Security Sector Reform - Limitations and Prospects of the Scholarly Debate

Michael Wingens

Keywords

security sector reform, post-conflict statebuilding, local ownership, conceptual-contextual divide, evaluation, literature review
Cover Image

Full Text:

PDF

Abstract

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.

References (Click to Expand)

Andersen, L. R. (2011), Security Sector Reform and the Dilemmas of Liberal Peacebuilding, DIIS Working Paper, Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies.

Baker, B. (2010), ‘Linking State and Non-State Security and Justice’, Development Policy Review, 28 (5), 597-616.

Ball, N. and D. Hendrickson (2005), Trends in Security Sector Reform (SSR): Policy, Practice and Research, CSDG Papers, London: King's College London.

Bendix, D. and R. Stanley (2008), ‘Deconstructing local ownership of security sector reform: A review of the literature’, African Security Review, 17 (2), 93-104.

Boege, V., A. Brown, K. Clements and A. Nolan (2009), ‘Building Peace and Political Community in Hybrid Political Orders’, International Peacekeeping, 16 (5), 599-615.

Brzoska, M. (2003), Development Donors and the Concept of Security Sector Reform, Geneva: Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces.

Bush, K. (2003), ‘PCIA Five Years On: The Commodification of an Idea’, in Austin, A., Fischer, M. and O. Wils (eds.), Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment: Critical Views on Theory and Practice, Berghof Handbook Dialogue Series No. 1, Berlin: Berghof Zentrum für Konfliktforschung, pp. 37-52.

Chanaa, J. (2002), Security Sector Reform: Issues, Challenges and Prospects, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Denney, L. (2014), ‘Overcoming the State/Non-state Divide: An End User Approach to Security and Justice Reform’, International Peacekeeping, 21 (2), 251-268.

Donais, T. (2008), Local Ownership and Security Sector Reform, Geneva: Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces.

Egnell, R. and P. Haldén (2009), ‘Laudable, ahistorical and overambitious: security sector reform meets state formation theory’, Conflict, Security & Development, 9 (1), 27-54.

Hänggi, H. (2004), ‘Conceptualising Security Sector Reform and Reconstruction’, in Bryden, A. and H. Hänggi (eds.), Reform and Reconstruction of the Security Sector, Geneva: Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, pp. 1-11.

Hills, A. (2014), ‘Security Sector or Security Arena? The Evidence from Somalia’, International Peacekeeping, 21 (2), 165-180.

Hönke, J. and M. Müller (2012), ‘Governing (in)security in a postcolonial world: Transnational entanglements and the worldliness of ‘local’ practice’, Security Dialogue, 43 (5), 583-401.

Jackson, P. (2011), ‘Security Sector Reform and State Building’, Third World Quarterly, 32 (10), 1803-1822.

Mannitz, S. (2014), ‘From Paternalism to Facilitation: SSR Shortcomings and the Potential of Social Anthropological Perspectives’, International Peacekeeping, 21 (2), 269-285.

Mobekk, E. (2010), ‘Security Sector Reform and the Challenges of Ownership’, in Sedra, M. (ed.), The Future of Security Sector Reform, Waterloo: The Centre for International Governance Innovation.

Nathan, L. (2007), No Ownership, No Commitment: A Guide to Local Ownership of Security Sector Reform, Birmingham: University of Birmingham.

OECD-DAC (2005), Security System Reform and Governance, DAC Guidelines and Reference Series. Paris: OECD.

OECD-DAC (2007), OECD DAC Handbook on Security System Reform (SSR). Supporting Security and Justice, Paris: OECD.

Paris, R. (2004), At War’s End. Building Peace After Civil Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Paris, R. and T. D. Sisk (2009), ‘Introduction: understanding the contradictions of postwar statebuilding’, in Paris, R. and T. D. Sisk, (eds.), The Dilemmas of Statebuilding. Confronting the Contradictions of Postwar Peace Operations, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 1-20.

Scheye, E. and G. Peake (2005), ‘To arrest insecurity: time for a revised security sector reform agenda’, Conflict, Security & Development, 5 (3), 295-327.

Schnabel, A. and H. Born (2011), Security Sector Reform: Narrowing the Gap between Theory and Practice, Geneva: Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces.

Schroeder, U. C. (2010): ‘Unintended Consequences of International Security Assistance. Doing More Harm than Good?’, in Daase, C. and C. Friesendorf (eds.), Rethinking Security Governance: The Problem of Unintended Consequences, London: Routledge, pp. 82-101.

Schroeder, U. C. and F. Chappuis (2014), ‘New Perspectives on Security Sector Reform: The Role of Local Agency and Domestic Politics’, International Peacekeeping, 21 (2), 133- 148.

Schroeder, U. C., F. Chappuis and D. Kocak (2014), ‘Security Sector Reform and the Emergence of Hybrid Security Governance’, International Peacekeeping, 21 (2), 214-230.

Sedra, M. (2007), ‘Security Sector Reform in Afghanistan and Iraq: Exposing a Concept in Crisis’, Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 3 (2), 7-23.

Sedra, M. (2010), The Future of Security Sector Reform, Waterloo: The Centre for International Governance Innovation.

Smith, D. (2004), Towards a Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding. Getting their Act Together, Overview report of the Joint Utstein Study of Peacebuilding, Oslo: Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.

Discussion