Rule Of Law And Security Sector Reform

There is a clear need to better understand the relationship between two concepts at the heart of peacebuilding: the Rule of Law (RoL), and Security Sector Reform (SSR). If it is acknowledged in principle that they are interdependent, in practice enduring conceptual ambiguities and contradictions undermine latent synergies. As a consequence, international donor agencies are under increasing pressure to demonstrate the benefits of their RoL and SSR assistance. This SSR Paper moves the RoL-SSR debate forward through examining these activities jointly within a peacebuilding context. It proposes a heuristic framework that helps to rationalize this relationship on a conceptual level, demonstrating that RoL and SSR are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. The resulting framework provides a basis for the development of coherent policies that can support the development of coordinated, complementary programmes on the ground.

There is a clear need to better understand the relationship between two concepts at the heart of peacebuilding: the Rule of Law (RoL), and Security Sector Reform (SSR). If it is acknowledged in principle that they are interdependent, in practice enduring conceptual ambiguities and contradictions undermine latent synergies. As a consequence, international donor agencies are under increasing pressure to demonstrate the benefits of their RoL and SSR assistance. This SSR Paper moves the RoL-SSR debate forward through examining these activities jointly within a peacebuilding context. It proposes a heuristic framework that helps to rationalize this relationship on a conceptual level, demonstrating that RoL and SSR are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. The resulting framework provides a basis for the development of coherent policies that can support the development of coordinated, complementary programmes on the ground.

Prioritizing Security Sector Reform: A New U.S. Approach argues that security sector reform should be at the core of a new U.S. policy to strengthen the security sector capacity of countries where U.S. interests are at stake. Today's fragile environments feature a host of postconflict and postauthoritarian states and transitioning and new democracies that have at least one critical thing in common: Their security sectors are dysfunctional. Why these states cannot fulfill their most basic function-the protection of the population and their government-varies widely, but the underlying reason is the same. The security sector does not function because security sector institutions and forces are absent, ineffective, predatory, or illegitimate. In place of large, boots-on-the-ground interventions relying on expensive train and equip programs with only fleeting impact, Washington needs a new approach for engaging in fragile environments and a policy for prioritizing where it engages and for what purpose. The volume offers case studies to exemplify the context in which a new U.S. approach might be warranted, discusses other countries' experiences with security sector reform policies and examines how the United States should design and implement a security sector reform policy. Book jacket.

Multilateral organizations - the United Nations (UN) in particular - have played, and continue to play, an important role in shaping the security sector reform (SSR) agenda, both in terms of policy development and the provision of support to a wide range of national SSR processes. This volume presents a variety of perspectives on UN support to SSR, past and present, with attention to policy and operational practice. Drawing from the experience of UN practitioners combined with external experts on SSR, this volume offers an in-depth exploration of the UN approach to SSR from a global perspective.

The authors explore the definition of Security sector reform (SSR) as it has emerged in the international community. The makeup of the security sector is examined, principles are identified for implementing SSR, and outcomes SSR is intended to produce are specified. Supporting case studies assess specific SSR programs. The authors conclude that those conducting SSR programs must understand and continually revisit the policy goals of SSR programs so as to develop concepts that support a transitional process that moves forward over time. State actors must acknowledge and often accommodate nonstate security actors more effectively in SSR planning and implementation, while recognizing both the advantages and the risks of collaborating with such actors. The authors also note the need for more flexible and better integrated funding processes. (Originally published by the Strategic Studies Institute.)