Kniep, Ronja e al.
A icle — Published Ve sion
Towa ds democ a ic in elligence o e sigh : Limi s,
p ac ices, s uggles
Re iew o In e na ional S udies
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
WZB Be lin Social Science Cen e
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Kniep, Ronja e al. (2024) : Towa ds democ a ic in elligence o e sigh : Limi s,
p ac ices, s uggles, Re iew o In e na ional S udies, ISSN 1469-9044, Camb idge Uni e si y P ess,
Camb idge, Vol. 50, Iss. 1, pp. 209-229,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0260210523000013
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/307554
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0
Re iew o In e na ional S udies (2024), 50: 1, 209–229
doi:10.1017/S0260210523000013
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Towa ds democ a ic in elligence o e sigh :
Limi s, p ac ices, s uggles
Ronja Kniep1,*, Lina Ewe 2, Be na dino Léon Reyes3, Félix T égue 3,
Emma Mc Cluskey4and Claudia A adau5,†
1Wissenscha szen um Be lin ü Sozial o schung (WZB), Be lin, Ge many; 2Be line Ideenlabo , Be lin; 3CERI Cen e de
eche ches in e na ionals 28, Pa is, F ance; 4School o Social Sciences, Uni e si y o Wes mins e , London, Uni ed Kingdom
and 5Depa men o Wa S udies, King’s College London, Uni ed Kingdom
*Co esponding au ho . Email: [email protected]
†Au ho s ha e been lis ed acco ding o hei in e se o de o senio i y in academia, a choice in ended o p omo e he isibili y
o ea ly ca ee schola s.
(Recei ed 24 Decembe 2021; e ised 29 Sep embe 2022; accep ed 13 Decembe 2022)
Abs ac
Despi e i s common usage, he meaning o ‘democ a ic’ in democ a ic in elligence o e sigh has a ely been
spelled ou . In his a icle, we si ua e ques ions ega ding in elligence o e sigh wi hin b oade deba es abou
he meanings and p ac ices o democ acy. We a gue ha he li e a u e on in elligence o e sigh has ended
o implici ly o explici ly ollow libe al and echnoc a ic ideas o democ acy, which ha e limi ed he unde -
s anding o o e sigh bo h in academia and in p ac ice. Thus, o e sigh is mos ly unde s ood as an expe ,
ins i u ional and pa ially exclusi e a angemen ha is supposed o s ike a balance be ween indi idual
eedom and collec i e secu i y, wi h he goal o es ablishing he legi imacy o and us in in elligence
wo k in a na ional se ing. ‘Heal hy’ o ‘e icien ’ democ a ic o e sigh hen becomes a ma e o echni-
cal expe ise, non-pa isanship, and he abili y o gua d sec e s. By analysing h ee momen s o s uggle
a ound wha coun s as in elligence o e sigh ac oss Ge many, he UK, and he US, his a icle elucida es
hei democ a ic s akes. Th ough a p ac ice-based app oach, we a gue ha o e sigh akes much mo e ago-
nis ic, con en ious, ansna ional, and public o ms. Howe e , hese democ a ic p ac ices econ igu ing
o e sigh emain con es ed o con ained by dominan iews on wha cons i u es legi ima e and e ec i e
in elligence o e sigh .
Keywo ds: Ad ocacy; Democ acy; In elligence O e sigh ; Li iga ion; Su eillance; Whis leblowing
In oduc ion
I would de ini ely desc ibe my wo k holding go e nmen s and in elligence agencies o accoun
as a o m o o e sigh …Ac i ism, ad ocacy, li iga ion; i ’s jus a di e en language o alk
abou he same hing; i ’s all a ious o ms o o e sigh .1
In 2013, he e ela ions by whis leblowe Edwa d Snowden ha in elligence agencies we e ou inely
ga he ing and sha ing da a on ci izens p ecipi a ed a c isis o legi imacy o he bodies in cha ge o
holding hese agencies o accoun . The eason why he disclosu es we e seen as sub e si e by many
o e sigh and in elligence ac o s was no so much because, as many ha e claimed, hey h ea ened
1In e iew wi h ci il socie y ac o , UK, 25 Sep embe 2019.
© The Au ho (s), 2023. Published by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess on behal o he B i ish In e na ional S udies Associa ion. This is an Open
Access a icle, dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion licence (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0), which
pe mi s un es ic ed e-use, dis ibu ion and ep oduc ion, p o ided he o iginal a icle is p ope ly ci ed.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0260210523000013 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
210 Ronja Kniep e al.
‘na ional secu i y’. E en o me NSA di ec o Michael S. Roge s downplayed he impac o he
Snowden disclosu es on na ional secu i y, saying ha he ‘sky did no all’ as a consequence o his
ac ions.2Ra he , as some obse e s ha e poin ed ou , he leaks made clea he s uc u al ailu es o
ins i u ional o e sigh .3F om his pe spec i e, he p ac ices ha Snowden documen ed we e no
an ‘abe a ion’, bu a o m o sys emic abuse o which o e sigh s uc u es we e – a leas o some
deg ee – complici .
How can we hen unde s and he meaning o ‘democ a ic o e sigh ’ amid such sys emic ailu e?
In his a icle, we p opose o app oach his ques ion h ough he analysis o s uggles a ound h ee
elemen s o in elligence o e sigh . Fi s ly, who is included as a democ a ic p o agonis o o e sigh ?
Should o e sigh be con ined o o mal bodies legally asked wi h ha ole (pa liamen s, cou s,
o adminis a i e agencies)? I no , who should be included? As one o ou in e locu o s poin ed
ou , he o ms o ad ocacy, ac i ism and li iga ion in which hey we e engaged as a membe o ci il
socie y in he a e ma h o he Snowden disclosu es we e o hem a de ac o o m o o e seeing
in elligence agencies. Secondly, wha ole does ‘sec ecy’ as a de ining ea u e o in elligence pol-
icy – and pa icula ly he ac o being posi ioned wi hin he so-called ‘ ing o sec ecy’– play? By
consequence, can o ms o ‘ adical anspa ency’4like public whis leblowing be seen as a means
o legi ima e democ a ic o e sigh , enabling disclosu e, isibili y and public deba e? Thi dly, how
does con es a ion shape how ‘democ a ic o e sigh ’ is p ac ised? To wha ex en does o e sigh ely
on consensual p ac ices, us and impa iali y?
The a icle akes hese ques ions as a poin o depa u e o in e oga e h ee si es o non-o icial
in elligence o e sigh – li iga ion, whis leblowing, and ad ocacy – o iden i y he dominan ways
o cons uing ‘democ acy’ and ‘o e sigh ’, and challenges o hose. Academic discussions o in elli-
gence o e sigh ha e mainly aken place wi hin he ield o in elligence s udies, a ield his o ically
de i ed om a s ong Anglo-Ame ican s a e-policy lineage and g ounded wi hin unc ionalis ,
s a e-cen ic epis emologies.5As Hage Ben Ja el, Al ina Ho mann, Oli e Kea ns, and Sebas ian
La sson ha e a gued in a ecen a icle, his sociological con ex has na owed he scope o he
ield o he p omulga ion o ‘ heo ies o , a he han o , in elligence’.6Al hough he in ellec ual
genealogy o in elligence o e sigh is sligh ly mo e he e ogeneous han his diagnosis sugges s, we
a gue ha hese deba es ha e been unde pinned by ce ain no ma i e assump ions, cen ing on
libe al, unc ionalis , and echnoc a ic iews a he expense o mo e adical and agonis ic unde -
s andings o democ acy.7As we unpack u he down, hese assump ions in u n limi he ange o
democ a ic p ac ices deemed o enac legi ima e o ms o in elligence o e sigh .
While he discipline o In e na ional Rela ions (IR) has seen nume ous deba es abou heo-
ies and p ac ices o democ acy, an engagemen wi h he kinds o democ acy p ac ised h ough
2Da id E. Sange , ‘New N.S.A. chie calls damage om Snowden leaks manageable’, The New Yo k Times (2014).
3Hugh Bochel, And ew De y, and Jane Ki kpa ick, Wa ching he Wa che s: Pa liamen and he In elligence Se ices (London,
UK: Palg a e, 2014), p. 200.
4Cla e Bi chall, ‘Radical anspa ency?’, Cul u al S udies ↔C i ical Me hodologies, 14:1 (2014), pp. 77–88.
5Hage Ben Ja el, Al ina Ho mann, Oli e Kea ns, and Sebas ian La sson, ‘Towa d c i ical app oaches o in elligence as a
social phenomenon’, In e na ional Poli ical Sociology, 14:3 (2020), pp. 323–44; Pe e Gill and Ma k Phy hian, In elligence in an
Insecu e Wo ld (Camb idge, UK: Poli y, 2018).
6Ben Ja el e al., ‘Towa d c i ical app oaches o in elligence as a social phenomenon’.
