Military integration after civil wars: multiethnic armies, identity, and post-conflict reconstruction
In: Cass military studies
In: Cass military studies
In: European security, Band 19, Heft 1, S. 97-112
ISSN: 1746-1545
In: Cass military studies
In: Political studies review, Band 12, Heft 3, S. 436-437
ISSN: 1478-9302
In: Small wars & insurgencies, Band 22, Heft 4, S. 688-711
ISSN: 0959-2318
World Affairs Online
In: European security: ES, Band 19, Heft 1, S. 97-112
ISSN: 0966-2839
World Affairs Online
In: Journal on Baltic security, Band 3, Heft 1, S. 32-47
ISSN: 2382-9230
AbstractThis article illustrates that justification for EU military integration is sought with imperatives related to the economy, security, EU integration, and demands of citizens of the Member States. However, EU Treaties in terms of the improvement of military capabilities are not considered as a justification, but the European Union appears to be more of a power-enhancing realist actor rather than a normative one. As a counterexample to the European discourses, I discuss the case of the demilitarisation of the Åland Islands, in which case treaties perfectly justify demilitarization. I conclude that the development of European military integration is justified by political imperatives, but the demilitarization of the Åland Islands is supported with reference to agreements, which illustrate the differences in justifying military force and its absence. It is concluded that while the European Union appears as a realist actor in terms of defence, Finland complies with the image of a normative power as far as the Åland Islands are concerned.
World Affairs Online
In: African affairs: the journal of the Royal African Society, Band 112, Heft 449, S. 563-582
ISSN: 0001-9909
World Affairs Online
In: African security, Band 15, Heft 2, S. 89-90
ISSN: 1939-2214
As the Chinese government has clearly put forward the development of civil&ndash ; military integration (CMI) as a national strategy, civilian manufacturing enterprises entering the military products market (CMEE-MPM) can effectively improve China&rsquo ; s national defense science and technology capabilities and can also be an effective way for enterprises to enhance their sustainable development capabilities. However, due to the high standards and strict requirements of the national defense industry for supplier review, civilian manufacturing enterprises must evaluate their CMEE-MPM capabilities. In this study, a new evaluation and consideration model is proposed. Enterprises that plan to enter the military product market can use this model to evaluate their own CMEE-MPM capabilities. The evaluation model framework is composed of three successive parts: constructing an evaluation indicator system according to experts and enterprise experiences, calculating the weight of the indicators using an analytical hierarchy process (AHP), and evaluating CMEE-MPM capabilities using the method of fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. Finally, this study verifies the feasibility of the application of the above model by measuring the capabilities of a civilian manufacturing enterprise that wants to enter the military products market in Harbin, China. The results show that the indicator system constructed in this paper can effectively evaluate CMEE-MPM capabilities. The findings of this research can be used as a reference for the decision making of civilian manufacturing enterprises regarding whether or not to enter the military products market, and then promote the sustainable development of enterprises.
BASE
In: International security, Band 40, Heft 3, S. 93-138
ISSN: 1531-4804
Preventing the recurrence of civil war has become a critical problem for both scholarship and policy. Conventional wisdom urges the creation of capable, legitimate, and inclusive postwar states to reduce the risk of relapse into civil war, and international peacebuilders have often encouraged the formation of a new national army that would include members of the war's opposing sides. However, both the theoretical logics and the empirical record identifying military integration as a significant contributor to durable post–civil war peace are weak. An analysis of eleven cases finds little evidence that military integration played a substantial causal role in preventing the return to civil war. Military integration does not usually send a costly signal of the parties' commitment to peace, provide communal security, employ many possible spoilers, or act as a powerful symbol of a unified nation. It is therefore both unwise and unethical for the international community to press military integration on reluctant local forces.
In: http://hdl.handle.net/11427/20113
Against the backdrop of South Africa's political transition from Apartheid to a democratic system of governance during the early 1990s, the South African military underwent a distinct transformation of its own. During the military's transition seven disparate forces that had previously been vying for power were integrated under one umbrella organization and re-branded as the South African National Defence Force (SANDF). Scholars and analysts generally consider this process to have been successful; it was a seminal achievement by both the negotiating parties and the Government of National Unity. Looking at the transformation process during two distinct periods, 1990 through the national elections of 1994, referred to as 'the planning phase,' and postelections through 1996, referred to as 'the implementation phase,' this study seeks a more robust and nuanced accounting of the factors that contributed to this outcome. Building upon an evaluation of the existing literature, this study also analyzes the impact that the strategies employed by the negotiating parties had upon outcomes. It offers the novel approach of analyzing the military's integration through the lens of negotiation theory rather than more conventional theoretical lenses. In doing so, this study aims not only to contribute to a common understanding of the means by which the SANDF was created and shaped, but also to broaden the scope and depth of military integration theory itself.
BASE
In: Routledge studies in peace and conflict resolution
"This book explores why countries undergoing transitions from war to peace decide to integrate armed groups into a statutory security framework, with a focus on the case of South Sudan. In the 1960s, only 10% of peace agreements included some element of political-military accommodation - namely, military integration. From Burundi to Bosnia to Zimbabwe, that number had increased to over 50% by the 2000s. However, relatively little is understood about this dimension of power-sharing often utilized during war-to-peace transitions. Through an examination of the case of South Sudan between 2005 and 2013, this book explores why countries undergoing transitions from war to peace decide to integrate armed groups into a statutory security framework. The book details how integration contributed to short-term stability in South Sudan, allowing the government to overcome wartime factionalism and consolidate political-military power prior to the referendum on self-determination in 2011. It also examines how the integration process in South Sudan was flawed by its open-ended nature and lack of coordination with efforts to right-size the military and transform the broader defense sector, and how this led the military to fragment during periods of heightened political competition. Furthermore, the book explains why integration ultimately failed in South Sudan, and identifies the wider lessons that could be applied to current or future war-to-peace transitions. This book will be of great interest to students of war and conflict studies, peacebuilding, post-conflict reconstruction, African security issues and International Relations in general, as well as to practitioners"--