ABSTRACT
Chronic insecurity is often the hallmark of the post-conflict phase of any war, and this has been true in recent years from Bosnia to Baghdad. The chapter begins by conceptualizing the fundamental dimensions of political order and identifying, both theoretically and pragmatically, the possible political agents who can assume responsibility for security in post-conflict (e.g., victors, losers, locals, the international community). This leads to a discussion comparing different contemporary approaches to the issue, such as those who hold the international community liable to provide massive financial and human capital resources to transform a post-conflict society (the maximalist position) in contrast to those who fear unintended consequences, hubris, and an investment sinkhole, thus preferring a far more limited role for outsiders at war’s end (the minimalist position). The chapter concludes with a consideration of the tensions between political order and justice initiatives in fragile societies and points to policy documents guiding the thinking of Western governments in recent years, such as the ICISS’s Responsibility to Protect, the U.S. Army’s FM 3–07, and the U.S. State Department’s “Whole of Government Reconstruction & Stabilization (R&S) Planning and Execution Process.”