7Since he 1980s, heo is s o ‘agonis ic democ acy’ ha e o mula ed a se ies o heo e ical objec ions o libe al p omo e s
o ‘delibe a i e democ acy’ like Jü gen Habe mas o John Rawls, he la e se ing as a no ma i e ho izon he gene alisa ion o
democ a ic p ocedu es based on he a ional exchange o a gumen s be ween pa icipan s deemed equal. The Belgian philoso-
phe Chan al Mou e is one o hose who bes embody his ‘agonis ic’ cu en . Ins ead o seeing con lic as a degene a ion o
poli ical pa icipa ion and delibe a ion, Mou e makes i he cons i u i e elemen o democ acy. Acco ding o he , poli ical
s uggles a e an una oidable eali y o plu alis socie ies. They a e no only he esul o localised di e ences o opinion –
di e ences ha could be o e come h ough delibe a ion – bu ques ion he e y na u e o he poli ical o de , he issues ha
should be deba ed and how hey should be deba ed, as well as people who a e legi ima e o ake pa in he deba e. Chan al
Mou e (ed.), Dimensions o Radical Democ acy: Plu alism, Ci izenship, Communi y (London, UK: Ve so, 1992).
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0260210523000013 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
Re iew o In e na ional S udies 211
in elligence o e sigh has been la gely absen om in elligence s udies.8We p opose o unpack
he e sions o democ acy ‘a wo k’ in in elligence o e sigh in o de o unde s and wha o he
e sions o democ acy a e silenced, le un hough , o excluded. Ra he han s a ing wi h a ax-
onomy o democ acy, we d aw ou he no ma i e assump ions abou democ acy by a ending o
p ac ices, hus b inging o he o e he limi s o libe al democ acy and he s uggles o o he o ms
o democ acy.
The dominance o libe al unde s andings o democ acy in in elligence s udies can be seen
as he consequence o wo ac o s: he p oximi y o in elligence schola s o he agencies (ei he
o me in elligence o ice s o policymake s) and a wide end in academia o inc easingly ocus
on p o essional skills. A communi y o p ac i ione -schola s o ‘p academics’ eme ged om he
common socialisa ion o in elligences schola s and p ac i ione s.9Wha Ben Ja el and La sson call
‘endogamy’ has come o s uc u e he limi s o he ield o in elligence s udies, ei he h ough o mal
ou each mechanisms such as he CIA’s O ice o Academic A ai s,10 o h ough he es ablishmen
o isi ing p o esso ships on p ominen in elligence p og ammes. Taken oge he , hese dynamics
explain he lack o ‘c i ical dis ance’ equi ed o b eak wi h he p e-gi en no ions o he in elligence
ield.
Mos schola ly discou se on in elligence o e sigh has hus led o he disquali ica ion o mo e
agonis ic c i iques o in elligence, and mo e adical modes o o e sigh . To his day, he dominan
ame o o e sigh as a well-o de ed, ins i u ionalised, and sec e a angemen o en masks how
he his o y o in elligence o e sigh has la gely been d i en by scandals unleashed by whis leblow-
e s, and s uggles by ac i is s o in es iga i e jou nalis s, wi h new o e sigh s uc u es o en being
c ea ed in esponse o public p essu e and ollowing he delegi ima ion o in elligence agencies’
p ac ices. An ea ly p ominen example is he es ablishmen o he so-called Chu ch Commi ee
in he US, ollowing se e al p ess e ela ions in he ea ly 1970s. 1975 – o en e med he ‘Yea o
In elligence’ – ma ked a momen when in elligence o e sigh was ins i u ionalised h ough a i-
ous pieces o legisla ion and o mal bodies. In he li e a u e on in elligence o e sigh , he Chu ch
Commi ee is ypically seen as ha ing cu ailed he powe o US in elligence, se ing he s anda d
o o he coun ies o ollow. As Loch Johnson has pu i , ‘ he Chu ch Commi ee did no hing less
han e olu ionise Ame ica’s a i udes owa d in elligence supe ision.’11
Howe e , he Chu ch Commi ee canno be seen in isola ion om a decade-long se ies o scan-
dals and adical opposi ion o he wo k o and abuses by in elligence ac o s.12 In he iew o such
adical opposi ion – one ha has been la gely o e looked by in elligence s udies –, he Chu ch
Commi ee also sough o e-es ablish consensus a ound in elligence h ough a legal amewo k
ha supposedly gua an eed ha in elligence would now s ick o he ule o law. Bu he new o e -
sigh p o essionals popula ing hese s uc u es came o iew hei wo k p ima ily as abiding by
sec ecy and ep esen ing in elligence wi hin pa liamen . Thei inse ion in he ealm o sec ecy
displaced he bounda y be ween in elligence and i s c i ics, excluding mo e adical engagemen s
ha appea ed less legi ima e. Soon enough, hey could be co-op ed by he execu i e b anch o help
build consensus a ound in elligence policy, passing eg essi e in elligence e o ms and codi ying
expansi e in elligence powe s, cons uing hei o e sigh ole as a ma e o checking con o mi y
8A special issue o Millennium was dedica ed o e isi ing ela ions be ween democ acy and IR in 2009 (‘Democ acy in
In e na ional Rela ions’, 37:3). IR schola s ha e challenged concep ions o libe al democ acy om a a ie y o cons uc i is ,
pos s uc u alis , pos colonial, and eminis pe spec i es.
9Hage Ben Ja el and Sebas ian La sson, ‘In oduc ion: Wha ’s he p oblem wi h in elligence s udies? Ou lining a new
esea ch agenda on con empo a y in elligence’, in Hage Ben Ja el and Sebas ian La sson (eds), P oblema ising In elligence
S udies: Towa ds a New Resea ch Agenda (London, UK: Rou ledge, 2022), pp. 3–29.
10A hu S. Hulnick, ‘Home ime: A new pa adigm o domes ic in elligence’, In e na ional Jou nal o In elligence and
Coun e in elligence, 22:4 (2009), pp. 569–85.
11Loch K. Johnson, ‘The Chu ch Commi ee in es iga ion o 1975 and he e olu ion o mode n in elligence accoun abili y’,
In elligence and Na ional Secu i y, 23:2 (2008), pp. 198–225.
12Félix T égue , ‘Can S a e Su eillance Be Con ained? A Sociogenesis o In elligence O e sigh in he Uni ed S a es
(1960–1975)’ (Pa is: CERI Sciences Po, 2022).
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0260210523000013 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
212 Ronja Kniep e al.
o ule by law, a he han ule o law.13 Al hough s ong di e ences emain in he na ional his o-
ies o in elligence o e sigh , simila p ocesses o scandal-d i en ins i u ionalisa ion ook place in
o he coun ies like he UK, F ance, and Ge many om he 1970s and 1980s onwa ds.
Taking as a poin o depa u e p ac ices o o e sigh a he han i s policy ep esen a ion, he
a icle unpacks he e e yday s uggles in ol ed in he cons i u ion o ‘democ a ic in elligence o e -
sigh ’. I e eals ways in which p ac ising ‘o e sigh ’ can ake much mo e agonis ic, con en ious,
ansna ional, and public o ms han mos o li e a u e on o e sigh sugges s, o ha applicable
policy amewo ks acknowledge. As wi h he heo e ical discussions on o e sigh , howe e , hese
he e ogeneous p ac ices o o e sigh a e simila ly con es ed o con ained by dominan iews on
wha cons i u es legi ima e o e sigh .
Me hodologically, we app oach o e sigh p ac ices in si ua ions o s uggle in he wake o
scandals abou he ac i i ies o in elligence agencies. The analysis includes di e en na ional con-
ex s ( he US, Ge many, and he UK), o mal o e sigh bodies, and ci ic p ac ices o dispu ing
and challenging in elligence powe s. Ou choice o empi ical si es is d i en by a en ion o h ee
modes o agonis ic p ac ices – li iga ion, whis leblowing, and ad ocacy – ha b ing o ligh h ee
dis inc limi s and p ac ices o libe al democ acy: exclusion/inclusion, secu i y/publici y, and con-
es a ion/consensus. While si ua ed agains na ional backg ounds, hese p ac ices eme ged in he
wake o he ansna ional ci cula ion o he Snowden disclosu es, public conce n, and mobilisa-
ion abou mass su eillance.14 The a icle also b ings oge he au ho s wi h di e en disciplina y
backg ounds and wo king on dis inc empi ical ields, which means ha he me hods pu sued in
ou empi ical esea ch e lec his he e ogenei y, combining a chi al analysis, ex ual analysis o
legal documen s, and o al his o y in e iews wi h key ac o s in ol ed in con es ing su eillance
legisla ion.
To ace wha democ acy does in hese p ac ices and s uggles, we p oceed in h ee s eps. Fi s ,
we examine he ension o e wha we call he ‘dual exclusion’ o who is ega ded as a legi ima e
ac o o o e sigh , and whose communica ion is deemed o dese e o e sigh . To unse le hese
lines o inclusion/exclusion, we in es iga e s a egic li iga ion by a ansna ional cons ella ion o
Ge man non-go e nmen al o ganisa ions (NGOs) and o eign jou nalis s agains he o eign in el-
ligence se ice o Ge many, he Bundesnach ich endiens (BND). Second, we e isi he s uggle
o e sec ecy and publici y in democ a ic o e sigh by placing Snowden’s public disclosu es o ou-
ine mass su eillance in ela ion o cu en whis leblowing and na ional secu i y laws in he US.
Thi d, we u n o he ension be ween con es a ion and consensus in wha is conside ed legi ima e
and e ec i e democ a ic o e sigh . The analysis o an ad ocacy campaign by a coali ion o NGOs
agains he UK’s 2016 In es iga o y Powe s Ac e eals how his ension plays ou in p ac ice. We
conclude wi h a se o e lec ions on he p ac ices o ‘democ a ic o e sigh ’ and how ou app oach
o o e sigh and democ acy as p ac ices o e s bo h an agenda o esea ch o in elligence s ud-
ies and IR mo e b oadly, and a poli ical in e en ion in deba es abou meanings and p ac ices o
o e sigh .
