Laudable, ahistorical and overambitious: security sector reform meets state formation theory.

Egnell, Robert; Haldén, Peter

doi:10.1080/14678800802704903

Cited by 39 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As with debates over the optimal breadth of rule of law reforms, there is disagreement about how capacious a conception of SSR should be, beyond traditional security assistance (Egnell and Haldén 2009). Here too, "practitioners and policy-makers struggled with a 'thin' versus 'thick' or process/institution-based approach and endbased approach" (Bleiker and Krupanski 2012, p. 37).…”

Section: Security Sector Reformmentioning

confidence: 95%

Linking peacebuilding, rule of law and security sector reform: the European Union’s experience

Cravo

2015

Asia Eur J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rule of law and security sector reform have become central to peacebuilding initiatives in the past decade and a half, accompanying a surge in international interventions in the periphery. Considered of critical importance to the re-establishment of order and the promotion of peace and development, these two areas of reform have gained importance and, today, feature as priorities in the European Union's external action beyond its immediate neighbourhood. Such policies, however, have often failed to achieve their stated goals. After reviewing the theoretical relationship between peacebuilding, rule of law reform and security sector reform, this article draws on the Union's practice to argue that a narrow, formalistic approach to rule of law and security sector reform, one that prioritises the transplantation of a western liberal legal framework, has undermined the aims of curbing instability and fostering development.

show abstract

Section: Security Sector Reformmentioning

confidence: 95%

Linking peacebuilding, rule of law and security sector reform: the European Union’s experience

Cravo

2015

Asia Eur J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even when MINUSMA recognised the need for a more legitimacy-focused approach to state authority, these efforts were hindered by the continued need for physical security and the prioritisation of military-based authority by the Malian government. As Egnell and Haldén (2009) argue, exclusively military approaches to extending state authority are unlikely to create states that are both stable and democratic.…”

Section: Conflict Context and Mandate Prioritiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining State Authority: UN Peace Operations Efforts to Extend State Authority in Mali and the Central African Republic

Zimmerman

2020

Stability: International Journal of Security and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a state-based international order, the state is understood as the best actor to protect its population. With this in mind, UN peace operations often have mandates to extend state authority. However, by their very nature, peace operations deploy to states whose authority and legitimacy are contested. Without a clear definition of what that authority entails, peace operations and host states must constantly negotiate the content and approaches taken in extending state authority, sometimes resulting in tensions between state and mission. This article examines the process of extending state authority in two cases: the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA) and the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA). It finds that there are evolving and contesting understandings of state authority across and within peace operations, which can limit mission impact and stress key relationships between peace operations and their host state. The article concludes that there is a need for renewed conversations in the UN as to how state authority is understood and supported by UN peace operations. stability

show abstract

“…In particular, there has been a longstanding debate between narrow and broad definitions of the security sector and thus the scope of SSR. On the one hand, the narrow perspective is exclusively state-centric and focuses on militarised institutions authorised by the state to utilise force to protect the state and its citizens (Egnell & Haldén, 2009: 31; see further Hänggi, 2004: 3). Furthermore, the narrow definition includes public oversight bodies, which are predominantly the executive and the legislative authorities of the state.…”

Section: Actors Scope and Activitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Security Sector Reform - Limitations and Prospects of the Scholarly Debate

Wingens

2016

EIRJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article seeks to critically assess the current scholarly debate on security sector reform (SSR) by examining conceptual gaps and limitations of the research on SSR. It is argued that the academic debate on SSR is stuck within the existing policy approach and limited due to its focus on domestic state actors and institutions. The vast majority of studies do not go beyond questions of programme effectiveness and policy success. Current research on the topic struggles with various conceptual challenges that hinder the translation of the SSR agenda into actual operational realities. Nevertheless, recent contributions to this field of research turn away from limited perspectives on external interests towards a greater emphasis on local perspectives and dynamics.

show abstract

Laudable, ahistorical and overambitious: security sector reform meets state formation theory.

Cited by 39 publications

References 12 publications

Linking peacebuilding, rule of law and security sector reform: the European Union’s experience

Linking peacebuilding, rule of law and security sector reform: the European Union’s experience

Defining State Authority: UN Peace Operations Efforts to Extend State Authority in Mali and the Central African Republic

Security Sector Reform - Limitations and Prospects of the Scholarly Debate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About