C i v i l - M i l i ta r yo cc a s i o n a l pa p e r s3 / 2 0 11Situating Police and Military inconteMPorary Peace oPerat...
Disclaimer:the views expressed in this Civil-Military Occasional Paper are those of theauthor and do not necessarily refle...
aBStractthere appears to be a growing convergence between the policeand the military of Western developed states. this has...
Situating Police and Military in    conteMPorary Peace oPerationS    Evidence seems to suggest that there is a growing con...
a Blurring of the Police – Military divide?the Police – Military divide, we argue, has four main features. the first is fu...
may occur but are less integral to the overall raison d’etre of defence forces. Further    generalisations include the not...
military forces under the descriptor ‘disciplined forces’ often see themselves moreakin to other civilian emergency servic...
One key aspect of this blurring is that it is becoming relatively common for the    military to be tasked with components ...
So whilst the military are being asked to remain in their “home” environment butplay police roles, police are being asked ...
Police Forces with military status who perform duties including civil             disturbance operations. this type of for...
an emphasis on the ‘criminalisation’ of conflict through making military actionpotentially ‘illegal’ and stressing the not...
Police Units (FPUs) that specialise in public order (Dziedzic and Stark 2006). recent     assessments of FPUs in the UN se...
situation’, and an important part of this particular role was the regulation of existingpolice forces in Cambodia. in prac...
two main problems arose in Kosovo with respect to police-military relations     and operations. the first was that a signi...
Police Force (KPS) riot police would be the front line; then UNMiK; then the MSU;then the military Kosovo Force (KFOr), bu...
the Military Planning Service and the Police Division of DPKO, and which may     be augmented by additional documentation ...
missions. the Head of Police Component (HOPC) similarly exercises ‘UNOperational Control’, may delegate specific authority...
Even more specifically, military functions and activities have been denoted as:     security sector involvement and provis...
operations. in terms of police involvement, it is envisaged that the EU may deploycivilian police for: preventive roles (t...
aspects involved in peacekeeping and peacebuilding. Secondly they recognise the     increased role of police (including ge...
good soldiers, no matter how well equipped, trained, organised and led cannotfully perform police duties among local popul...
in considering issues arising in this study of police versus military roles, Campell and     Campbell (2010: 339) suggest ...
the iraqi police is seen as fighting terrorism. this may seem reasonable to       an outsider, but it is essentially a sta...
Citizens in post-conflict countries have usually suffered from abusive, corrupt             and militarised security force...
conclusionsthere are a number of arguments that suggest that the police–military divideis blurring, particularly in the in...
roles for police and military personnel in peace operations and these constitute     important contributions to the field....
5   the roles of military forces are clearly stated in various country acts which legislate the existence    and use of ar...
referenceS     andreas, P & Price, r. (2001). From War-fighting to Crime Fighting: transforming     the american National ...
Dziedzic M, & Stark, C. (2006) ‘Bridging the Security Gap; the role of theCenter of Excellence for Stability Police Units ...
Kilcullen, D. (2009). The Accidental Guerilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of the Big     One. New york: Oxford Unive...
NatO, (2004) ‘Multinational Specialist Unit’, SFOR Factsheet, august 2004.http://www.nato.int/sfor/factsheet/msu/t040809a....
Silver, a. (2005). the Demand for Order in Civil Society. in t. Newburn (Ed).     Policing: Key Readings (pp.7–24). Portla...
Situating Police and Military in Contemporary Peace Operations   33
34   Civil- Military occasional papers
Situating Police and Military in Contemporary Peace Operations   35
w w w.c i v m i l co e . gov. au
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Civil-Military Occasional Paper 3/2011: Situating Police and Military in Contemporary Peace Operations

2,540

Published on

There appears to be a growing convergence between the police and the military of Western developed states. This has been argued to be problematic for a number of reasons, including the fact that this is out of step with current post-conflict peacebuilding efforts that aim to ensure a strict separation of these two agencies. This paper investigates the police-military relationship in contemporary peace operations from a number of different angles. It considers points of convergence and divergence both in theoretical terms and in different case studies, and investigates doctrinal developments that have been undertaken in recent efforts to demarcate these two roles more clearly. The paper argues that there are continuing significant functional and symbolic differences between these two agencies. Furthermore, there are practical and normative advantages to be gained from utilising police and military in distinctive ways in contemporary peace operations, and more needs to be done to establish what those appropriate ways for utilising those different agencies actually are in various security contexts.

Dr Greener is Senior Lecturer in International Relations at Massey University and has published widely on international security-related matters; her book The New International Policing was published in 2009. Dr Fish is an Associate Professor in Philosophy at Massey University.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,540
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
33
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Civil-Military Occasional Paper 3/2011: Situating Police and Military in Contemporary Peace Operations

  1. 1. C i v i l - M i l i ta r yo cc a s i o n a l pa p e r s3 / 2 0 11Situating Police and Military inconteMPorary Peace oPerationSDr B.K. Greener and Dr W.J. Fish w w w.c i v m i l co e . gov. au
  2. 2. Disclaimer:the views expressed in this Civil-Military Occasional Paper are those of theauthor and do not necessarily reflect the position of aPCMCOE or of anygovernment agency. authors enjoy the academic freedom to offer new andsometimes controversial perspectives in the interest of furthering debate onkey issues.the content is published under a Creative Commons by attribution 3.0australia (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/) licence. all parts ofthis publication may be reproduced, stored in retrieval systems, and transmittedby any means without the written permission of the publisher.iSBN: 978-1-921933-15-8Published 2011.