Inclusion and exclusion: Plu alising o e sigh p o agonis s
The dual exclusion o ac o s and non-ci izens
Who a e he p o agonis s o o e sigh ? By a ending o who is seen as a legi ima e o e sigh ac o
and who is no , we can unpack how o e sigh and democ acy a e in e wined h ough he dynam-
ics o inclusion/exclusion. Di e en unde s andings o ep esen a i e o pa icipa o y democ acy
13Ka h yn S. Olms ed, Challenging he Sec e Go e nmen : The Pos -Wa e ga e In es iga ions o he CIA and FBI (Chapel
Hill, NC: Uni e si y o No h Ca olina P ess, 1996); T égue , ‘Can S a e Su eillance Be Con ained?’.
14Fo ins ance, a 2017 epo on o e sigh o go e nmen su eillance egimes in 24 coun ies ound ha o e sigh a ange-
men s in he US, UK, and Ge many we e ine ec i e. Ko , Douwe, Ben Wagne , Julia Powles, Rena e A ila, and Ul Bue meye ,
‘Bounda ies o Law: Explo ing T anspa ency, Accoun abili y, and O e sigh o Go e nmen Su eillance Regimes’ (2018),
a ailable a : {h ps://www.s a ewa ch.o g/media/documen s/news/2017/jan/bounda ies-o -law.pd }.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0260210523000013 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
Re iew o In e na ional S udies 213
unde pin a ious o e sigh a chi ec u es and cons ella ions o ac o s. These may a y wi h ega ds
o he in ol emen o ci il socie y ac o s and hei po en ially mo e con en ious o e sigh p ac ices,
o he cen ali y o p o essional and legally es ablished o e see s.
The ins i u ionalisa ion o o e sigh wen along wi h ano he , gene ally accep ed, o m o exclu-
sion. In mos Wes e n democ acies, da a collec ion on o eigne s has been ei he comple ely o
la gely excluded om es ablished egula ions o in elligence and o e sigh s uc u es.15 By con-
cen a ing in elligence laws and hei o e sigh on na ional ci izens o na ional e i o y, i no
only de e mined who is en i led o make claims agains he su eillance o hei communica ion,
bu also who and whose communica ion dese es o be subjec ed o o e sigh o begin wi h. Being
conside ed ‘ ai game’, non-na ionals ha e been he p ima y a ge s o la ge-scale su eillance bu
no subjec s o p o ec ion h ough ins i u ional o e sigh .
This dual exclusion is by and la ge mi o ed in he academic li e a u e on in elligence o e -
sigh .16 O e sigh schola s ha e indeed emained la gely silen on he o eign-na ional dis inc ion
in in elligence p ac ices and o e sigh , eplica ing a e i o ialised unde s anding o libe al democ-
acy. A e he Snowden disclosu es, i was legal schola ship ha ei he opposed he exclusion o
o eigne s om o e sigh by p omo ing a human igh s app oach,17 o asked o g an ing a leas
some p o ec ion o o eigne s.18 Wi h espec o he exclusion o uno icial o e sigh ac o s, many
in elligence schola s i e a e he his o ical ajec o ies o o e sigh by emphasising o mal, public
bodies as o e sigh p o agonis s.19
Some au ho s loca e ci il socie y as ex e nal o he o icial o e sigh sys em o legisla i e, exec-
u i e, and expe bodies, s a ing ha ci il socie y o ganisa ions and he media play some ole in
o e sigh , wi hou u he de ini ion.20 He e, democ acy ee s owa ds ep esen a i e ins i u ions
and balance o powe s, wi h o e sigh unde s ood in e ms o sc u iny o con ol. O he in elli-
gence schola s employ a b oade unde s anding o o e sigh , in eg a ing p ac ices o ci il socie y
ac o s as ‘public o e sigh ’,21 ‘in o mal o e sigh ’,22 o ‘ci il socie y o e sigh ’.23 Ci il socie y ac o s
a e en isaged o p o ide inpu o o icial o e sigh , es ain in elligence agencies’ powe and o e
15I a S. Rubins ein, G eg T. Nojeim and Ronald D. Lee, ‘Sys ema ic go e nmen access o pe sonal da a: A compa a i e
analysis’, In e na ional Da a P i acy Law, 4:2 (2014), pp. 96–119.
16In selec ing he li e a u e on in elligence o e sigh o his a icle, we ollowed a wo old induc i e me hod: on he
one hand, e ising he mos e e enced publica ions (n=100) abou ‘in elligence o e sigh ’, ‘in elligence accoun abili y’, and
‘in elligence con ol’ in bo h Google Schola and SCOPUS and, on he o he hand, ga he ing he p o iles o he au ho s wi h
mo e publica ions in SCOPUS.
17Elspe h Guild, ‘Da a igh s: Claiming p i acy igh s h ough in e na ional ins i u ions’, in Didie Bigo, Engin Isin, and
E elyn Ruppe (eds), Da a Poli ics: Wo lds, Subjec s, Righ s (London, UK: Rou ledge, 2019), pp. 267–84.
18Asa Lubin, “‘We only spy on o eigne s”: The my h o a uni e sal igh o p i acy and he p ac ice o o eign mass
su eillance’, Chicago Jou nal o In e na ional Law, 18:2 (2018).
19Pe e Gill, ‘E alua ing in elligence o e sigh commi ees: The UK In elligence and Secu i y Commi ee and he “wa on
e o ”’, In elligence and Na ional Secu i y, 22:1 (2007), pp. 14–37; Jon Mo an and Cli e Walke , ‘In elligence powe s and
accoun abili y in he UK’, in Zacha y K. Goldman and Samuel J. Rasco (eds), Global In elligence O e sigh : Go e ning Secu i y
in he Twen y-Fi s Cen u y (Ox o d, UK: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 2016).
20Hans Bo n and Ian D. Leigh, ‘Making In elligence Accoun able: Legal S anda ds and Bes P ac ice o O e sigh o
In elligence Agencies’ (Oslo: Publishing House o he Pa liamen o No way, 2005), p. 13; Aidan, ‘Democ a ic and E ec i e
O e sigh o Na ional Secu i y Se ices: Issue Pape ’ (Council o Eu ope, 2015), p. 17.
21Ma ina Capa ini, ‘Con olling and o e seeing in elligence se ices in democ a ic s a es’, in Ma ina Capa ini and Hans
Bo n (eds), Democ a ic Con ol o In elligence Se ices: Con aining Rogue Elephan s (Fa nham, UK: Ashga e, 2007), p. 12;
Claudia Hilleb and, ‘The ole o news media in in elligence o e sigh ’, In elligence and Na ional Secu i y, 27:5 (2012),
pp. 689–706; Claudia Hilleb and, ‘Wi h o wi hou you? The UK and in o ma ion and in elligence sha ing in he EU’, Jou nal
o In elligence His o y, 16:2 (2017), p. 692.
22Flo ina C is iana Ma ei, ‘The media’s ole in in elligence democ a iza ion’, In e na ional Jou nal o In elligence and
Coun e In elligence, 27:1 (2014), p. 76.
23Ka en Ba nes and Pe e Alb ech , ‘Ci il socie y o e sigh o he secu i y sec o and gende ’, in M. Bas ick and K. Valasek
(eds), Gende & Secu i y Sec o Re o m Toolki (Gene a: DCAF, 2008), p. 2; Megan Bas ick, ‘In eg a ing Gende in o O e sigh
o he Secu i y Sec o by Ombuds Ins i u ions & Na ional Human Righ s Ins i u ions’ (DCAF, The Gene a Cen e o he
Democ a ic Con ol o A med Fo ces, OSCE, 2014), p. 6.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0260210523000013 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
214 Ronja Kniep e al.
a seconda y accoun abili y mechanism o sc u inise he o e see s’ ac i i ies.24 In his li e a u e,
o e sigh comp ises di e en le els o laye s, wi h so-called ‘so ’ o ‘in o mal’ o e sigh amed as
he ou e mos laye , while emaining wi hin he same space o o mal o e sigh ins i u ions. These
in o mal o e see s become in e media ies ac ing on behal o and being esponsi e o a wide
(and a he abs ac ) public.25 O he s e en see hem as a means o he poli ical pa icipa ion o
ci izens.26 I is his ‘ac ing o ’27 ha necessi a es he inclusion o le e age unde he di ec in luence
o he public, namely h ough elec ed ep esen a i es.28
Mo e ecen ly, se e al au ho s ha e c i icised he ocus on ep esen a i e ins i u ions as oo
na ow and bu eauc a ic in compa ison wi h wide democ a ic ‘accoun abili y’, which can en ail
‘asse i e e i ica ion in ad ance o p oposed ac ion, o epo o co ec ion once an ac ion has
been aken’.29 As he ansna ionalisa ion o in elligence agencies has limi ed o mal accoun abili y
s uc u es in many coun ies,30 Richa d J. Ald ich has desc ibed ci il socie y as he sole locus o
ansna ional e o s o con ol he agencies, no ing ha ‘accoun abili y now seems o low om
a globalised ne wo k o ac i is s and jou nalis s, no om pa liamen a y o e sigh commi ees’.31
Unde s ood in his b oade sense o ‘accoun abili y’, o e sigh mobilises a wide a ay o ac o s.
