Public inquiries into matters of conflict and security are vitally important yet undertheorised.
This article explores the potential of inquiries for the democratic scrutiny of foreign policy,
military doctrine, and grand strategy. In recent decades, there have been numerous inquiries into
contentious foreign and security policy ...
Public inquiries into matters of conflict and security are vitally important yet undertheorised.
This article explores the potential of inquiries for the democratic scrutiny of foreign policy,
military doctrine, and grand strategy. In recent decades, there have been numerous inquiries into
contentious foreign and security policy incidents in Britain, a trend reflected elsewhere in global
politics. Inquiries can unveil facts, identify lessons, and rebuild trust. But critics claim that inquiries
overlook systemic flaws. Our analysis transcends the usual arguments for or against public inquiries
by explaining how inquiries produce knowledge and how this could be improved. We argue that
inquiries necessarily involve the following three distinct processes: scandalisation, archivisation,
and epistemology. We suggest how future inquiries could overcome extant limitations through a
broader scope, diversification of evidence, and methodological pluralism. Such inquiries can play an
improved role in promoting reflection and dialogue about a just international order and Britain’s
role within it.