  3. 3. aBStractthere appears to be a growing convergence between the policeand the military of Western developed states. this has been arguedto be problematic for a number of reasons, including the fact thatthis is out of step with current post-conflict peacebuilding effortsthat aim to ensure a strict separation of these two agencies. thispaper investigates the police-military relationship in contemporarypeace operations from a number of different angles. it considerspoints of convergence and divergence both in theoretical terms andin different case studies, and investigates doctrinal developmentsthat have been undertaken in recent efforts to demarcate thesetwo roles more clearly. the paper argues that there are continuingsignificant functional and symbolic differences between these twoagencies. Furthermore, there are practical and normative advantagesto be gained from utilising police and military in distinctive ways incontemporary peace operations, and more needs to be done toestablish what those appropriate ways for utilising those differentagencies actually are in various security contexts.Key words: police, military, peace operations, post-conflictDr Greener is Senior lecturer in international relations atMassey University and has published widely on internationalsecurity-related matters; her book The New International Policing waspublished in 2009. Dr Fish is an associate Professor in Philosophy atMassey University. Situating Police and Military in Contemporary Peace Operations 3
  4. 4. Situating Police and Military in conteMPorary Peace oPerationS Evidence seems to suggest that there is a growing convergence between the police and the military of Western developed states (Campbell and Campbell 2010; Friesendorf 2009; Schmalleger 2008).1 this has been argued to be a problematic development for a number of reasons, one of which is that it appears to be out of step with current post-conflict peacebuilding efforts that aim to ensure a strict separation of these two agencies (OECD 2007). in light of this, there has been an urgent call for scholars and researchers to undertake further research on what has been termed ‘third generation civil-military affairs’, and the issue of police-military cooperation in peace operations is at the heart of this agenda (rosen 2009).2 this paper investigates the police-military relationship in contemporary peace operations from a number of different angles. We begin by investigating the different dimensions of what we call the traditional ‘police–military divide’ and show how the developing roles of these agencies suggest that this divide is becoming blurred. Following on from this, we go on to focus on the specific issue of police-military interactions in peace operations, highlighting some of the problems that have arisen in particular case studies, before outlining recent UN and EU doctrinal developments to see how these institutions have attempted to create a clearer division of labour in efforts to address operational confusion over police and military roles. these efforts to demarcate a division of labour are vital as, despite some instances of blurring of the police-military divide, there are continuing significant functional and symbolic differences between these two agencies. Moreover, this differentiation is critical in that the ongoing differences between police (in both civilian and constabulary form) and the military help to provide for a broader range of options in responding to the challenges faced in post conflict peace operations. there are, therefore, practical and normative advantages to be gained from utilising police and military in particular and distinctive ways in contemporary peace operations. the challenge is to establish appropriate and legitimate uses of police and military agents in each particular case.4 Civil- Military occasional papers
  5. 5. a Blurring of the Police – Military divide?the Police – Military divide, we argue, has four main features. the first is function,followed by additional differences in terms of main focus, sources of legitimacy andunderlying culture, and these main differences are represented in the table below.3Table 1: The police-Military Divide ciVilian police MiliTarY core Function Controlling crime and Securing the state against maintaining public order by external threat through prevention or, failing that, deterrence or, failing that, through apprehension. military action. Focus internal. External. source of legitimacy representatives of the agents of the incumbent community / law. government. institutional culture Professional, value-oriented, Professional, value-oriented, individual responsibility high. hierarchical, responsibility allocated top down.as shown in table 1, it is clear that there are some instances of similarities anddifferences inherent within the main functions of these two agencies. Historically,police forces were developed to play a security role that militaries were eitherunable or unwilling to perform.4 Prominent theorists of police, David Bayley (1990:18) and allan Silver (2005: 10), identify the same two roles as the cornerstones ofpolice function: crime prevention and public order maintenance. Military forces, onthe other hand, are war-fighting institutions tasked with protecting the state and itsinterests through the use of deterrent effect or lethal force.5Moreover, although the definitions in table 1 have both preventive and activeaspects, police work emphasises more proactive forms of prevention in attemptingto detect problems before they arise or before they become more entrenchedas constituting a core policing task. the military is arguably more passive in itspreventive measures in that ‘active’ forms of deterrence such as military exercises Situating Police and Military in Contemporary Peace Operations 5
  6. 6. may occur but are less integral to the overall raison d’etre of defence forces. Further generalisations include the notion that police action through apprehension involves a great deal of constabulary discretion, and is more tailored to context and the individual crime, whilst military action typically involves a much more complicated, hierarchical and large-scale response to significant threats to the national interest. admittedly these are highly reductionist principles, but they constitute fundamental differences at play in the core functions of the police and military. What is more, this difference in the roles the two agencies are intended to play also has the consequence that police have a focus internal to the society to which they belong whilst militaries have come to be seen as the main actors for the protection of a state’s external sovereignty. there are exceptions under ‘aid to Civil authorities’ arrangements, where militaries do have an internal role in in-extremis support in counter terrorism operations, but typically these actions require emergency powers and still require a post-event police investigation. the Navy and airforce also play significant roles in Search & rescue operations, and all Services typically assist in disaster response. Sites of legitimacy of the military is founded in their role as agents of the incumbent government and civil authority, whilst police forces created in the anglo-american model have typically sought to locate their legitimacy elsewhere, so as to avoid being seen as an internal political tool. in the civilian policing model, this has been through a combination of being seen as representatives of the community being policed and being seen as representatives of the abstract ‘law of the land’, or enforcing the ‘rule of law’. and, finally, these differences in focus and function in turn give rise to broadly different institutional arrangements and cultures in the police and military. the warfighting function of the military has resulted in personnel typically being utilised as parts of military units ranging from platoons to armies, with a strong emphasis being placed on leadership, highly structured decision-making processes and hierarchy within these units (Seiler 2009). this emphasis on hierarchy, and an accompanying focus on discipline, has been seen to be necessary for a number of reasons; not least in order to be able to direct individuals to both use lethal force themselves against an enemy and to follow orders that may result in loss of their own life. Civilian police, on the other hand, though sometimes lumped in with6 Civil- Military occasional papers
  7. 7. military forces under the descriptor ‘disciplined forces’ often see themselves moreakin to other civilian emergency services such as fire or ambulance services ratherthan ‘little soldiers’ of any sort (discussions with australian and New ZealandPolice 2010/2011). For some police forces, however still in the post-colonial era oftheir evolution, the concept of police as another ‘disciplined force’ is the dominantone. in african states experiencing conflict, for example, the distinction betweenpolice, gendarmerie and military becomes especially blurred. imbued with a senseof individual responsibility and the key tenet of ‘constabulary discretion’, civilianpolice may often have similar values to military personnel (courage, commitmentto the job, desire to contribute to society and some levels of institutional hierarchy)but, in general terms, the overarching institutional culture of policing is muchless hierarchical with greater emphasis being placed on individual responsibilityand initiative.So we find the traditional police – military divide has (at least) these fourdifferent dimensions – differences in function, differences in focus, differences insource of legitimacy, and differences in culture. yet in 2001, prior to the eventsof September 11, andreas and Price (2001: 32) claimed that “one of the mostimportant blurrings of traditional boundaries occurring in the post-Cold War erais that between an internally oriented domestic police sphere and an externallyoriented military sphere”.this blurring is in part due to the fact that the advent of globalisation has brought anumber of security challenges – such as terrorism, transnational crime and humantrafficking – that obscure the distinction between an internal and an externalsphere of operation. Furthermore, the blurring of the police – military divide isparticularly notable in peace operations, where it has been claimed by rosen(2009: 11) that: a defining feature of third-generation civil-military relations is the vanishing difference between military and civil work areas. this could also be described as the vanishing of the functional differences between military and other tools of international politics. the vanishing differentiation contrasts with first- and second- generation civil-military relations, which generated a perception of a clash between ‘military’ and ‘non-military’ that sustained the conceptual distinction between two areas of governance. Situating Police and Military in Contemporary Peace Operations 7