Such lexible concep ualisa ions see an ‘in o mal ne wo k o esea che s, jou nalis s, and lawye s
in ci il socie y’ ac ing o some ex en in symbiosis wi h o mal o e sigh ,32 posi ioning ci il socie y
in a loose con igu a ion wi h o icial o e sigh ac o s, while en enching a empo al dimension in
which o mal o e sigh comes i s . Consequen ly, i canno bu ac as a ‘ i e ala m’ o, as opposed o
a ‘police pa ol’ o , in elligence p ac ices.33 This empo al dis ancia ion is supplemen ed h ough a
spa ial dis ancia ion, as hese ac o s a e si ua ed on he ma gins o he social space inhabi ed by o -
mal o e sigh ac o s, which means ha ac o s ac ing om ou side o e sigh ins i u ions a e only
pa ially included – o pu ing i di e en ly, hey con inue o be pa ially excluded. Ul ima ely,
ep esen a i e democ acy comes i s , wi h pa icipa o y and agonis ic o ms o democ acy as
supplemen a y and seconda y.
24Hilleb and, ‘The ole o news media in in elligence o e sigh ’, p. 693; Cha les D. Raab, ‘Secu i y, p i acy and o e sigh ’,
in And ew W. Neal (ed.), Secu i y in a Small Na ion: Sco land, Democ acy, Poli ics (Camb idge, UK: Open Book Publishe s,
2017), p. 82.
25Capa ini, ‘Con olling and o e seeing in elligence se ices in democ a ic s a es’, p. 12.
26Ba nes and Alb ech , ‘Ci il socie y o e sigh o he secu i y sec o and gende ’, p. 2; Eden Cole, Ke s in Eppe , and Ka in
Kinzelbach, ‘Public O e sigh o he Secu i y Sec o : A Handbook o Ci il Socie y O ganiza ions’ (Valeu , Slo ak Republic:
Uni ed Na ions De elopmen P og amme, 2008), p. 16.
27Hanna Fenichel Pi kin, The Concep o Rep esen a ion (Los Angeles, CA: Uni e si y o Cali o nia P ess, 1972).
28Bo n and Leigh, ‘Making In elligence Accoun able’, p. 13; Hans Bo n, Ian Leigh, and Aidan Wills, ‘Making In e na ional
In elligence Coope a ion Accoun able’ (No wegian Pa liamen a y O e sigh Commi ee and DCAF, 2015), p. 7; Wills,
‘Democ a ic and E ec i e O e sigh o Na ional Secu i y Se ices’, p. 9; Amy B. Zega , ‘The domes ic poli ics o i a ional
in elligence o e sigh ’, Poli ical Science Qua e ly, 126:1 (2011), p. 4.
29Mo an and Walke , ‘In elligence powe s and accoun abili y in he UK’, p. 300.
30Richa d J. Ald ich and Philip H. J. Da ies, ‘In oduc ion: The u u e o UK in elligence and special ope a ions’, Re iew o
In e na ional S udies, 35:4 (2009), p. 887; Ian Leigh, ‘Changing he ules o he game: Some necessa y legal e o ms o Uni ed
Kingdom in elligence’, Re iew o In e na ional S udies, 35:4 (2009), p. 955.
31Richa d J. Ald ich, ‘Beyond he igilan s a e: Globalisa ion and in elligence’, Re iew o In e na ional S udies, 35:4 (2009),
p. 892.
32Pe e Gill, ‘Obs acles o he o e sigh o he UK in elligence communi y’, E-In e na ional Rela ions (2013); see also he
no ion o ‘ambien accoun abili y’ in Richa d J. Ald ich and Daniela Rich e o a, ‘Ambien accoun abili y: In elligence se ices
in Eu ope and he decline o s a e sec ecy’, Wes Eu opean Poli ics, 41:4 (2018), pp. 1003–24; Hans Bo n, ‘Towa ds e ec i e
democ a ic o e sigh o in elligence se ices: Lessons lea ned om compa ing na ional p ac ices’, Connec ions, 3:4 (2004),
pp. 1–12.
33S e en J. Balla and Ch is ophe J. Dee ing, ‘Police pa ols and i e ala ms: An empi ical examina ion o he legisla i e
p e e ence o o e sigh ’, Cong ess & he P esidency, 40:1 (2013), pp. 27–40; Ma hew D. McCubbins and Thomas Schwa z,
‘Cong essional o e sigh o e looked: Police pa ols e sus i e ala ms’, Ame ican Jou nal o Poli ical Science, 28:1 (1984),
pp. 165–79.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0260210523000013 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
Re iew o In e na ional S udies 215
Despi e acknowledging ha ac o s om ci il socie y play a ole in in elligence o e sigh , he e
ha e been no s udies o he p ac ices o ac o s such as he media o NGOs h ough he lens o o e -
sigh . While he o e sigh li e a u e has acknowledged ha cou s play an inc easingly impo an
ole in in elligence o e sigh , and ha hese judicial co ec i e p ac ices depend on li iga ion o
ge unde way,34 he e has been almos no a en ion o how legal challenges o he dual exclusions
we ha e loca ed can con ibu e o o e sigh as democ a ic p ac ice. Ye , s a egic li iga ion – he
collec i e mobilisa ion o law by ci il socie y ac o s – can pe o m a wa chdog unc ion, ad oca -
ing o ma ginalised g oups, and s i ing public discou se.35 In he ollowing sec ion, we analyse
s a egic li iga ion by wo Ge man NGOs o accoun o p ac ices o o e sigh ha challenge he
dual lines o inclusion/exclusion ou lined abo e.
S uggles o e inclusion/exclusion in p ac ice: The case o li iga ion
In 2017, wo Ge man NGOs, Gesellscha ü F eihei s ech e e.V. (GFF) and Repo e s wi hou
Bo de s (RSF Ge many) as well as six in es iga i e jou nalis s om di e en coun ies lodged
a case agains he in elligence law ha au ho ises he BND o conduc o eign in elligence. The
plain i s challenged he hi he o la gely unchecked su eillance o o eigne s and pa icula ly he
a achmen o p o ec ion agains su eillance o na ionali y and s a e e i o y. They a gued ha
wha was a s ake was no only he p i acy o communica ions bu also p ess eedom, since he
BND law did no o esee p o ec i e mechanisms o jou nalis s and hei sou ces.36 Re e ing o
in e na ional law, he collec i e o NGOs and jou nalis s a gued ha o eigne s may claim unda-
men al igh s is-à- is Ge man au ho i ies, since he la e a e bound by cons i u ional law when
ac ing on behal o he Ge man s a e, no ma e whe e hese ac ions ake place. The Ge man go e n-
men and he BND de ended he opposi e iew, claiming ha he scope o applicabili y was limi ed
o na ional e i o y.37 In May 2020, he cons i u ional cou uled agains he go e nmen , equi -
ing e o m o he in elligence law. This decision agains he s a us quo was made despi e o me
in elligence o ice s publicly disquali ying he claiman s as ‘ ools’ (‘Hansel’)38 and aming he law-
sui as a na ional secu i y h ea .39 The case en ails wo ela ed s uggles o e inclusion/exclusion:
who is allowed o pa icipa e in o e sigh and who dese es p o ec ion, and hus o e sigh .
Fo decades, he a ionale ‘we only spy on o eigne s’ has become en enched in he logic o
mass su eillance in libe al democ acies. This a ionale helped in elligence agencies jus i y blan-
ke da a collec ion and enabled he pa ly au oma ed exchange o indisc imina ely collec ed da a
o o eigne s among in elligence agencies o di e en coun ies.40 As a consequence o o eign-
e s’ exclusion om p o ec ion, hei da a has become a cu ency in he ansna ional economy
o su eillance. Ra he han being clea ly a icula ed in a legal s a u e, he dis inc ion be ween o -
eigne s and na ionals has ope a ed as a aken- o -g an ed legal in e p e a ion and as a p ac ice ha
has been ins i u ionalised in he o ganisa ion o in elligence, echnical su eillance in as uc u es,
and o e sigh egimes. The e o e, mos o he su eillance conduc ed by agencies like he B i ish
GCHQ, he Ge man BND, and he F ench DGSE is subjec o much loose independen o e sigh
han domes ic su eillance.
Following he Snowden disclosu es, a discou se eme ged h ough ansna ional cons ella ions
o ac o s ha ans o med he blanke in e cep ion o o eign da a om a silen , ins i u ion-
alised p ac ice o he ield o a publicly con es ed p inciple. In he immedia e a e ma h o
he i s Snowden leaks, a ansna ional ne wo k o NGOs published a wo king e sion o he
34Goldman and Rasco (eds), Global In elligence O e sigh , pp. xxiii–xx .
35Lisa Hahn and My iam on F ombe g, ‘Klagekollek i e “wa chdogs”’, Zei sch i ü Poli ikwissenscha (2020), pp. 1–23.
36BVe G, Judgmen o he Fi s Sena e o 19 May 2020, 1 B R 2835/17, pa as. 1-332 (2020), p. 33.
37Ibid., p. 47.
38Jose Hu elschul e, ‘Lausche ohne Oh en’, Focus (2020).
39DPA, ‘Ex-BND-Che Schindle wa n Ka ls uhe: Siche hei nich ge äh den’, Zei Online (2019); Augus Hanning, ‘BND-
Deba e: Gas bei ag – Absu dis an in Ka ls uhe!’, Bild.de (2020).
