ABSTRACT
External actors addressing organised crime in Sierra Leone and Bosnia have recognised that a comprehensive approach that integrates security and development is necessary. In Sierra Leone it was recognised that organised crime was a threat to security and development, but also that poverty, weak institutions and youth unemployment were key contributing factors to the presence of organised crime. In Bosnia, organised crime was viewed as an impediment to development, and corruption and weak governance were understood as barriers in addressing organised crime. The recognition of the benefits of an integrated approach is part of a broader trend in post-conflict reconstruction. Building on the lessons and challenges of the post-Cold War interventionist phase, external actors engaged in post-conflict reconstruction have acknowledged the need for comprehensive approaches that engage with the diverse challenges that arise in the post-conflict period. In particular, the connections between security and development have been recognised. In response, external actors have drawn on traditionally separate epistemological approaches, and created new tools and policies to inform their engagement with post-conflict reconstruction. The integration of security and development is expected to result in a comprehensive approach. Such an approach is understood by external actors to be more sustainable as it engages with the full range of challenges in a balanced way but also seeks to achieve local ‘buy in’ as it shifts away from a focus on the state to engage with the needs of individuals and communities. While security and development have been enthusiastically merged in policy, integrating the two areas into a nexus in practice raises a number of challenges. The adoption of the security-development nexus to frame initiatives to address organised crime in Sierra Leone and Bosnia has resulted in a shift in approach. However, it does not equate to an emancipatory approach as defined by human security. The gap between policy and practice in relation to the security-development nexus has been the focus of critical scholars who argue that the nexus is one sided, resulting in the securitisation of development. While this may reflect the outcome of the security-development nexus, it does little to elucidate what inhibits the integration of security and development into a nexus.
