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

Closing the Gap Between Peace Operations and Post-Conflict Insecurity:Towards a Violence Reduction Agenda

 Printable version

How can armed violence be reduced in post-conflict situations? Are disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) and small arms control programmes the most effective approach? This article from the Journal of International Peacekeeping argues that the effectiveness of DDR and small arms control programmes is unproven. Reducing armed violence in the aftermath of conflict requires a broader approach, which responds to the heterogeneous character of such violence.

Armed violence in post-conflict societies is perpetrated not only by individuals and groups who were involved in the conflict, but also by a range of criminal and quasi-political actors. This non-conflict-related violence is often more significant than conflict-related violence and frequently affects different social groups and geographical areas. However, DDR and small arms control programmes focus on the instruments and agents of conflict-related violence only: ex-combatants and the small arms they possess.

The little evidence that has been assembled indicates that DDR and small arms control are often unable to reduce post-conflict armed violence. However, a new paradigm for addressing such violence is emerging. This approach builds on bottom-up analyses, prioritises evidence-based programming, and targets risk factors as well as the instruments and agents of violence.

• Tested approaches to containing and in some cases reducing post-conflict armed violence are starting to emerge, particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean.
• Programmes adopted in municipal centres in Columbia, Mexico, Brazil and Haiti during the 1990s and early 2000s have been shown to have led to a significant decline in armed violence, particularly homicidal violence.
• These programmes adopt a range of measures including voluntary weapons collections, temporary weapons carrying restrictions and focussed interventions with at-risk groups and paramilitaries.
• These programmes tend to adopt more holistic, integrated and long-term approaches. They also tend to be embedded in both formal and informal municipal authority structures.

More comprehensive approaches to armed violence reduction in post-conflict environments can be promoted through:

• developing policies that transcend the conventional categories of armed conflict, post-conflict and criminal violence. These do not adequately explain the diverse patterns of armed violence affecting many societies;
• recognising the heterogeneous characteristics of violent actors in different contexts. Many armed groups have a combination of political, economic and criminal objectives;
• adopting a broad understanding of the forces determining weapons flows and arms availability. It is vital to recognise that arms availability is driven by demand as well as supply;
• acknowledging the potentially important role that could be played by armed violence prevention and reduction programmes adopting a public health or criminal justice approach;
• strengthening the evidence base behind DDR, SSR and small arms control programmes; and
• research needs to be encouraged to identify key risk factors for post-conflict armed violence, potential mitigating factors and the effectiveness of external interventions.

Access full text