40Ronja Kniep, ‘He en de In o ma ion’, Zei sch i ü Poli ikwissenscha (2021), p. 13.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0260210523000013 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
216 Ronja Kniep e al.
‘Necessa y and P opo iona e’ p inciples, p o iding an analysis o in e na ional human igh s and
i s applica ion o communica ions su eillance. The ex made clea ha human igh s applied
‘ex a e i o ially’, meaning ha hey co e ed bo h domes ic su eillance conduc ed on he es-
iden s and o eign na ionals whose da a migh be scooped in he con ex o la ge-scale su eil-
lance.41 The ex was p esen ed a he UN Human Righ s Council in Gene a in Sep embe 2013
and subsequen ly endo sed by mo e han 400 o ganisa ions ac oss he wo ld.
A e his ini ial push, 2014 was ma ked by se e al ‘c i ical momen s’,42 ha is, momen s o
dispu e ha equi ed jus i ica ion and con ibu ed o b eaking he silence on he p e iously aken-
o -g an ed assump ion o o eigne s being ‘ ai game’ o mass su eillance. In he US, he Obama
adminis a ion adop ed he ‘P esiden ial Policy Di ec i e 28’ (PPD28), which p omised o g an
p i acy p o ec ions o all humans ‘ ega dless o hei na ionali y o whe e e hey migh eside’.43
Following an ini ia i e by Ge many and B azil and he engagemen o a ious NGOs, he UN
published i s esolu ion ‘Righ o P i acy in he Digi al Age’, which econ igu ed da a subjec s as
da a ci izens h ough he language o human igh s.44 In Ge many, he c i ical momen ook place
h ough a con on a ion o he BND’s p ac ices wi h he legal discou se o cons i u ional lawye s in
he pa liamen a y ‘NSA inqui y panel’. The igh o p i acy, A icle 10 o he Ge man cons i u ion,
p o ec s all humans, he lawye s claimed.45
Ye , a e i s e o m in 2016, he e ised BND law did no ake his cons i u ional and human
igh s pe spec i e in o accoun . Wi h a g owing ansna ional discou se on he o eign-na ional
dis inc ion p o iding momen um, GFF and RSF Ge many challenged he o eign-na ional dis-
inc ion h ough he li iga ion p ocess. While he ques ion o who enjoys p i acy igh s and who
dese es o e sigh could be ele an o e e yone in a ansna ionally connec ed wo ld, hey chose
o ocus on consequences o jou nalis s. Due o hei wo k on sensi i e issues like co up ion and
o he o ms o abuse, he plain i s suspec ed ha hey had been o in e es o in elligence agencies –
no necessa ily by he BND i sel , bu i s o eign pa ne agencies. They we e conce ned abou he
consequences o uncon olled da a sha ing among in elligence agencies om di e en coun ies,
bo h o hei own sa e y and he p o ec ion o hei sou ces. By ackling his mix o un egula ed
ga he ing and sha ing o o eign communica ion by he BND, he claiman s illus a ed he ansna-
ional implica ions o da a collec ion and expanded he democ a ic alues ha a e a s ake unde
he BND su eillance, om p i acy as a uni e sal igh o p ess eedom.
The uling o Ge many’s cons i u ional cou was a landma k decision. The judges acknowl-
edged he ulne able si ua ion o jou nalis s and lawye s ab oad, demanding a quasi-judicial
o e sigh body o au ho ise he su eillance o hese p o essional g oups as well as he sha ing
o insigh s abou hem wi h o eign s a e au ho i ies. Howe e , ega ding he o eign-na ional
dis inc ion, he judges adop ed an ambi alen in e p e a ion. On one hand, hey ag eed ha
nei he p i acy no p ess eedom a e bound o na ionali y. On he o he hand, he uling ul i-
ma ely legalised he dis inc ion o eign-na ional, as i jus i ied lowe s anda ds o p o ec ions o
o eigne s.
The judges deduced he heo e ical inclusion and p ac ical exclusion o o eigne s om p o ec-
i e sa egua ds in wo s eps. Fi s , hey ollowed he claiman s’ line o a gumen a ion o include
o eigne s in he ealm o basic igh s by ancho ing he applicabili y o he Ge man cons i u-
ion no in he loca ion o he objec o s a e ac ion, bu he s a e ac o i sel . Like a leash, he e
is a binding e ec o undamen al igh s o s a e ac o s ac ing beyond bo de s, including in el-
ligence agencies, wi h a claim o democ a ic legi imacy.46 None heless, he judges a gue ha , in
41Necessa y & P opo iona e, ‘In e na ional P inciples on he Applica ion o Human Righ s o Communica ions
Su eillance’, a ailable a : {h ps://necessa yandp opo iona e.o g/images/np-logo-og.png} accessed 9 Sep embe 2021.
42Luc Bol anski and Lau en Thé eno , ‘The sociology o c i ical capaci y’, Eu opean Jou nal o Social Theo y, 2:3 (1999),
p. 359.
43POTUS, ‘P esiden ial Policy Di ec i e: Signals In elligence Ac i i ies’ (Washing on, DC: Whi e House, 2014).
44Guild, ‘Da a igh s’.
45Deu sche Bundes ag, ‘S enog a isches P o okoll de 5. Si zung. 1. Un e suchungsausschuss’ (2014), p. 6 .
46BVe G, Judgmen o he Fi s Sena e o 19 May 2020, p. 91.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0260210523000013 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
Re iew o In e na ional S udies 223
se ices. As echoed by F ed Sch eie , he ‘c i ical issue o o e sigh is he balance be ween commi -
ee independence and c i icism on he one hand, and he main enance o a wo king ela ionship
be ween he commi ee and he in elligence agencies on he o he hand’.92 As we ha e seen wi h
he delegi ima ion o whis leblowing as a challenge o he aken- o -g an ed ‘ci cle o sec ecy’, us
p omo es a consensual unde s anding o democ acy, whe e con es a ion is seen as unp oduc i e
and con lic o be a oided.
T us also ep esen s o e sigh as poli ically neu al o impa ial. This has led some au ho s
on o e sigh o highligh and a gue ha cases in which o e sigh was poli icised en ailed nega-
i e e ec s. Fo example, Johnson desc ibes he decade be ween 1992 and 2001 as he ‘pa isan’
e a, showing how powe s uggles o poli ical pa ies ha e nega i ely a ec ed he con ol o
agencies.93 In his ein, he poli ical pa isanship o o e sigh is assumed o unde mine i s e ec-
i eness, since inding a common g ound o in es iga ions is ha de and in elligence o icials
migh doub he in en ions o poli ical ac o s u ned o e see s.94 As Gill poin s ou , in he 1960s
and 1970s he e was a widesp ead ea ha ‘legisla u es would no be app op ia e, o example
because o hei endency o pa isanship and o leak in o ma ion o poli ical ad an age’.95 I
is agains an agonis ic unde s anding o democ acy ha unde s andings o neu ali y, apoli ics,
o impa iali y p omo e an au a o delibe a ion and came o be seen as desi able. Subsequen ly,
hese we e supplemen ed by an emphasis on us . In discussing cong essional o e sigh in he
US, Jenni e Kibbe goes as a as calling o ‘appoin ing in elligence commi ee chai s who a e
mode a e, esponsible, dedica ed and commi ed o he no ion o nonpa isan o e sigh ’.96 These
a gumen s a e also echoed in e e ence o Eu opean o e sigh , whe e schola s cau ion agains
he dange s o pa liamen a y sc u iny as he ‘secu i y sec o may be d awn in o pa y poli ical
con o e sy – an imma u e app oach by Pa liamen a ians may lead o sensa ionalism in pub-
lic deba e, and o wild accusa ions and conspi acy heo ies being ai ed unde pa liamen a y
p i ilege’.97
Gi en hese assump ions abou poli ical impa iali y and he need o us ela ions, i is no
su p ising ha he unde s anding o democ a ic poli ics as consensual is ex ended o ci il socie y.
As we will see u he down in he analysis o he ‘Don’ Spy on Us’ campaign in he UK, mo e
con lic ual o ms o o e sigh come o be disquali ied. This was also he case o he media, which
was some imes amed in a a he suspicious ligh as i migh be le e aged o pa isan powe
s uggles.98 Howe e , we ha e seen ha ci il socie y ac o s can be a ‘su p isingly e ec i e sen inel’
d i ing inqui ies in in elligence ac i i ies and calls o public accoun abili y.99 While his may be
ue in some con ex s, he s ance ha o en domina es in he li e a u e ails o p oblema ise he
limi s o es ablished o e sigh agencies, bo h heo e ically and p ac ically. No only does i o e -
look he p ocess whe eby accoun abili y is igge ed (publicly poli icising w ongdoing h ough a
scandal); i also dismisses mos concep ions o democ acy and democ a ic poli ics as a locus o
con lic . In so doing, hese iews me ely e lec exis ing powe ela ionships in he ac ual p ac ice
o in elligence o e sigh , as ou inal case illus a es.
92F ed Sch eie , ‘The need o e icien and legi ima e in elligence’, in Capa ini and Bo n (eds), Democ a ic Con ol o
In elligence Se ices, p. 41.
93Johnson, ‘The Chu ch Commi ee in es iga ion o 1975’.
