) bill in October 2017. The article aims to challenge the prevailing paradigm of urgency and the concept of desecuritisation by exploring the sustained normalisation of extraordinary powers. This reveals a colonial continuum intrinsic to the practice and exercise of extraordinary powers. Indeed, the state of emergency in the French context directly emerges from a colonial law (Law of 1955) enacted during the War in Algeria as a response to the Front de Libération National Algérien in November 1954. In the contemporary era, extraordinary and emergency powers are utilised, extended and institutionalised. Thus, the article explores this paradox between the exceptional, unprecedented terrorist threat and the forever application of exceptional powers, expressed through the discursive and political constructed temporalities which render desecuritisation unattainable. The article advocates for the necessity of examining the colonial origins of such powers and techniques within the broader context of counterterrorism.

Terrorism trials, particularly those that address events of national significance, are performative spaces. As such, these proceedings carry a risk of becoming public spectacles. Aside from trying to ‘win’ the trial in a legal sense, the various parties involved may use the courtroom to present narratives about justice and injustice, the legitimacy of a political or ideological cause, or even attempt to undermine the judicial process entirely. Conversely, terrorist suspects often deploy established performative templates in the hope of receiving a shorter prison sentence, in particular, by demonstrating remorse for their actions. Despite this, our understanding of the impact of the ‘theatre’ of terrorism trials is limited, with existing analysis focusing largely on the reception of different performances and narratives by audiences outside the courtroom, namely the media and the public. This article examines how the conduct of these proceedings and the ‘performative strategies’ of the parties involved impact the sentences handed down by the judge as a result of a guilty verdict. Focusing on the UK and France, it interrogates the sentences received by guilty defendants in several high-profile terrorism cases. Included is an examination of the ‘absent presence’ of defendants who are tried in absentia and the impact this nonappearance might have upon sentencing. Analysing their sentencing remarks, it also evaluates how judges interpret, account for, and present these factors as part of their decision-making processes.

This book investigates the framing of the terrorist threat in France from 2015 to 2020 as an 'exceptional' challenge which requires a 'special' public security response. The book examines how French political actors framed the terrorist threat in French political discourse from an exceptional challenge to a permanent, routine threat. It provides an in-depth critical discourse analysis of the French political narratives surrounding the activation of the 'état d'urgence' (state of emergency) following the 2015 Charlie Hebdo and Paris terrorist attacks, and traces this narrative until 2020. The study explores the securitisation-desecuritisation framework, showing how the normalisation of emergency powers reflects the ongoing (re)construction of terrorism within French political contexts. The work demonstrates the importance of threat framing and the securitisation of terrorism by considering the colonial legacies embedded in French counterterrorism (CT) policies. By investigating the intersection of CT political discourse, temporality, and colonial continuity, the book challenges traditional notions of exceptionalism in securitisation. It argues that the routinisation of counterterrorism measures highlights the impossibility of fully desecuritising terrorism (re-establishing the status quo), revealing how these measures are deeply rooted in France's colonial past. This book will be of interest to students of Terrorism Studies, Critical Security Studies, French politics, and International Relations.