  8. 8. One key aspect of this blurring is that it is becoming relatively common for the military to be tasked with components of the police function in peacekeeping operations. in Panama, for example, “the US military, as the only entity in the country with the capacity to provide the level of stability required, had to deal with the lack of a viable and functioning [host nation] security and [law enforcement] apparatus” (Jayamaha et al 2010: 21) and they dealt with this in the obvious way – by doing it themselves. in Haiti too, for example UN military personnel were deployed to fight the organised street gangs in Port au Prince and Cite Soleil, which resulted in very confrontational but ultimately fairly successful results. the involvement of the military in traditional policing roles has continued in recent years, with the US military playing “a key role in law enforcement and related issues, even if not specifically tasked with a law enforcement mandate” (Jayamaha et al 2010: xiii) and with undertaking the tasks of police training, mentoring, and institutional reform (rosen 2009: 11). More recently, however, there has been a move from merely suggesting that it is possible for the military to undertake policing tasks, to a suggestion that it may actually be desirable. the early stages of afghanistan, for example, US army Colonel Kimberley Fields (2002: 3) has suggested that “if the mainstream military invested energy in gaining a degree of comfort with [civil-military organisation] issues and in building relationships with civilian partners, real coordination and power sharing could result in targeted, efficient, and short-term humanitarian and reconstruction interventions by the military.” Much of the rationale for the US military role in police training in afghanistan and iraq is, however, due to the simple fact that the US does not have a national police force that is mandated to undertake international deployments (see Perito 2004) the blurring of the police-military divide has also taken a converse form from the perspective of police. at the same time as the military have been tasked with policing roles in peace operations, there has also been an increase in the number of sworn police officers deployed in these missions. For example, over 17,000 police have been mandated by the Security Council to contribute to 14 peacekeeping operations and 4 peacebuilding operations (UNDPKO 2011). although police are typically deployed to play policing roles (so their function remains the same), they are being deployed in an external, as opposed to an internal, environment.8 Civil- Military occasional papers
  9. 9. So whilst the military are being asked to remain in their “home” environment butplay police roles, police are being asked to play their ‘home’ roles in military space.this development, it has been argued, challenges the very concept of police beinginternal security agents who uphold the rule of law within a domestic setting(Greener 2009).What is more, this blurring of focus and function is compounded by two furtherfeatures of contemporary peace operations. First is that these missions ofteninvolve concurrent counter-terrorism (typically an effort led by law enforcementstrategies) and counter-insurgency (typically a military task, though again theseare generalisations) operations. indeed, the emphasis on counter-insurgency inafghanistan has seen Kilcullen (2009: 130) suggest that the military operation is“less like conventional warfare and more like police work: cops patrolling a beatto prevent violent crime”.the second feature of contemporary peace operations is that they may involvesignificant levels of civil disorder, often involving armed protagonists. the problemwith such scenarios is that a ‘capability gap’ is perceived to exist between civilianpolice and the military when it comes to dealing with this kind of situation.Dziedzic (2003: 2) argues that: Military forces are ill suited to engage in confrontations with civilians because, with the exception of constabulary or military police units, they are generally not trained in the measured use of force, control of riots, negotiating techniques, or de-escalation of conflict. individual [civilian police] are not capable of handling such large-scale, strategic challenges, either.in response to the perception that such a capability gap exists, people have arguedthat a force that has elements of both police and military is required: a paramilitaryconstabulary force such as the French gendarmerie or the italian carabinieri; forceswhich are “characterised by paramilitary organisation and weaponry tailored foruse in internal security and policing operations” (Mendee and last 2008: 18).in Bosnia in the late 1990s, this led to NatO developing ‘Multinational SpecialistUnits’ (MSU) in order to help bridge military and civilian police capabilities. an MSUconsisted of: Situating Police and Military in Contemporary Peace Operations 9
  10. 10. Police Forces with military status who perform duties including civil disturbance operations. this type of force focuses on the civilian population, employs minimum force and often employs small units to accomplish the mission. However, the MSU is not a replacement for the [Bosnia and Herzegovna] Police Forces and does not conduct criminal investigation beyond the scope of the SFOr mandate (NatO 2004). Further commentary highlights that the experience with the MSU in Bosnia had knock-on effects even to the point whereby; international peacekeeping operations have in the past been labelled constabulary missions, calling for gendarme rather than military capabilities, although throughout the Cold War they were conducted primarily by military forces. Since 1996, beginning with the Multinational Specialised Unit in Bosnia, forces like the italian Carabinieri and the Dutch Marechaussee have been in demand to deal with the combination of organised crime and ethnic extremism that complicates protracted social conflicts (Mendee and last 2008: 18). Constabulary forces, then, can seem appealing in postconflict situations as they are seen as capable of performing both ‘cooler’ military and ‘hotter’ police functions and can be assigned “in either a military or civilian capacity” (Perito 2004: 47). these kinds of developments in terms of the increasingly complex nature of operations have led, in turn, to changes in the culture or ethos of police and military forces. in considering how militaries have been impacted upon, andreas and Price (2001: 48) draw attention to the fact that, post Kosovo in particular, “the military [now] faces pressures to treat foreign civilians as individuals with rights rather than as enemies on a battlefield”. Martin Shaw has similarly emphasised the importance of the criminalisation of war as driven by an emphasis on rights, legal regulation and excessive litigation. Most importantly Shaw talked of the fact that criminalising war; involves treating war like any other human activity, no longer de facto or even de jure excluded from norms that apply in all other fields. taking “thou shalt not kill” seriously, in the context of war, does indeed threaten to make the practice of war very difficult (2004).10 Civil- Military occasional papers