94O , ‘Pa isanship and he decline o in elligence o e sigh ’; Gill, ‘E alua ing in elligence o e sigh commi ees’; Kibbe,
‘Cong essional o e sigh o in elligence’, p. 41.
95Gill, ‘E alua ing in elligence o e sigh commi ees’, p. 15.
96Kibbe, ‘Cong essional o e sigh o in elligence’, p. 46.
97Ian Leigh, ‘Mo e closely wa ching he spies: Th ee decades o expe iences’, in Johnson, Bo n, and Leigh (eds), Who’s
Wa ching he Spies?, p. 8.
98Hilleb and, ‘The ole o news media in in elligence o e sigh ’, p. 698.
99Ald ich, ‘Beyond he igilan s a e’, p. 901.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0260210523000013 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
224 Ronja Kniep e al.
Con es a ion and i s cons ain s
The ‘Don’ Spy on Us’ Coali ion came oge he o con es he new UK legisla ion, he In es iga o y
Powe s Bill, which was subsequen ly passed in o law in 2016. A coali ion o NGOs campaigning
o p i acy, eedom o exp ession, and digi al igh s, Don’ Spy On Us made a se ies o ecom-
menda ions o legisla i e o e haul ollowing he Snowden e ela ions. The pu pose o o ming a
coali ion was o ensu e ha a gumen s we e gaining maximum ac ion, ha goals we e aligned and
s a egically communica ed, and ha a consis en message was o mula ed. The campaign’s aims
we e wo old: aising public awa eness o he ha ms o mass su eillance legalised and ex ended by
he In es iga o y Powe s Bill, and lobbying pa liamen a ians o amend he bill along speci ic lines.
Howe e , a e he bill was passed, he Don’ Spy On Us Coali ion disbanded, lea ing a somb e epi-
aph: ‘The UK Pa liamen has passed he In es iga o y Powe s Ac , he mos ex eme su eillance
law in ou his o y.’100
The ad ocacy p ac ices o he Don’ Spy On Us coali ion embodied bo h con lic ual and consen-
sual s yles o democ a ic p ac ice in i s campaigns and wi hin legisla i e s uggles. Thei p ac ices
shed ligh on ano he limi o wha coun s as ‘democ acy’ in in elligence o e sigh , namely he ole
o mo e adical con es a ions in democ acy. D awing on in e iews wi h ac o s in ol ed in his
coali ion, as well as MPs, pee s, and expe wi nesses who engaged wi h hese NGOs, we ace how
dynamics o con es a ion ans o m in o consensual p ac ices h ough he o eclosing o deba e
a ound speci ic si es. As he campaign p og essed, con lic ual modes o engagemen ha esona e
wi h agonis ic and adical democ a ic app oaches ga e way o mo e consensus-based ad ocacy.
This is pa ly because con es a ions o mass su eillance can be seen as cons ained wi hin ce ain
dynamics, pa ame e s, and ‘no ms o sayabili y’, which dic a e wha could be accep ed as ‘ ealis ic’
o ‘legi ima e’ c i ique by o he ac o s, including membe s o ci il socie y hemsel es.101
A he same ime, hese ad ocacy p ac ices len c edibili y o he idea, which in elligence se -
ices, he go e nmen , and o icial o e sigh ac o s endo sed, ha he UK was se ing a ‘global
gold s anda d’ o su eillance legisla ion. A he s a o he campaign, Don’ Spy On Us ag eed
on six demands o UK legisla ion on su eillance: no su eillance wi hou suspicion; anspa en
laws, no sec e laws; judicial no poli ical au ho isa ion; e ec i e democ a ic o e sigh ; he igh
o ed ess and a secu e In e ne o all.
While mobilising key p inciples o libe al democ acy a ound he ule o law, anspa ency and
sepa a ion o powe s, he aming o his ini ial con es a ion o mass su eillance was inc easingly
limi ed in wo ways: i s , a ound wha claims we e deemed ‘ ealis ic’, and second, a ound wha
claims we e deemed ‘legi ima e’. One o he ini ial clea ages as he coali ion came oge he was
a ound o mula ing a s a egic posi ion: did he coali ion wan o engage and imp o e sa egua ds,
o y o kill he en i e p ac ice o mass su eillance al oge he ? One membe o he coali ion we
in e iewed emembe s his o be he single mos con en ious issue h oughou he passing o he
bill h ough Pa liamen .
Fo Don’ Spy On Us, he legisla i e s uggle o e he IPA came a e a p e ious legisla i e ic o y
o so s agains ex ending s a e su eillance. The 2012 D a Communica ions Da a Bill had been
h own ou a e being e oed by hen Depu y P ime Minis e Nick Clegg. Wi hin his campaign,
NGOs had a gued ha olde , much b oade legisla ion was ou o da e and ha new legisla ion was
needed o be e gua d agains abuse by he agencies. As one o ou in e locu o s explained,
E e ybody called o he IP Ac e ec i ely; hey called o a be e e sion o RIPA [ he (old)
egula ion o in es iga o y powe s ac ]. So, you can’ sc ap ha . All you can do o my mind is
imp o e i , imp o e anspa ency, imp o e o e sigh , imp o e mechanisms so ha he wins
a e going o be e y sligh .102
100‘Don’ Spy on Us’, a ailable a : {h ps://www.don spyonus.o g.uk/} accessed 10 Decembe 2021.
101Claudia A adau and Emma Mc Cluskey, ‘Making digi al su eillance unaccep able? Secu i y, democ acy, and he poli ical
sociology o dispu es’, In e na ional Poli ical Sociology (2021), pp. 1–19.
102In e iew wi h ci il socie y ac o , 4 Oc obe 2020.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0260210523000013 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
Re iew o In e na ional S udies 225
A e he Snowden disclosu es, a e iew o he use o bulk powe s in he UK by Da id Ande son,
he Independen Re iewe o Te o ism Legisla ion, deemed hese powe s o ‘ i al u ili y’ o
secu i y and in elligence agencies, he use o which could no be ma ched by da a acqui ed h ough
a ge ed means.103 His main issue wi h RIPA was ha i was ‘incomp ehensible o all bu a iny band
o ini ia es’.104 To occupy a posi ion o ying o sc ap he powe s al oge he was seen as somewha
un ealis ic om he ou se :
[The e we e] people [ci il socie y ac i is s] who el ha hey would win he a gumen h ough
he shee con ic ion ha hey we e igh on a mo al le el, which anybody who’s wo ked in
poli ics o mo e han a day knows is w ong.105
When I wen o Pa liamen o say o people who wan o wo k in Pa liamen , do you wan
o obli e a e e e y boulde ? O a e you p epa ed o jus chip away a he boulde so ha you
migh be able o squeeze ound i o ge o he o he side o he pa h? And anyone who said I
wan o obli e a e he boulde I knew was no cu ou o his.106
In his dema ca ion o wha was deemed a ‘ ealis ic’ posi ion o he go e nmen o engage wi h,
opposing mass su eillance was educed o ac ical dimensions o sa egua ds and limi a ions. Some
campaigne s would e use o engage wi h speci ic sec ions o he bill on bulk da a collec ion, decid-
ing ins ead o b ie backbench MPs on speci ic language hey could use o empe some o he mo e
wide- anging powe s.107
S uggles a ound wha coun ed as ‘ ealis ic’ also ook place a ound public ad ocacy and cam-
paigns, wi h di e en imagina ies o ‘ he public’ enac ed o mobilise public opinion agains he bill.
A widely ci cula ed pos e campaign likened hen UK Home Sec e a y The esa May o well-known
dic a o s, such as Pu in and Xi Jinping, calling on he o ‘s op gi ing [ hem] ideas’.108 Appealing o
c i iques o su eillance based a ound he o ali a ian-democ a ic bina y was seen as ‘ou o ouch’
by ellow campaigne s, who a gued ha a campaign based a ound go e nmen incompe ence and
ea o he ‘ ax-man’ ha ing access o his da a would be mo e e ec i e:
The pos e campaign hey an was jus inep ! The public don’ espond well o being old ha
hei go e nmen is like China and Russia, because i ’s no , i ’s nonsense. And I hink i was
jus emba assing ha his wen ahead.109
Ad ocacy a ound he In es iga o y Powe s Bill embodied con lic ual and agonis ic unde s and-
ings o democ acy. I also aised ques ions abou wha mass su eillance means o unde s andings
o democ acy – does libe al democ acy ha e he ools o hold i in check, o does i isk mo phing
in o illibe al o e en o ali a ian o ms?
Howe e , con es a ion was also cons ained by who o wha was deemed o be a legi ima e ac o .
Fo ins ance, in he e idence submi ed o he In elligence and Secu i y Commi ee o he UK
Pa liamen , o me GCHQ Di ec o Da id Omand deemed he eac ions o he Snowden disclo-
su es ‘a qui e unnecessa y mo al panic o e p i acy’ and s o e o clea ly dis inguish wha he called
‘bulk access o he in e ne ’ om ‘mass su eillance’.110 Omand’s play wi h ca ego ies and claim o
103Da id Ande son, ‘Repo o he Bulk Powe s Re iew’ (Independen Re iewe o Te o ism Legisla ion, 2016), p. 204.
104Ibid., p. 61.
105In e iew wi h ci il socie y ac o , 9 No embe 2020/11/09.
106In e iew wi h ci il socie y ac o , 21 Oc obe 2020.
107In e iew, 25 Sep embe 2020.
