Global Facilitation Network for Security Sector Reform (GFN-SSR)

The Protection of Civilians and the post-conflict security sector - A conceptual and historical overview

 Printable version

How can civilians be protected after conflict? What challenges does Protection of Civilians (PoC) pose? This report from the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs focuses on the roles of different institutions in the security sector. While there is a new awareness of protection issues in the international community, good intentions have not always led to the security and peace desired. There is a critical need for more research on providing effective protection.

In the last decade, peacekeeping operations have grown in number and scope. There has been a trend towards a broader concept of security, beyond mere physical protection. Recent conflicts have tended to be more ambiguous in nature, leaving states in a situation between war and peace. In response to these trends peacekeeping mandates have included a widening concept of PoC.

There are a number of challenges to effective PoC:

• The concept of PoC has been continuously expanded to address: safety of civilians, humanitarian efforts, sanctions, human rights, justice, legal order, arms, land mines, displacement, problems faced by women and children, and the use of force.
• Conceptual broadness is further complicated by similar, related norms such as ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P). This emphasises a long-term commitment to creating a permanent secure environment beyond safe havens and protected areas.
• There is still no consensus on the roles different actors should play in PoC, especially between military and police forces. While military involvement is inevitable in the emergency phase, their role will fluctuate between enforcing order, humanitarian relief and combat.
• Distribution of responsibility is often decided not by necessities in the field but by political needs elsewhere and the nature of mandates. International organisations may have overlapping mandates without a clear ‘chain of command’.
• Traditionally, mandates have been non-executive, with peacekeepers observing, monitoring and training local forces. In non-executive mandates, the peace operation has the full responsibility for law and order. These have been less common, but pose obvious challenges in terms of local ownership.

Lessons emerge for organisations engaged in PoC:

• R2P and PoC should be treated as distinct but related concepts. R2P is interventionist, PoC is not. In addressing pressing issues, PoC is meant as a guide to how to act, not a trigger on whether to act. Confusion between the two concepts may have consequences for their perceived legitimacy.
• The prominence of PoC in UN documents is symptomatic of a new awareness of protection issues within the international community. Good intentions have not always led to the security and peace desired. Effective implementation rests on meeting practical challenges, especially at the operative level.
• These challenges must be addressed in a holistic way. Security sector institutions are interrelated and interdependent. All aspects of the security sector must be addressed to secure a stable, safe environment. Police arresting criminals who cannot be detained or prosecuted is of little use.
• Effective PoC depends on intimate knowledge of the challenges to be overcome. Instead of starting at a conceptual level, PoC should start with the question of actual obstructions hindering peacekeepers.
• In many post-war settings, the level of violence remains unchanged after the end of war, as new security threats emerge. There is a critical need for more research on how to provide effective PoC in these contexts.

Access full text