  11. 11. an emphasis on the ‘criminalisation’ of conflict through making military actionpotentially ‘illegal’ and stressing the notion of individual responsibility for conductnecessitates an understanding and application of the rule of law.Michael Walzer (1992: 42) says that, whilst soldiers are not responsible for the waritself, they are responsible for the conduct of it, and that “war is distinguishablefrom murder and massacre only when restrictions are established on the reachof battle” and, more specifically, that “negative intention ought to be requiredfrom soldiers; it is the domestic equivalent of what the lawyers call “due care” indomestic society” . Because of this, adam roberts has gone so far as to claim thata ‘humanitarian war’ is “an oxymoron that may yet become a reality” (1993: 429).in addition to absorbing and responding to these increased legalisation processes,military forces have in recent years also been subject to a number of othersignificant processes such as civilianisation, equal opportunity policies, outsourcingand subcontracting that have impacted upon aspects of traditional military culture(Caforio 2003). these processes have created more permeability betweenthe military and civilian worlds, helping to demystify the role of military forcessomewhat, thereby altering how the military is perceived and received by society,and deemphasising traditional tenets of military life – including hierarchy (Moskos2000).6 though the military remains a ‘military’ despite civilianisation, and thoughthe continuing emphasis on hierarchy remains a key point of difference from civilianpolice, these sorts of developments also bring military and policing agencies a littlecloser together.at the same time as the military is becoming more civilianised and being requiredto adjust to being answerable to the law as well as their commanding officer,there have also been concerns voiced in a number of Western liberal democraticcountries from the US, to the UK, australia and New Zealand, that we are seeingan increased ‘militarisation’ of domestic police services (Kraska and Kappeler 1997;McCulloch 2001 and 2004; Broad 2010). the creation of various special tacticsgroups with increased firepower, more regular police involvement in counter-terrorism roles, and an increased willingness to arm police have been cited asevidence of such militarisation. Moreover, as we have noted, as more police arebeing used in international settings there has been a rising reliance on the use ofconstabulary-type forces such as gendarmerie or more specifically-tasked Formed Situating Police and Military in Contemporary Peace Operations 11
  12. 12. Police Units (FPUs) that specialise in public order (Dziedzic and Stark 2006). recent assessments of FPUs in the UN setting have identified that the record regarding use of these FPUs to date has been somewhat mixed (Carpenter 2010) and the consequences of the default use of these Units remains under-researched. all of these developments have meant that police and military roles in contemporary peace operations have often become confused through misinterpretation of roles or through sheer necessity in requiring the military, in particular, to undertake policing roles as the main or only capability in situ at the time. Police – Military interaction in Peace operations in 2001 Michael Pugh suggested that all civil-military relations in peace operations had tended to subordinate humanitarian action to military necessity – pointing to the Western European Union’s draft Civil-Military Cooperation (CiMiC) document from 1999 that stated CiMiC was to “create civil-military conditions that will offer the Commander the greatest possible moral, material and tactical advantages” – but he also noted that alternative CiMiC models were being formulated that were more balanced in their approach towards coordinating state servants in conflict zones (2001: 346). indeed CiMiC is now often a priority rather than merely an afterthought as humanitarian and development agendas have risen to balance the military imperative. recent UN reports therefore call for an increased focus on and resourcing of civilian contributions to UN peace operations, symbolising a changing approach to the balancing of security and development needs in complex peacebuilding and peace support operations (UN News release 2011). in assessing how police and military, in particular, operate together in peace operations, there are some useful models to be considered from past experience before identifying and assessing contemporary emphases. in early missions, such as Cambodia in the mid 1990s, there were a number of complaints that the entire UN mission was overly dominated by the military, and by military imperatives. the military component in UNtaC was ostensibly there to provide a ‘neutral political environment’ and key tasks for the military included monitoring the ceasefire, disarmament, regroupment, and the demobilisation of factional forces. the civilian police component, on the other hand, was tasked with ‘stabilising the security12 Civil- Military occasional papers
  13. 13. situation’, and an important part of this particular role was the regulation of existingpolice forces in Cambodia. in practice, however, there was a lack of clarity in theCambodian case about how these roles could be demarcated from one another interms of day to day operations, and the relevant jurisdictions of the two agencies.this highlighted the difficulties in establishing a clear division of labour betweenthe two forces, particularly as military affairs tended to dominate to the extentthat military aspects of the mission ‘pervaded almost every aspect of UNtaC’smandate’ (Kim and Metrikas 1997: 108). the overbearing emphasis on the militaryaspect of the mission also contributed to a lack of planning and preparation for thecivilian police aspect of the operation (Maley 2005: 300).as was noted above, in 1998 NatO deployed the first ‘Multinational SpecialistUnit (MSU) in Bosnia to help bridge military and civilian police capabilities. inresponse to a disastrous episode involving friction between the MSU and militaryCommanders in late 1998, NatO developed the Blue Box / Green Box concept.this demarcated who was to have precedence in different situations. When publicorder was threatened, the on-site MSU commander would command his own unitand other forces present within what would be designated the ‘Blue Box’ (a particulararea of operations). Forces outside the area of responsibility remained under thecommand of the most senior military officer present to support the constabularypolicing efforts of the MSU within the Blue Box area, and this surrounding area wasthe ‘Green Box’ zone (Perito 2004: 164–5).this operational model reflected the need to distinguish whether or not the MSUor military commander had precedence, and in certain situations gave constabularyforces the tactical freedom to deal with unrest, including the freedom to decidewhether or not to use force. this highlights the preventative role for police – oneparticular study from the US army Peacekeeping and Stability Operations institute,suggested that the MSU had, by 2000, managed to resolve 261 or 263 interventionswithout use of force through deterrence, dissuasion and negotiation (2000: 10)– and the idea of an MSU was therefore judged to work fairly successfully on anumber of occasions (Friesendorf 2009: 47–8) Similar models were then utilised inKosovo – particularly for responding to riots and public disorder – but a number ofproblems occurred in this case. Situating Police and Military in Contemporary Peace Operations 13
  14. 14. two main problems arose in Kosovo with respect to police-military relations and operations. the first was that a significant predicament arose in terms of duplication of function and intelligence sharing problems between the MSU which consisted of 300 members from italy, France and Estonian EStPatrOl military police, and UNMiK’s Special Police Units (SPUs). the mandates for the SPU and the MSU were overly similar and UNMiK in particular complained that MSU did not share intelligence (Friesendorf 2009: 97). as a general rule the SPUs were generally used for static facility and protective security roles with the MSUs focusing on riot control and high risk policing functions (Perito 2004). in addition to this overlap, the US too used their military police as a constabulary type force, further complicating the mix of actors and functions available. though originally tasked with traditional roles such as military traffic control, area security and prisoner of war operations, the roles of US MPs increased to encompass: deterring looting and other crimes; running police stations and detention centres; facilitating the return of refugees; and maintaining a great deal of responsibility for law and order in particular sectors (Jayamaha et al 2010: 115). another problem emerged with respect to a lack of comprehensive planning for less than lethal force. With regards to NatO’s strategic and operational planning for dealing with Kosovo, thomas Mockaitis (2004: 31–1) argues that: KFOr entered Kosovo prepared for only two scenarios, neither of which occurred: a fighting entry to expel the yugoslav army and paramilitaries, and a peaceful hand over of the province. instead a power vacuum opened between the retreating army and the occupying force. KFOr was therefore “faced with an atypical crisis in which crowd behaviour had become a key component” (assembly of the WEU 2006). Serbian paramilitaries burned and looted albanian homes as KFOr troops stood by and watched, and later returning albanians attacked Serbian homes and property in retaliation, again without response from KFOr which was ill equipped to deal with such instances of public disorder as opposed to organised warfighting. British troops increased foot patrols a la Northern ireland to decrease the intensity and frequency of such occurrences, whilst French Gendarmerie were deployed to set up a battalion tasked with preventing crimes and offences and maintaining public security (though not law enforcement). later planning for violent public disorder intended that the Kosovo14 Civil- Military occasional papers