108‘Don’ Spy on Us’.
109In e iew wi h ci il socie y ac o , 8 No embe 2020.
110Da id Omand, ‘P i acy and Secu i y Inqui y. Public E idence Session 8. Unco ec ed T ansc ip o E idence’
(In elligence and Secu i y Commi ee o Pa liamen , 2014).
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0260210523000013 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
226 Ronja Kniep e al.
‘ca ego y e o ’ was success ul o he ex en ha bo h To y and Labou MPs came o ejec ‘mass
su eillance’ in deba ing he In es iga o y Powe s Bill only a ew yea s la e .111
Mo e agonis ic unde s andings o democ a ic p ac ice we e hus ese ed o public campaign-
ing. Howe e , ac o s who engaged in mo e public o ms o ad ocacy we e o en deemed illegi ima e
by MPs, pee s, and some expe wi nesses. Campaigne s who held a mo e adical message we e
delegi ima ed as ‘sensa ionalis ’ o conside ed o ins umen alise he deba e on behal o he NGOs
o gain mo e unding. In his ein, pa icula campaigning and highly isible s a egies we e
deemed as ‘s ee hea e’ o ‘sel cong a ula o y’ and lacking nuance.
I mean, you ha e ob iously go people who a e mo e ac i e and a he keen on he public-
i y aspec o i . Bu he e a e o he s who a e going o ake a mo e nuanced and hough ul
app oach. You know, ha is ha you ha e o speak o he de ail o i .112
Ra he han an in eg al aspec o agonis ic democ acy, publici y was equa ed wi h pe o mance
and spec acle. Pa liamen a ians in ol ed in he In es iga o y Powe s Bill deba es men ioned ak-
ing ca e wi h o mula ing hei in e en ions in language which did no connec hem o pa icula
g oups which we e deemed ‘ inge’, which hey a gued would delegi imise hei in e cession. MPs
and pee s ying o limi hese da a collec ion and e en ion powe s spoke abou ha ing mo e c ed-
ibili y wi h ellow pa liamen a ians i hey adop ed a posi ion o being in dialogue wi h he needs
o he secu i y se ices a he han p esen ing a gumen s pu o wa d by ci il socie y, pa icula ly
ci il socie y g oups deemed oo adical o ex eme.113
The ad ocacy p ac ices o he Don’ Spy on Us coali ion show how mo e con lic ual and agonis ic
e sions o democ a ic p ac ices become cons ained wi hin pa ame e s which na ow he e ms o
engagemen and e lec dominan unde s andings o wha is conside ed ‘ ealis ic’ and ‘legi ima e’
in libe al e ms o ule o law and ins i u ional a angemen s. They a e also indica i e o he ac
ha democ a ic con es a ion is no easily opposed o consensus, bu ha a ious ac o s ope a ed a
he in e s ices o mo e con es a o y o mo e consensual poli ics. Howe e , no ma i e assump ions
abou consensual democ acy, and he delegi ima ion o ac o s as adical o oo ‘un ealis ic’, limi he
o m and con en o con es a ion. This esona es wi h unde s andings o e ec i e o e sigh being
seen as apoli ical wi hin much o he li e a u e. Al hough membe s o he coali ion ook p ide in
making some gains (pa icula ly a ound he inclusion o a judicial ‘double-lock’ mechanism be o e
ce ain powe s can be used), many ook a mo e ambi alen s ance, desc ibing hese s uggles as a
momen in ime, pa o he e e -shi ing ela ions be ween eedom, democ acy, and su eillance.
Conclusion
Taking as a poin o depa u e he di e ging answe s o he key ques ion o wha makes in elli-
gence o e sigh democ a ic, his a icle has ocused on p ac ices ha con es mass su eillance
by in elligence agencies ac oss a ious na ional se ings. Ou aim has been o make a wo-p onged
con ibu ion o c i ical app oaches in in elligence s udies and in e na ional ela ions mo e b oadly.
By con as ing he dominan ways o cons uing ‘in elligence o e sigh ’ as democ a ic in he
academic and policy li e a u e wi h h ee case s udies o li iga ion, whis leblowing, and ad ocacy,
we ha e shown how compe ing unde s andings o democ acy play ou in he e e yday s uggles
o ac o s engaged in legi imising and con es ing in elligence su eillance, highligh ing how hese
p ac ices we e usually excluded om he emi , jus i ica ions, and modes o ins i u ionalised o e -
sigh . Ra he han s a ing om a axonomy o heo ies o democ acy, we looked a messy p ac ices
whe e di e en elemen s o wha coun s as ‘democ acy’ co-exis , compe e, o domina e. Mo eo e ,
ou analysis o p ac ices o li iga ion, whis leblowing, and ad ocacy sugges s he e isn’ a single
111‘House o Commons – Coun e -Te o ism – Home A ai s Commi ee’, a ailable a : {h ps://www.publica ions.
pa liamen .uk/pa/cm201314/cmselec /cmha /231/23110.h m} accessed 5 May 2017.
112In e iew wi h independen expe , 1 Ap il 2021.
113In e iew, 27 Oc obe 2020.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0260210523000013 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
Re iew o In e na ional S udies 227
model o democ acy ha in o ms hese s uggles – whe he libe al, ci ic epublican, delibe a i e, o
agonis ic. Ra he , di e en elemen s a e combined o challenge he exclusions, sec ecy, and consen-
sus ha sub end p ac ices o libe al democ acy and i s aken- o -g an ed dominance in academic
and policy engagemen s wi h in elligence o e sigh .
The i s case o he li iga ion agains he BND has ackled wo bounda ies o libe al democ-
acy: ha o legi ima e ac o s and e i o ial limi s o he ule o law. We ha e shown how ac o s
om ci il socie y became meaning ul o e sigh p o agonis s by collec i ely mobilising o li iga e
agains he exclusion o o eigne s om he pu iew o o e sigh . He e, al hough s ill cons ained
by dominan posi ions and iews on wha is needed o p o ec in elligence wo k, o e sigh can
be seen as democ a ic h ough plu alising and including mo e ac o s in he p ocess, he eby also
ex ending o e sigh no jus wi hin bu ac oss bo de s. The second case on he con es ed p ac ice
o whis leblowing e isi ed ensions be ween sec ecy and publici y, pa icula ly he accep ance o
‘sec ecy’ as a secu i y p ac ice in libe al democ acies. By claiming ‘publici y’ and enac ing ‘publics’,
public whis leblowing p ac ices simul aneously e ealed he ailu es o ins i u ionalised o e sigh
and made he bounda ies o sec ecy mo e luid, subjec o mobilisa ion and s uggle o e he limi s
o knowledge. The hi d case abou he UK’s Don’ Spy On Us coali ion has illus a ed how ad o-
cacy oscilla es be ween con lic ual and consensual s yles o democ a ic p ac ice, being channelled
owa ds consensus h ough he delegi ima ion o c i ique ha is deemed o go beyond wha is
accep ed as ‘legi ima e’ o ‘ ealis ic’.
O cou se, hese localised ins ances o s uggles insc ibed in ansna ional ne wo ks a e jus
h ee o he many ha we could ha e in es iga ed o show how clashing isions o democ acy play
ou in in elligence o e sigh p ac ices. O he si es could ha e been add essed – and should be con-
side ed in u u e esea ch –, om open-sou ce jou nalis ic in es iga ions such as hose conduc ed
by Bellingca o he ensions su ounding he wo k o he Uni ed Na ions in in elligence policy.
Wha we hope o ha e con eyed is how meanings and p ac ices o democ acy ha eme ge h ough
o e sigh p ac ices mo e along a spec um, om libe al and delibe a i e- unc ionalis unde s and-
ings o democ acy o pa icipa o y and adical-agonis ic ones.114 In he o me , legi ima e ac o s
o in elligence o e sigh a e cons ued as ‘ easonable o e see s’ who ag ee on he ele ance and
accep abili y o in elligence agencies and s a e su eillance, and whe e bounded public discussions
on in elligence a ai s a e supposed o help achie e a consensus a ound in elligence policy based
on a s abilised ‘balance’ o alues. In he la e , hese unc ionalis iews as well as he legal and
ins i u ional s uc u es o exclusion gi ing hem p ominence a e challenged by mo e adical and
excluded ac o s hoping o con ey a mo e sys emic c i ique o e he me i s and mo i es o in elli-
gence policy in democ acy. Wha eme ges ou o hese s uggles a e s a egies o comp omise, o
inke ing and hyb idisa ion, so ha eally-exis ing in elligence o e sigh emains he e ogeneous
and con es ed.
Wha hen a e he heo e ical and poli ical implica ions o hese he e ogeneous p ac ices o
o e sigh and meanings o democ acy ha ou a icle has shown o be undamen al o he e e y-
day p ac ices o holding in elligence agencies o accoun ? Fi s ly, ou in e en ion comes as an
in i a ion o e lec on he no ma i e assump ions abou democ acy ha unde pin he p ac ices
o sec e se ices and o e sigh ac o s. We ha e a gued ha mo ing owa ds plu al democ a ic
o ms o in elligence o e sigh would equi e poli ical imagina ies and policies o accommoda e
mo e adical claims and p ac ices and be e a icula e he di e en ac o s engaged in o e sigh
p ac ices. In pa allel o such a plu alisa ion o in elligence o e sigh p ac ice, his a icle sugges s
ha in elligence o e sigh schola ship needs o open up o a wide ange o iews and disciplina y
app oaches. As we ha e shown, he li e a u e on in elligence o e sigh has ended o ei he explic-
i ly o implici ly wo k wi h libe al and unc ionalis ideas o democ acy ha ep oduce echnoc a ic
ins i u ional a angemen s, he ule o law wi hin e i o ial bounda ies, he necessi y o sec ecy
o in elligence agencies, and he p io i y o consensus h ough ep esen a i e ins i u ions. In so
114Mou e (ed.), Dimensions o Radical Democ acy.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0260210523000013 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
228 Ronja Kniep e al.
doing, hese implici and explici assump ions abou wha coun s as ‘democ a ic’ shape and limi
he unde s anding o o e sigh bo h in academia and in p ac ice.
