Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1177/0967010616686020 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1177/0967010616686020 C6050944!6050944 !30046222     free     free     free Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=30046222 &cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215 Warning: Undefined variable $yww in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 538 Warning: Undefined variable $yww in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 538       Secur+Dialogue 2017 ; 48 (2 ): 149-167 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=30046222 |t=2017. I am somewhat puzzled : Questions, audiences and securitization in the proscription of terrorist organizations |pdf=|usr=}}{{30046222 }} gab.com Text I am somewhat puzzled : Questions, audiences and securitization in the proscription of terrorist organizations JO: Secur Dialogue http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=30046222 #FOAvip A recent wave of scholarship has drawn attention to the need for further engagement with the role of 'the audience' in securitization 'games'. This article contributes to this discussion both theoretically and empirically by exploring the types of question an audience may ask of a securitizing actor before a securitizing act meets with success or failure. To do this, it offers a discursive analysis of all 27 UK parliamentary debates on the extension of proscription powers to additional terrorist organizations between 2002 and 2014. We argue first that these debates are characterized by a wide range of questions relating to the timing, criteria, mechanics, consequences and exclusions of proscription; and second, that these questions function as demands upon the executive to variously justify, explain, clarify, elaborate and defend decisions to extend the UK's list of designated groups. Taking these questions seriously, we suggest, therefore allows insight into a variety of ways in which audiences might participate in security politics that are not adequately captured by notions of consent or resistance, or success or failure. This has empirical and theoretical value for understanding proscription, parliamentary discourse and securitization alike. Twit Text FOAVip I am somewhat puzzled : Questions, audiences and securitization in the proscription of terrorist organizations ????Secur Dialogue http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=30046222 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=30046222 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|30046222 }}</ref> I am somewhat puzzled : Questions, audiences and securitization in the proscription of terrorist organizations #MMPMID30046222 Jarvis L ; Legrand T Secur Dialogue 2017[Apr]; 48 (2 ): 149-167 PMID30046222 show ga A recent wave of scholarship has drawn attention to the need for further engagement with the role of 'the audience' in securitization 'games'. This article contributes to this discussion both theoretically and empirically by exploring the types of question an audience may ask of a securitizing actor before a securitizing act meets with success or failure. To do this, it offers a discursive analysis of all 27 UK parliamentary debates on the extension of proscription powers to additional terrorist organizations between 2002 and 2014. We argue first that these debates are characterized by a wide range of questions relating to the timing, criteria, mechanics, consequences and exclusions of proscription; and second, that these questions function as demands upon the executive to variously justify, explain, clarify, elaborate and defend decisions to extend the UK's list of designated groups. Taking these questions seriously, we suggest, therefore allows insight into a variety of ways in which audiences might participate in security politics that are not adequately captured by notions of consent or resistance, or success or failure. This has empirical and theoretical value for understanding proscription, parliamentary discourse and securitization alike. ? I am somewhat puzzled : Questions, audiences and securitization in th(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing