The liberal dilemmas of a people-centred approach to state-building

Abstract

The article explores the dilemmas of providing security assistance to post-conflict states. It argues that when used as a strategy for intervention, SSR exposes the inherent contradictions of liberal peace-building. The article focuses on the Weberian state monopoly versus other—hybrid or non-state—forms of security and justice provision. It presents the background for the discussion and suggests that as a strategy for intervention, the choice is not simply between a top-down ‘imposition’ of a universal state model and a bottom-up ‘working with what is there’ approach. It is also a choice between direct and indirect forms of rule. This makes the dilemma real for liberal-minded practitioners and observers.

Notes

Louise R. Andersen, PhD, is a postdoctoral researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies. Her research explores the dilemmas of global governance and the security–development nexus. She is in particular focusing on the ways in which the international community understands and responds to crisis in the global periphery.

 1. Chesterman, You, The People; Chandler, Empire in Denial. The Politics of State-Building; Call and Wyeth, Building States; Paris and Sisk, Dilemmas of Statebuilding.

 2. Mamdani, Citizen and Subject.

 3. Kaldor, New and Old Wars.

 4. World Bank, Breaking the Conflict Trap. Civil War and Development Policy.

 5. Doyle, ‘Liberalism and World Politics’.

 6. UNSG, ‘An Agenda for Peace’.

 7. Duffield, Global Governance.

 8. UNDP, Human Development Report.

 9. UNSG, ‘In Larger Freedom’.

10. Paris, At Wars End.

11. Bellamy and Williams, Understanding Peacekeeping, 13–41, 93–120.

12. Paris, At Wars End.

13. Call and Wyeth, Building States.

14. Paris, At Wars End.

15. Krasner, ‘Foreign Aid’.

16. UNSG, ‘In Larger Freedom’, para 19.

17. Stamnes, ‘Values, Context and Hybridity’, 8.

18. Paris, ‘Saving Liberal Peacebuilding’, 357.

19. Paris, ‘Saving Liberal Peacebuilding’, 353; Richmond and Franks, Liberal Peace Transitions.

20. See, for example, Stern and Öjendal, ‘Mapping the Security–Development Nexus’; Heathershaw, ‘Unpacking the Liberal Peace’.

21. Richmond and Franks, Liberal Peace Transitions.

22. Richmond refers to this as the ‘conservative’ model. This, however, belies the radical activism entailed in ideas of ‘shared sovereignty’ (Krasner, ‘Sharing Sovereignty. New Institutions for Collapsed and Failed States’) and ‘liberal imperialism’ (Mallaby, ‘The Reluctant Imperialist’) that are central to this particular graduation of the Liberal Peace. For this reason, I suggest the term ‘enforcement’.

23. Richmond, ‘Becoming Liberal’.

24. Paris, ‘Saving Liberal Peacebuilding’.

25. Krause and Jutersonke, ‘Peace, Security and Development’.

26. Barnett et al., ‘Peacebuilding’.

27. UNSG, ‘Peacebuilding in the Immediate Aftermath’; see also OECD, Principles for Good International Engagement.

28. de Coning and Friis, ‘Coherence and Coordination’, 248.

29. Tschirgi, ‘Strategic Frameworks and Peacebuilding’.

30. UNSG, ‘Peacebuilding in the Immediate Aftermath’, 6–7.

31. Philpott and Powers, Strategies of Peace.

32. UNSG, ‘Peacebuilding in the Immediate Aftermath’, 6–7.

33. OECD, Handbook on Security Sector Reform; GNF-SSR, A Beginner's Guide.

34. UNSG, ‘Securing Peace and Development’, 5.

35. Paris and Sisk, Dilemmas of Statebuilding, 16.

36. Ball, ‘The Evolution of the Security Sector Reform’.

37. OECD, Handbook on Security Sector Reform, 21.

38. Albrecht et al., ‘Security Sector Reform’, 74.

39. Egnell and Haldén, ‘Laudable, Ahistorical and Overambitious’, 30.

40. The OECD uses the term ‘system’ rather than ‘sector’ to underline the interconnectivity between the numerous actors and institutions.

41. OECD, Security System Reform and Governance, 20–21.

42. Knight, ‘Security Sector Reform’.

43. Smith, ‘Security-Sector Reform’, 13.

44. OECD, Handbook on Security Sector Reform, 13.

45. Since 2002 the UN Security Council has routinely included explicit references in UN mandates to ‘security sector reform’ (UNAMA, UNOCI, MONUC), ‘reform of the security sector’ (BINUB, UNOCI), ‘strengthening the security sector’ (UNIOSIL), ‘review of the security sector’ (UNMIT) or ‘restructuring of the security sector’ (UNMIL).

46. Sedra, ‘Security Sector Reform in Afghanistan and Iraq’.

47. Sedra, Future of Security Sector Reform, 17.

48. Zaum, The Sovereignty Paradox.

49. Paris and Sisk, Dilemmas of Statebuilding, 305.

50. Menkhaus, ‘State Failure and Ungoverned Space’, 182.

51. Ghani and Lockhart, Fixing Failed States.

52. Clapham, ‘Challenge to the State’; Boege et al., On Hybrid Political Orders. See also Lund, ‘Twilight Institutions’.

53. Sedra, Future of Security Sector Reform.

54. DPKO, United Nations Peacekeeping Operations, 87–88 (emphasis added).

55. Blaney et al., Wider Lessons for Peacebuilding, 1.

56. Paris, At Wars End, 186, 187–211.

57. Fukuyama, Statebuilding, 8.

58. Reeve and Speare, ‘Human Security in Liberia’, 40.

59. Boege et al., ‘Building Peace’; Hughes, ‘Moving Beyond Rethinking’.

60. Ebo, ‘Role of Security Sector Reform’, 37.

61. Lund, ‘Twilight Institutions’.

62. Baker, ‘The Future is Non-State’, 217.

63. Scheye, Realism and Pragmatism.

64. Simojoki, ‘Unlikely Allies’.

65. Albrecht, ‘Transforming Sierra Leone’.

66. OECD, Handbook on Security Sector Reform.

67. UK, ‘Stabilisation Issues Note’.

68. Albrecht et al., ‘Security Sector Reform’, 82.

69. Egnell and Haldén, ‘Laudable, Ahistorical and Overambitious’.

70. Fukuyama, Statebuilding.

71. Richmond, ‘Becoming Liberal’.

72. Stepputat et al., ‘Introduction’, 5–6.

73. Baker, ‘The Future is Non-State’, 220.

74. Albrecht and Kyed, ‘Justice and Security’.

75. Hughes, ‘Moving Beyond Rethinking’, 345.