  15. 15. Police Force (KPS) riot police would be the front line; then UNMiK; then the MSU;then the military Kosovo Force (KFOr), but again it transpired that there was notenough foresight with regards to how to effectively deal with large-scale riots asdemonstrated by the poor response to the 2004 riots (Friesendorf 2009: 102).in light of the difficulties faced on the ground in previous years, a number of states,regional and international institutions have begun to develop much strongerguidelines and doctrine regarding police-military interaction and roles in peaceoperations. the UN, in particular, has taken up a more strategic outlook in recentyears, concerned by the adverse effects of the previous ad hoc approach toproviding security in post-conflict settings. the developments at the UN representefforts to identify and attribute a clear division of labour between police andmilitary personnel, whilst the EU’s policy development has also explicitly consideredthe role of the new European gendarmerie force.codifying Police – Military interaction: doctrinal developmentUN guidelines for its peace operations state that both troop ContributingCountries (tCC) and Police Contributing Countries (PCC) should be guided bythe tasks assigned by the Security Council mandate, the concept of operations(CONOPS) and accompanying mission rules of Engagement (rOE) for themilitary component, and the Directives on the Use of Force (DUF) for the policecomponent in order to establish a suitable police-military operational relationship(UN 2008: 14; UN 2009: 25).rOE and DUF should clearly outline the different levels of force that can beused in various circumstances, how each level of force should be used, and anyauthorisations that must be obtained by Commanders, and mission leadershipshould ensure that these rOE and DUF are well understood by all relevantpersonnel in the mission and are being applied uniformly such that the “credibilityand freedom of action” of the UN field mission is upheld in the implementation ofits mandate (UN 2008: 35). these rOE and DUF evolve out of separate militaryand police CONOPS which are strategic planning documents which outline the“key security objectives, requirements and tasks” of military and police as pertheir role in fulfilling the UN mandate, which are developed predominantly by Situating Police and Military in Contemporary Peace Operations 15
  16. 16. the Military Planning Service and the Police Division of DPKO, and which may be augmented by additional documentation such as a Military Operations Plan (‘Operation Order’) (UN 2009: 26). it is significant to note that separate CONOPS exist because: Military and police use force for different purposes in peacekeeping operations. the military uses force to deter or remove a security threat from armed forces or groups, while the police use force to arrest civilians and address criminal behaviour. the use of force by military and police are therefore also governed by different sources of law (the military is governed by humanitarian law and the police by human rights and domestic criminal law) (UN 2009a: 64) More explicitly, the UNDPKO (2002: 2) has a specific Civil-Military Coordination Policy that provides guidelines to “ensure that the military and civilian police components can concentrate on their primary task of security but, where needed, can contribute in the most effective manner to non-security tasks, specifically those related to humanitarian and development activities”. the policy emphasises that military or civilian police are supposed to be used only for the pursuit of peace and security whereas humanitarian relief and development activities are to be performed by civilians – though it provides potential for military and civilian police to be involved in these tasks if: they are consistent with the mandate; don’t interfere with or compromise security related tasks; and are coordinated fully within the mission (further constraints include that this would only occur if the capability required is unique, unable to be provided in a timely manner by civilians and a last resort) (UN 2002: 3). in terms of command and control, military and civilian police remain under established command and control – namely the Secretary General’s Special representative / HOM must approve the use of military and civilian police for non-security related tasks, although efforts to plan and coordinate with regards to humanitarian needs rests with the Humanitarian Coordinator (UN 2002: 5). More specifically, the Head of Military Component (HOMC) exercises ‘UN operational Control’, may delegate ‘UN tactical Control’ of military personnel to subordinate military commanders, and may also be the HOM in ‘traditional’16 Civil- Military occasional papers
  17. 17. missions. the Head of Police Component (HOPC) similarly exercises ‘UNOperational Control’, may delegate specific authority to individual officers and toFPUs through their commanding officer, and is ‘normally appointed’ as the missionPolice Commissioner (UN 2009a: 42). Significantly, recent UN peacekeepingtraining material stresses the importance of military, police and civilian personnelall understanding the “main tasks and functions of the different components in amission” (UN 2009a: 46). the main tasks of military and police, the training materialsuggests, can be described as follows:Table 2 Military, police and civilian Tasks in contemporaryUn peace operations7 Military component traditional PK Operations Monitor or supervise military arrangements that parties to a conflict have agreed upon. Create a secure and stable Multi-dimensional environment for other Operations elements of the peace process to be implemented. police component Can be deployed either Play a role in establishing as individual UNPOl or public safety and preventing as Formed Police Units crime as well as facilitating to either traditional or role of law. multi-dimensional peace Collaborate closely with operations. civilian components such as human rights, judicial and civil affairs and corrections. civilian component limited number in traditional Have roles in political affairs, peace operations but civil affairs, human rights, more in multidimensional gender, public information operations. etc. Provide logistical and administrative support too. Situating Police and Military in Contemporary Peace Operations 17
  18. 18. Even more specifically, military functions and activities have been denoted as: security sector involvement and provision of secure environment (through patrolling, establishing and operating checkpoints, securing major routes to facilitate mobility, securing key facilities such as hospitals and power plants) (UN 2009a: 57). Police functions and activities have been described as: restoration of the rule of law; reform of host country police services; vetting, training and mentoring of host police; providing public order and responding to public security challenges (through static guards and close protection for dignitaries; preventive patrols and checkpoints; tactical support for high risk operations and security for demonstrations); and provision of executive policing when an established national police force is not present (UN 2009a: 57). Similar doctrine has been developed in other institutions as efforts to coordinate the different actors required for multi-dimensional or complex peace operations or statebuilding and peacebuilding exercises – whatever the term that reflects the complexity of modern operations may be at the time – have increased in intensity and focus. Most significantly, the EU has developed some interesting practices as it has increasingly focused on civilian-heavy security operations. in response to demands arising throughout the 1990s that saw European states deploy police, military and constabulary forces in attempts to quell challenges to peace and security in the Balkans in particular, the EU agreed to create a pool of 5,000 police officers, with 1400 of these deployable within 30 days. Central to this idea was the creation of a European Gendarmerie Force (EUrOGENDFOr). EU documents reinforce the notion that the gendarmerie forces of participating states are police with military status; at home the Gendarmeria, Carabinieri and Guardia Civil are civilian police forces that fall under the authority of interior Ministries and that are internal security forces as opposed to military police who are responsible for discipline within the armed forces (assembly of the WEU 2006: 10). the use of police and the EUrOGENDFOr for crisis prevention, crisis management and other peace operations supports the EU’s 2008 Civilian Headline Goal. this sets out the EU’s main tasks and objectives, where it is explicitly stated that the EU must be able to deploy civilian capabilities as well as military means at the outset of the operation, and that these civil capabilities must be deployable either autonomously, in close cooperation with or even jointly with military18 Civil- Military occasional papers
  19. 19. operations. in terms of police involvement, it is envisaged that the EU may deploycivilian police for: preventive roles (to advise local police in area in crisis); alongsidemilitary intervening force to stand in for local police, to provide for public securityand law and order; peacekeeping roles where military are deployed whereby therange of tasks will be broad and varied depending upon mandates; and lastly inreconstruction or stabilisation phases as expert advisors.according to its Declaration of intent (2004), the EUrOGENDFOr is to be“operational, pre-organised, robust and rapidly deployable, in order to performpolice tasks” to help “facilitate the reactivation of security facilities, particularly duringthe transition between the military and the civilian operational environment”. theEUrOGENDFOr can deploy 800 officers in 30 days, and given its nature “cancarry out all types of missions in crisis management operations, taking part in themilitary phase of a crisis, acting during the transition period from a military to acivil operation, and participating in prevention missions” (Ministeria de Defensa deEspana n.d). in particular, EUrOGENDFOr’s police function can “be developedunder civilian or military chain of command”, whereby: during the initial phase of theoperation the EGF could “enter the theatre along with the military force in orderto perform its police tasks”; during the transitional phase could “continue its missionalone or together with a military force, facilitating co-ordination and co-operationwith local or international police units”; and during the military disengagement phasecould “facilitate the handing over of responsibilities to civilian authorities and agenciestaking part in the co-operation efforts, if necessary” (EUrOGENDFOr 2004).Significantly, then, at an operational level, during a phase being conducted undermilitary responsibility the EGF is incorporated into the military chain of command,whilst during a phase under civil responsibility the EGF Headquarters will “establisha procedure for coordinating” with the Secretariat of the EU Council (or equivalentbody if an international organisation is in charge). at a tactical level, the EGF ForceCommander will command operations in either a civilian or military chain ofcommand, though if carrying out an autonomous police operation the Commanderwould be answerable to the highest civilian authority (assembly of WEU 2006: 16).the development of these models and policies for coordinating military and policingefforts in peace operations highlight a number of things. First of all they underscorethe increasing importance of utilising a comprehensive approach to the security Situating Police and Military in Contemporary Peace Operations 19
