Security Sector Reform - Limitations and Prospects of the Scholarly Debate
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v4i1.150Keywords:
security sector reform, post-conflict statebuilding, local ownership, conceptual-contextual divide, evaluation, literature reviewAbstract
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.
Downloads
References
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.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY), which permits use and redistribution of the work provided that the original author and source are credited, a link to the license is included, and an indication of changes which were made. Third-party users may not apply legal terms or technological measures to the published article which legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
If accepted for publication authors’ work will be made open access and distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license unless previously agreed with Exchanges’ Editor-in-Chief prior to submission.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. (see: The Effect of Open Access)