Add essing hese limi a ions equi es aking s udies o in elligence p ac ices and sec e se -
ices beyond he con ines o a ield o s udy and connec ing i wi h b oade poli ical ques ions o
democ acy, s uggles, con es a ion, and agency, which ha e been a he co e o c i ical app oaches
in in e na ional ela ions. These con e sa ions ha e o en aken place in subdisciplina y silos,
agmen ed and nea ly delimi ed, p ecluding he cons uc ion o b idges o ans e sal social
enqui y be ween hese di e en imagina ies o democ acy. Building on he analysis de eloped
he e, s uggles a ound su eillance, in elligence and o e sigh can be e o mula ed in he b oade
e ms o s uggles a ound exclusion/inclusion, sec ecy/publici y and consensus/con es a ion, pay-
ing a en ion o how hese we e o med and e ol ed in di e en na ional and ansna ional se ings.
The e o e, he bounda ies o in elligence s udies as a sub ield need o be disman led so ha he
heo e ical and poli ical conce ns o in e na ional ela ions and in e disciplina y esea ch come o
eshape he ques ions, conce ns and me hods a wo k in he ield.
Secondly, ou p ac ice-based app oach o in elligence o e sigh can con ibu e o discussions
o secu i y, su eillance, and con es a ion in in e na ional ela ions mo e b oadly. O e sigh as a
p ac ice ha limi s and media es secu i y and in elligence p ac ices has ecei ed li le a en ion in
IR. O e sigh bo h o e laps wi h and sligh ly di e s om con ol, sc u iny, o accoun abili y, which
cons i u e an impo an concep ual and p ac ical appa a us o democ a ic p ac ice ha needs o be
u he unpacked. In cons aining s uggles o e secu i y, igh s, and democ acy, o e sigh is wo -
hy o a en ion in i s own igh . When o e sigh and accoun abili y a e inc easingly in oked in key
si es o in e na ional poli ics, om bo de s o A i icial In elligence, ou analysis aises a cau ion-
a y no e and o e s a me hodological in es iga ion o bo h speci y p ac ices and analyse wha a call
o o e sigh means in ela ion o he mul iplici y o democ a ic p ac ices, meanings, and poli i-
cal subjec i i ies. Fu he mo e, as we ha e seen, o e sigh also media es p ac ices o legi ima ion
and delegi ima ion. Fu u e esea ch will need o a end o p ac ices o in elligence o e sigh as an
impo an locus in he p ocess o s a e-making and s a e legi ima ion as well.
Thi dly, ou esea ch ecas s ques ions abou democ acy and IR. While democ acy has been
key o many heo e ical app oaches in IR, dicho omous concep ions o democ acy ha e o en been
mobilised o unse le he ei enic ision o libe al democ acy and e en disman le i s dominance:
libe al/illibe al democ acy, libe al/impe ial, s a e/global, libe al/cosmopoli an, ep esen a i e/pa -
icipa o y, an agonis ic/agonis ic, ep esen a i e/delibe a i e, libe al/ci ic epublican, and he lis
could go on. Th ough a p ac ice-based me hodology, we ha e shown ha di e en elemen s ha
do no belong o one cohe en heo y o model o democ acy a e mobilised in s uggles o e he
limi s o democ acy. In wo king h ough a se o dicho omies ha a e seen as cons i u i e o libe al
democ acy, we ha e shown how p ac ices o ‘going democ a ic’ make hese limi s isible and chal-
lenge hem. Ra he han p i ileging a pa icula heo y o democ acy, we ha e p oposed o ake
democ acy se iously as ‘ he pa adoxical egime which – as much as possible – admi s and accep s
he isk o i s own in e nal c i ique – in any case he c i ique o i s own powe -holde s.’115 This is
nei he o e e e no ejec ce ain e sions o democ acy, bu o acknowledge p ac ices ha a e
messy, dispu ed, and eple e wi h pa adoxes.
Acknowledgemen s. We a e g a e ul o he h ee anonymous e iewe s o hei hough ul engagemen wi h he a icle and
enjoining us o u he de elop ou unde s anding o democ acy. We would also like o hank he ci il socie y ac o s who ha e
gene ously sha ed hei insigh s wi h us. This collabo a i e esea ch was made possible h ough join unding unde he Open
Resea ch A ea o he GUARDINT p ojec (‘O e sigh and In elligence Ne wo ks: Who Gua ds he Gua dians?’). In F ance,
his wo k was unded by he F ench Na ional Resea ch Agency (G an No. 18-ORAR-0006-01). In Ge many, i was suppo ed
by Deu sche Fo schungsgemeinscha (DFG, Ge man Resea ch Founda ion, G an No. HO 5317/5-1). In he UK, his esea ch
was suppo ed by he Economic and Social Resea ch Council (G an No. ES/S015132/1).
115E ienne Baliba , ‘Democ acy and Libe y in Times o Violence’, The H an Dink Memo ial Lec u e, Bo gaziçi Uni e si y,
Is anbul, 2018.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0260210523000013 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
Re iew o In e na ional S udies 229
Ronja Kniep is a esea ch ellow in he esea ch g oup ‘Poli ics o Digi alisa ion’ a he WZB Be lin Social Science Cen e
and a PhD candida e a he F eie Uni e si ä Be lin. F om 2019 un il 2022, she has been a esea che in he in e na-
ional p ojec ‘In elligence Ne wo ks and O e sigh : Who Gua ds he Gua dians?’ (GUARDINT). Ronja Kniep’s esea ch
ocuses on he digi al ans o ma ion o socie y, su eillance, ansna ional in elligence ne wo ks, and in elligence o e sigh .
Au ho ’s email: on[email p o ec ed]
Lina Ewe is a use expe ience esea che and inno a ion consul an a Be line Ideenlabo . A sociologis by aining, she
is in e es ed in mig a ion, social inequali y, and eme ging echnologies, as well as co-designing o a socially jus omo ow.
Be o e changing ca ee , Lina was a esea ch ellow a he esea ch g oup Poli ics o Digi aliza ion a he Be lin Social Science
Cen e (WZB) and pa o he GUARDINT esea ch p ojec . She holds a Mas e ’s deg ee in Social Sciences and a Bachelo ’s
deg ee in Eu opean E hnology om Humbold -Uni e si y Be lin. Au ho ’s email: lina.ewe @pos eo.de
Be na dino Le
on Reyes is doc o al esea che and eaching associa e a Sciences Po Pa is. He has also been an a ilia ed
esea che a New Yo k Uni e si y. His esea ch e ol es a ound issues o inequali y, democ a isa ion, and ci il socie y
mo emen s. Au ho ’s email: be na dino.leon eyes@sciencespo.
Félix T égue is associa e esea che a he CNRS Cen e o In e ne and Socie y. His esea ch blends poli ical sociology
and heo y, law as well as media and echnology s udies o look a he poli ical his o y o he In e ne and compu ing,
and mo e b oadly he digi al ans o ma ion o he s a e and o he secu i y ield. He is also a ounding membe o La
Quad a u e du Ne , an ad ocacy g oup dedica ed o he de ence o ci il igh s in ela ion o digi al echnologies. Au ho ’s
email: elix. [email p o ec ed]
Emma Mc Cluskey is a Lec u e in C iminology a he Uni e si y o Wes mins e . He esea ch has explo ed he ela ions
be ween secu i y, mobili y, su eillance, and democ acy. She is au ho o F om Righ eousness o Fa Righ : An An h opological
Re hinking o C i ical Secu i y S udies and is co-edi o in Chie o he bi-annual jou nal, Poli ical An h opological Resea ch on
In e na ional Social Sciences (PARISS). Au ho ’s email: e.mccluskey@wes mins e .ac.uk
Claudia A adau is P o esso o In e na ional Rela ions in he Depa men o Wa S udies, King’s College London. He
esea ch has de eloped a c i ical poli ical analysis o secu i y p ac ices. He la es book, co-au ho ed wi h Tobias Blanke, is
Algo i hmic Reason: The New Go e nmen o Sel and O he (2022). A adau is P incipal In es iga o o he ERC- unded p ojec
‘Enac ing Bo de Secu i y in he Digi al Age: Poli ical Wo lds o Da a Fo ms, Flows and F ic ions’ (SECURITY FLOWS).
Au ho ’s email: claudia.a ada[email p o ec ed]
Ci e his a icle: Kniep, R., Ewe , L., Reyes, B. L., T égue , F., Cluskey, E. M., A adau, C. 2024. Towa ds democ a ic
in elligence o e sigh : Limi s, p ac ices, s uggles. Re iew o In e na ional S udies 50, 209–229. h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/
S0260210523000013
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0260210523000013 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