  20. 20. aspects involved in peacekeeping and peacebuilding. Secondly they recognise the increased role of police (including gendarmerie) in peace operations. thirdly, they represent an effort to identify a clear division of labour between police and military. this final point is vital as it brings us to the argument that fundamental divisions between police and military still do exist, as argued above, and, moreover, that these divisions are in fact very useful in the field. normative questions: differences Still? in recent years, a number of analysts (in the US in particular) have begun to argue that, when there are inadequate numbers of international or domestic police, then international military forces may have to undertake policing activities (Mockaitis 2004; Jones et al 2005; Jayamaha et al 2010; Keller 2010). this recommendation usually comes with the additional caveats such as: not only should such military forces respect judicial principles when undertaking such activities, but they should also hand over all law enforcement responsibilities to the police as soon as it is viable to do so. However, significant concerns regarding the use of military in law enforcement- type tasks remain as, whilst they may be in situ with useful capabilities, policing activities are not the core business of the military. For example, Michael Pugh (2001: 350) has argued that it is “not the military’s job to empower those vulnerable to abusive states or warlords”. Partly because policing is not the military’s core role, there are also institutional reasons for not utilising the military in policing activities. For example, the military experience in afghanistan has demonstrated that some basic skill sets simply are not in situ with the military being “seen to be especially weak in the areas of monitoring, procedures, and record-keeping or continuity”, whilst institutional problems such as bureaucratic heaviness, rapid staff turnover and security restrictions bedevilled military efforts to engage in non-military activities (Fishstein 2010: 28 and 45–7). Such considerations have led Colonel Charles J. Dunlap Jr. to claim that there are “surprisingly few synergies between law enforcement and military missions”, and suggest that “using military forces for tasks that are essentially law enforcement requires a fundamental change in orientation” (2005: 790–1). likewise General Wesley Clark contends that “experience in peace operations has proven that20 Civil- Military occasional papers
  21. 21. good soldiers, no matter how well equipped, trained, organised and led cannotfully perform police duties among local populations” (cited in Smith 1999:a17). these claims are further supported by a recent american study, whichconsidered the difference between street cops and combat troops.in their assessment of the difference between soldiers and police in a US context,Campbell and Campbell (2010: 338) suggest that policing and police work arebest captured by the role of the generic entry level street cop position, whilst thecore military role is captured by the private soldier. they therefore compared thekey attitudes, skills and roles of Police Officer i and Combat rifle Crew membercategories, and some of their findings are summarised in the following table:Table 3 acquiring skills and acquiring attitudes: comparison of roleorientation and role Demands source: campbell & campbell 2010 Dimension Traditional Traditional War- policing role Fighting role attitudes • protect/prevent • overwhelm/pacify • orientation to job • low or last resort • high or first resort • orientation to use • mostly benign • typically hostile of force • orientation to work environment conceptual skills • high/ongoing • moderate/sporadic • importance of • high/relevant • moderate/less discretionary • high/necessary relevant judgement • low/less frequency • importance of problem solving skills • importance of investigative skills communicative skills • high/frequent • moderate/infrequent • importance of • high/necessary • low/less relevant negotiation skills • high/relevant • low/less relevant • importance of communication skills • importance of persuasive skills Situating Police and Military in Contemporary Peace Operations 21
  22. 22. in considering issues arising in this study of police versus military roles, Campell and Campbell (2010: 339) suggest the core difference between the two jobs lies in the types of judgements required by the jobholders and the cognitive demands placed on them. they note that: although both jobs are in protective service occupations, they differ significantly in terms of specific tasks and expectations. While police officers patrol and investigate wrongdoing, combat rifle crewmembers destroy or capture enemies; while police officers inspect, warn and arrest; rifle crewmembers fortify, camouflage, and repair weapons; while police officers report hazards, disperse unruly crowds, and write daily activity reports, rifle crew members place antitank mines and fire machine guns, and so on (2010: 339) it is due to these differences in training and ethos that the authors also argue that when military units are required to undertake policing roles that they focus primarily on developing relevant skills, whilst police taking on more military oriented tasks tends to focus less on skill development and more on attitude adjustment (2010: 343). these considerations suggest that there remain difficulties for the military in undertaking active policing roles. yet there are also reasons to be wary of the military’s playing a wider role in training and mentoring police forces too. Overly militarised approaches to training local police forces (including the mentoring of police officers by members of the military) can lead to the police force itself taking on militaristic features and militaristic priorities (Sedra 2006: 95; Bayley and Perito 2010: 4). training by the military is likely to be “oriented towards the elimination of an enemy threat and inherently engenders a much more militaristic attitude in civilian police bodies” (Campbell and Campbell 2010: 331). this can lead to disconnection between the police force and the community that it is supposed to serve – particularly if such training is geared towards the security interests of external actors. in iraq, for example: any iraqi policeman will tell you that the iraqi people are not satisfied with security provision; and the strength of the militias is at least in part a response to the failure of the state to provide security. the key mission of22 Civil- Military occasional papers
  23. 23. the iraqi police is seen as fighting terrorism. this may seem reasonable to an outsider, but it is essentially a state-centric priority established with the occupying coalition (Martin and Wilson 2008: 90)in iraq the focus on counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency as emphasised bythe Department of Defence-sourced training they have received has resulted ina skewed approach to internal security.8 However, as Perito and Bayley (2010:83) have argued, police contributions to security in these situations shouldprioritise enlisting the cooperation of the public and legitimating government, not‘fighting terrorism’. indeed, as iraqi police are accustomed to a centralised chainof command and more military-oriented traditions than those in the West, ithas been claimed that the police-military divide needed to be much more clearlycircumscribed (Pfaff 2007: 6) and that “direct and deep relationships betweeninternational military forces and the domestic police in post-conflict countries areunhealthy” (Friesendorf 2009: 157–8).Similar findings have been reported in the case of afghanistan. For instance, aninternational Crisis Group report (2007: 15) noted: it is counter-productive to treat police as an auxiliary fighting unit in battling the insurgency, as has been happening with increasing frequency in the troubled south. afghanistan, like any other democracy, requires police service more than police force.... in countering an insurgency, the police are the first line of defence as the interface with the community. they have powers of stop and search, arrest and detention, and since they observe daily comings and goings, should be aware of the first signs of illegal activity. yet, as the interior minister rightly said, “it is not the responsibility of the police to fight [the insurgency]. the police are responsible for implementing the law, and we should not train our policemen with an inclination for war”.the above case studies highlight some of the difficulties with the suggestion thatthe military might increasingly be involved in wider types of ‘policing activities’, suchas training and mentoring: Providing police forces with military training, equipment and intelligence may militarise domestic police, send the wrong signal to post-conflict countries and undermine efforts to create police forces guided by democratic norms. Situating Police and Military in Contemporary Peace Operations 23
  24. 24. Citizens in post-conflict countries have usually suffered from abusive, corrupt and militarised security forces. Fostering public trust in civilian policing thus depends on limiting the role of the military in internal security (Friesendorf 2009: 17; see also Mobekk 2005) Despite recent claims as to the democratic benefits of US professional military education in terms of positive impacts upon other militaries (ruby and Gibler 2010: 339–364), much of the literature deplores the involvement of military forces in police training and reform, yet this involvement is still occurring and being encouraged. this is in large part capability-driven, in that the military tends to have the capabilities or the funds to undertake such a mammoth task, but unless there were significant changes to military forces – changes which would inevitably have a negative impact upon their ability to play their core roles – there will remain a reason to maintain the police – military divide both at home and in operational contexts. However, given the security gap issue that commonly arises in post- conflict situations, it seems plausible that some military roles might usefully be played in support of law enforcement. Potential roles include: static and personnel protection; security perimeters; checkpoint / dismantling illegal checkpoints; detaining of suspects for police; intelligence provision; seize assets; assisting police with raids; disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDr) and demining. One branch of the military, the military police, might also potentially be able to undertake some constabulary roles, though this would need to be well thought through before military police are unquestionably offered up as the solution to the problem as there are not insignificant institutional differences between CivPOl and MPs. in particular, the primary task of Military Police is to ‘police’ the military, and in this they are more internal enforcers of discipline and behaviour, rather than protectors of community safety and rule of law.24 Civil- Military occasional papers
  25. 25. conclusionsthere are a number of arguments that suggest that the police–military divideis blurring, particularly in the international sphere. However we believe thatfundamental differences remain. Moreover it is clear that strategic planning anddoctrine has improved in terms of moves to develop a clearer understanding ofan appropriate and workable division of labour between the two in undertakingvarious roles in contemporary and future peace operations.these recent developments serve to reinforce the continuing existence ofdifferences between police and military and are, for us, normatively importantbecause of the underlying need to demilitarise and deescalate situations inpost-conflict peace operations. there is a worrying trend in the literature,particularly in america, to admit that using military for policing roles is not ideal, butshould be pursued simply because that is where most capabilities and resources arevested. We consider it plausible that there may be some roles that military couldpotentially undertake but what would be the broader or more symbolic issuesraised by such involvement?in an accompanying paper that considered first principles in policing and militaryspheres, for example, we argued that use of military personnel to perform policingfunctions is a more overtly political statement than using police and, in post-conflictenvironments in which these functions are played by outsiders, the regular useof the military in frontline policing runs the risk of making the population feel asthough they are under occupation (Fish and Greener 2011). the use of militarypersonnel also suggests that the country is still in a state of conflict or hostilities.as noted both in that paper and in this one, the ability of military personnel toperform policing functions remains limited.Perhaps most importantly, though, the question of legitimacy is critical when itcomes to the likelihood of a local police force persisting in situ, and thereforeto the ability of interveners to exit from peace operations. if this legitimacy isthreatened by a confusion of military and policing roles and functions in a post-conflict society, by either or both the interveners and the host government, thechances for a lasting and sustainable peace are considerably diminished. recentpolicy efforts by the UN and EU have begun to sketch out appropriate generic Situating Police and Military in Contemporary Peace Operations 25
  26. 26. roles for police and military personnel in peace operations and these constitute important contributions to the field. However, more detailed planning needs to take into consideration how military forces might support policing efforts within clearly circumscribed boundaries, and how police may be better supported to carry out international roles, in order to avoid the current push to use military forces in policing type roles when they are not suited to the task at hand. in particular, more work needs to be done in asking how military police may also fit into the equation. More therefore, needs to be done to consider how to achieve an appropriate and legitimate division of labour between police and military in the different contexts within which international actors engage their efforts. endnotes 1 For example, Campbell and Campbell, p330 point out that SWat teams have gone beyond hostage situations etc “into a range of activities normally handled by traditional police and tactics” and that military involvement in constabulary activities and in police training has also increased. they suggest on p331 that “such collaborative involvement is not limited to the development and transfer of useful military skills, tactics and procedures but also often involves the transfer of military attitudes and orientations”. 2 rosen claims that we are in a 3rd generation of civil-military relations: the first was a domestic debate about the military and the soldier’s role in relation to the state; the second was the literature on issues surrounding the military contribution to humanitarian interventions or complex humanitarian emergencies; and the third is a deeper look at the multiagency roles played in international operations. 3 although we could include additional categories such as ‘skill sets’ or ‘attitudes’ these are largely derivative of these broader categories, having developed to play these roles and function well enough within these institutions. Much of this work was developed through an earlier paper by W.J. Fish and B.K. Greener, ‘First Principles in Situating Police and Military’ (unpublished manuscript 2011). 4 We note that the idea of ‘the military’ masks differences in the profiles of different services and branches. the role of military police, of infantry, naval seaman and jet pilot will differ. this is an issue that we will consider in more depth elsewhere, but to note, we do consider there to be enough similarity here too to allow us to make these calls (for example naval officers have been deployed to afghanistan villages to run Provincial reconstruction teams and even Special Ops teams are increasingly subject to increased oversight and scrutiny). the role of Military Police, in particular, is of significance but is explicitly not addressed in this paper in any great detail as it will be addressed in later work.26 Civil- Military occasional papers
  27. 27. 5 the roles of military forces are clearly stated in various country acts which legislate the existence and use of armed forces (such as the New Zealand Defence Act 1990, or the Australian Defence Act 1903 and its various amendments).6 the contributors to Charles Moskos’ book discuss how a number of armed forces around the world were being subject to such processes such that militaries were becoming less ‘masculine’ and hierarchical and more accepting of difference. More recent literature notes the impact of an increased use of reservists in military operations and this has further closed the distance between military and civilian spheres (on this phenomenon see the contributions to the a Special issue of Armed Forces and Society 37 (2) 1 april 2011).7 adapted from material from United Nations, UN Peacekeeping PDT Standards, Core Pre-Deployment Training Materials, 1st Edition (New york: UN, 2009), Unit 2 – Part 2: How UN Peacekeeping Operations Function, pp47–56.8 this was compounded by confusion on the ground between different US agencies involved in recreating iraq’s security agencies. robert Perito, ‘US Police in Peace and Stability Operations’, USIP Special Report, #191, august 2007, pp10–11 points out that Justice Department officials sought to create a lightly-armed police force with an emphasis on community policing, whilst at the same time the US military were creating ‘heavy police units’ made up of former soldiers (Public Order Battalion, Mechanised Police Unit and Emergency response Unit composed of unvetted Sunnis with military weapons and counterinsurgency training) that were merged in 2006 to create the iraqi National Police (iNP) and which was engaged in death squad activities. Situating Police and Military in Contemporary Peace Operations 27
  28. 28. referenceS andreas, P & Price, r. (2001). From War-fighting to Crime Fighting: transforming the american National Security State, International Studies Review, 3 (3) Fall , 31–52. assembly of Western European Union. (2006). ‘the role of the European Gendarmerie Force’, Interparliamentary European Security and Defence Assembly Fifty-Second Session Report, 21 June Document a/1928. Bayley, D. (1990). Patterns of Policing: A Comparative International Analysis Newark NJ: rutgers University Press. Bayley, D.H. & Perito, r.M. (2010). The Police in War: Fighting Insurgency, Terrorism and Violent Crime, Boulder CO: lynne rienner. Broad, H. (2010). the Debate about arming Police, NZPolice Website, 7 July. http://www.police.govt.nz/blog/2010/07/14/debate-about-arming-police/24684. [accessed april 2011]. Caforio, G. Ed. (2003). Handbook of the Sociology of the Military, New york: Kluwer academic. Campbell, D.J. &. Campbell K.M. (2010). Soldiers as Police Officers / Police Officers as Soldiers: role Evolution and revolution in the United States, Armed Forces and Society, 36 (2) 2010, 327–350. Carpenter, a (2010), UN Police Peacekeeping: Its Different from the Day Job, Powerpoint Presentation. www.docstoc.com/docs/49053445/Un-police- presentation. [accessed april 2011]. Dunlap Jr, C.J. (2005). the thick Green line: the Growing involvement of Military Forces in Domestic law Enforcement, in tim Newburn (Ed). Policing: Key Readings, (pp786–796). Devon and Portland: Willen Publishing. Dziedzic M. (2003). ‘the Public Security Challenge and international Stability Police Units’, Perceptions, 8 December 2003. http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/ Volume8/ December2003/mDziedzicbasimicin.pdf. [accessed april 2011].28 Civil- Military occasional papers
  29. 29. Dziedzic M, & Stark, C. (2006) ‘Bridging the Security Gap; the role of theCenter of Excellence for Stability Police Units (CoESPU) in ContemporaryPeace Operations’, USIPeace Briefing, June. http://www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_briefings/2006/0616_coespu.html.Eronen, O. (2008) ‘Prt Models in afghanistan: approaches to Civil-Militaryintegration’, CMC Finland Crisis Management Studies vol 1 Number 5.EUrOGENDFOr (2004). Declaration of Intent, 17 September. retrieved fromhttp://www.eurogendfor.org/egfpages/faq.aspx.Fields, K. (2002). Civil-Military relations: a Military Civil affairs PerspectiveHarvard University Carr Centre for Human Rights Policy Working Paper October2002. retrieved from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/cchrp/Use%20of%20Force/october%202002/Field_final.pdf.Fish. W.J. & Greener, B.K. (2011) First Principles in Situating Police and Military,unpublished manuscript.Fishstein, P. (2010). Winning Hearts and Minds? Examining the Relationship Between Aidand Security in Afghanistan’s Balkh Province. Boston Ma: Feinstein international Center.Friesendorf, C. (2009) The Military and Law Enforcement in Peace Operations: Lessonsfrom Bosnia Herzegovina and Kosovo, Geneva: DCaF.Greener B.K. (2009). The New International Policing, Houndsmills: Palgrave.international Crisis Group. (2007) Reforming Afghanistan’s Police, asia report #138,30 august. http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5052&l=1. [accessedapril 2011].Jayamaha, D., Brady, S., Fitzgerald B., & Fritz, J. (2010). Lessons Learned FromUS Government in International Operations, Carlisle Sa: Strategic Studies instituteUS army War College.Jones, S.G, Wilson, J. M., rathmell, a, & riley, K.J. (2005) Establishing Law and OrderAfter Conflict, Santa Monica: raND.Keller, D.E. (2011) US Military Forces and Police Assistance in Stability Operations: TheLeast Worst Option to Fill the US Capability Gap Carlisle Sa: Strategic Studies instituteUS army War College. Situating Police and Military in Contemporary Peace Operations 29
  30. 30. Kilcullen, D. (2009). The Accidental Guerilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of the Big One. New york: Oxford University Press. Kim, C. & Metrikas, M. (1997) ‘Holding a Fragile Peace: the Military and Civilian Components of UNtaC’. in Michael W. Doyle et al (Eds.). Keeping the Peace; Multidimensional UN Operations in Cambodia and El Salvador, (pp107–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kraska, P. & Kappeler, v. (1997). Militarizing american police: the rise and normalisation of paramilitary units. Social Problems 44(1) 1997, 1–18. Maley, W. (2005) ‘international Force and Political reconstruction: Cambodia, East timor and afghanistan’. in a. Schnabel & H-G Ehrhart (Eds.) Security Sector Reform and Post-Conflict Peacebuilding, (pp297–312). tokyo: UN University Press. Martin, a & and Peter Wilson, (2008). ‘Security Sector Evaluation: Which locals? Ownership of What?’ in t. Donais (Ed). Local Ownership and Security Sector Reform. (pp83-104) Geneva: DCaF. McCulloch, J. (2001). Blue Army: Paramilitary Policing in Victoria. Carlton: Melbourne University Press. -----. (2004). Blue armies Khaki Police and the Cavalry on the New american Frontier Critical Criminology for the 21st Century, Critical Criminology, 12, 309–26. Mendee, J. & last, D. (2008). Whole of Government responses in Mongolia: From Domestic response to international implications, The Pearson Papers, 11 (2) Fall 2008. Ministeria de Defensa de Espana, ‘European Gendarmerie Force’. http://www.mde. es/en/politica/seguridad-defensa/contexto/fuerzas/gendarmeria/. [accessed april 2011]. Mobekk, E. (2005). Identifying Lessons in United Nations International Policing Missions. Policy Paper No. 5. Geneva: DCaF. Mockaitis, t.J. (2004) Civil-Military Cooperation in Peace Operations: The Case of Kosovo, Carlisle Sa: Strategic Studies institute US army War College. Moskos, C. Ed. (2000). The Postmodern Military: Armed Forces After the Cold War, Oxford: Oxford University Press.30 Civil- Military occasional papers
  31. 31. NatO, (2004) ‘Multinational Specialist Unit’, SFOR Factsheet, august 2004.http://www.nato.int/sfor/factsheet/msu/t040809a.htm. [accessed april 2011].OECD DaC (2007). Handbook on Security Sector Reform (SSR); Supporting Securityand Justice, Paris: OECD.Perito, r. (2004) Where is the Lone Ranger When We Need Him? America’s Search fora Postconflict Stability Force. Washington DC: USiP.Perito, r. (2007) US Police in Peace and Stability Operations, USIP Special Report,#191, august.Pfaff, t. (2007) Development and Reform of the Iraqi Police Forces, Carlisle Sa:Strategic Studies institute US army War College.Pugh, M. (2001). ‘the Challenge of Civil-military relations in international PeaceOperations’, Disasters, 25 (4), 345–357.roberts, a. (1993). Humanitarian War: Military intervention and Human rights’,International Affairs, 69 (3), 429–449.rosen, F. (2009). Third Generation Civil-Military Relations and the ‘New Revolution inMilitary Affairs’, DiiS Working Paper 2009:03. Copenhagen: Danish institute forinternational Studies.ruby, t.Z & Gibler, D. (2010) ‘US Professional Military Education andDemocratization abroad’. European Journal of International Relations, 16 (3),339–364.Sedra, M. (2006). Security Sector reform in afghanistan: the Slide towardsExpediency’, International Peacekeeping, 13 (1) March, 94–110.Shaw, M. (2004). ‘risk-transfer Militarism and the legitimacy of War after iraq’.The Global Site. http://www. theglobalsite.ac.uk/press/402shaw.htm.[accessed april 2011].Seiler, S. (2009). ‘the impact of team Structure, Organization, and CommunicationFlow on Problem-Solving activities in Working Groups: a ComparisonBetween Military and Civilian task Forces’. in P. Greener & J. Stauffer (Eds.).Decision-Making: International Comparisons. (pp85-100). Kingston ON: CanadianDefence academy Press. Situating Police and Military in Contemporary Peace Operations 31
  32. 32. Silver, a. (2005). the Demand for Order in Civil Society. in t. Newburn (Ed). Policing: Key Readings (pp.7–24). Portland: Or, Willan Publishing. Smith, r.J. (1999), ‘Marines Kill another Gunman in Kosovo’, Washington Post, June 26, pa17 UN News release. (2011). ‘Nimbler UN, Global Partners Needed to Build Stability in Post-conflict States’, UN News Release March 7 2011. UN DPKO. (2002). Civil-Military Coordination Policy. http://pksoi.army.mil/doctrine_ concepts/documents/Un%20policy%20Documents/DpKo_cMcoorD_ policy.pdf. New york: United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations. [accessed april 2011]. UN DPKO. (2008). United Nations Peacekeeping Operations; Principles and Guidelines. New york: United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations. UN DPKO. (2009). UN Peacekeeping PDT Standards, Core Pre-Deployment Training Materials, 1st Edition, Unit 2 – Part 1: Establishment and Operationalization of Security Council Mandates in PKOs. New york: United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations. UN DPKO. (2009a). UN Peacekeeping PDT Standards, Core Pre-Deployment Training Materials, 1st Edition, Unit 2 – Part 2: How UN Peacekeeping Operations Function. New york: United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations. UN DPKO. (2011) UN Police Magazine 6th Edition, January. New york: United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Walzer, M. (1992). Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, 2nd Edn, New york: Basic Books.32 Civil- Military occasional papers
  33. 33. Situating Police and Military in Contemporary Peace Operations 33
  34. 34. 34 Civil- Military occasional papers
  35. 35. Situating Police and Military in Contemporary Peace Operations 35
  36. 36. w w w.c i v m i l co e . gov. au

×